Jew-Hating Running Riot at Rutgers

Can you guess what residential assistants refuse to accept?

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/jew-hating-running-riot-at-rutgers/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]

At Rutgers, an attempt is being made to educate “the campus community” about antisemitism. Of course, the antisemites at Rutgers don’t want to learn about antisemitism; they know all there is to know about it, and they are quite sure that they are not antisemites. They just don’t like the “genocidal” Jewish state and will do everything they possibly can to make it disappear, to be replaced by a twenty-third Arab state. What’s antisemitic about that?

More on this madhouse in New Jersey can be found here: “Rutgers University Residential Assistants Reject Mandatory Antisemitism Training Session,” by Dion J. Pierre, Algemeiner, September 4, 2024:

Rutgers University’s attempts at educating its students about antisemitism are being resisted by residential assistants (RA) who refuse to accept that Hamas is an anti-Jewish terrorist organization, the school’s campus newspaper, The Daily Targum, reported recently.

According to the paper, late last month Rutgers required its RAs, whose job is to supervise students living in on-campus housing, to participate in a “bystander intervention” course aimed at training them to identify antisemitism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Several of the RAs, however, abruptly left the virtual session after a Jewish speaker explained that Hamas’s antisemitism and desire to destroy the world’s only Jewish state precipitated the Oct. 7 massacre, which resulted in the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust.

The paper added that the RAs took issue with the program’s citing a definition of antisemitism offered by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). After walking out, they reportedly contacted Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which proceeded to author, on the RA's behalf, a series of Instagram posts denouncing the antisemitism training as racist and upholding white supremacy.

I still can’t figure out why training in how to recognize, and respond to, manifestations of antisemitism in words and deeds, can be thought of as “upholding white supremacy.” There are an awful lot of Jews — and not just Ethiopian Jews, or Falashas — who are distinctly brown-skinned. See Yemenite Jews, Egyptian Jews, the Tripolitanians and Moroccan Jews. They are as brown as the Arabs who expelled them from their lands.

“The mandated training program organized by the Office of Residence Life requires RAs to learn about DEI, restorative justice, community engagement, and more — all of these are inspired by Indigenous practices meant to unpack systems of white supremacy,” SJP said. “On the contrary, this specific session worked to perpetuate Zionism, racism, and white supremacy.”

How does learning about antisemitism “perpetuate Zionism”? Is every Jew a “Zionist”? Surely the members of the Jewish Voice For Peace are as anti-Zionist as all get out, enough to warm the hearts of Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour. And let’s not forget Bernie Sanders. How does learning about antisemitism perpetuate “racism”? What race, exactly, is being diminished by such lessons in identifying what constitutes antisemitism? Could it be Muslims, or Arabs? But Muslims are not a race. Arabs are not a race. Try not to engage in hysterical hyperbole.

SJP’s post included comments from the RAs who involved them in the controversy. One of them, who claimed to be Jewish, said, “I am tired of the word antisemitism being used to talk over genocide, I am tired of antisemitism being inflated.” The RA added, “I fear that when the Nazis and radicals come once again for the Jews that no one will believe us … it will be your fault.”

You see — you Jews who get so hot and bothered about nonexistent “antisemitism” are just like the boy who cried wolf. Someday the real Nazis will show up, and then where will you be? No one will believe you. Don’t tell us that Hamas is like the Nazis, just because 6,000 members of Hamas smashed into Israel on October 7 and proceeded to rape, torture, mutilate, and murder Jewish babies, children, men, and women. More Jews were killed on October 7 than on any day since the Holocaust. Don’t forget, the Nazis didn’t have a good reason for what they did to the Jews. But the Hamas men were driven to desperate measures by “76 years” of Israeli “occupation” of their land. True, there hasn’t been a single Israeli in Gaza since 2005, but the Jews won’t let the Gazans into Israel, and that’s what makes for an “occupation.”

Another who took issue with the Israeli nationality of one of the course’s presenters said, “One of the facilitators even identified as ‘Israeli’ and made mention of this multiple times. He justified his authority on the topic by citing his 12 plus years spent in ’48 Palestine, going so far as to call ‘Israel’ [sic] a ‘beautiful land.’”

How could he dare? This Israeli referred to “Palestine” as “Israel,” and had the gall to call it his country, forgetting who the Jews stole it from. Why was an Israeli chosen to talk about “antisemitism”? Rutgers should have asked the people who have suffered from Zionist oppression; they’re the ones who can explain why Jews are hated. And so-called “antisemitism” has nothing to do with it.

Kamala Harris Desperately Running from Her Own Anti-Second Amendment Record

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-desperately-running-from-her-own-anti-second-amendment-record; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Kamala Harris, the party-installed alternative to Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election, is now squarely in the national spotlight. She and her handlers like to pretend this gives her the opportunity to invent her political persona out of whole cloth so that she can appeal to that decisive section of the American electorate that can be swayed in one direction or another.

In fact, Harris has a long political record, one that is now coming back to haunt her as she tries to portray herself as competent, professional, and middle-of-the-road. And if there’s one issue that has consistently defined her extreme brand of far-left politics, it is contempt for the Second Amendment. Try as she might, she cannot outrun that legacy.

We began delving into Harris’s record on Second Amendment issues last week. This included – during her time as a state and local politician in California — denying that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms unrelated to militia service and insisting that it has no bearing on state or local gun control laws. These are not only extreme positions in 2024, after the Supreme Court had authoritatively ruled on these issues to the contrary, they were extreme positions then. A 2008 Gallup poll showed that only 20% of Americans agreed with Harris’s interpretation of the Second Amendment as applying solely to state militias, while 73% did not. In San Francisco, where she was free to be as far-left as she wanted, Harris was perfectly willing to be out of step with mainstream American thought on the Second Amendment.

Later, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, Harris even mocked Joe Biden’s reluctance to use executive authority to “eliminate” so-called “assault weapons.” This is the term anti-gun Democrats use for America’s most popular rifles, including the AR-15. While clearly agreeable to that idea in principle, even Biden had to admit it was unconstitutional. Yet when asked for her opinion on the matter, Harris laughed in Biden’s face and quipped: “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying no we can’t, let’s say, yes we can.”

Saying “yes we can” to unconstitutional executive actions to ban and confiscate America’s favorite guns now presents a problem for Harris. Her strategy to deal with that problem? Gaslight and deny it.

According to the New York Times, a reliable ally of the Democrat party, “video clips of [Kamala Harris’s] old statements and interviews are being weaponized as Republicans aim to define her as a left-wing radical who is out of step with swing voters.”

“Weaponization” is strange way to describe letting a person’s own words and professional actions define the person’s values, beliefs, and policy positions.

Even stranger is how the Harris campaign plans to respond to those who bring up what the candidate herself has said and done during her political career, according to that same article: “The Harris campaign will rebut most of Republicans’ attacks by arguing that they are exaggerating or lying about her record, said a campaign official briefed on the plans who was not authorized to discuss them publicly.”

It would be one thing for Harris to claim she was wrong then and has since come to her senses and changed her mind. However unconvincing that might be, it would at least in theory be within the realm of possibility.

But Harris and her handlers want to rewrite history itself to deny the positions she took, the things she said, and their necessary implications.

So, who are you going to believe? Kamala Harris, then? Or Kamala Harris now? What you cannot believe, we are told, is your own ears and eyes.

There is a term in American law called “declaration against interest.” It is used when judging the reliability of a statement by a person who is not available in court to answer for his or her own words. This principle holds that when a person says something that is clearly contrary to his or her own best interests, it is more likely to be true. Put another way, when people are trying to protect themselves, they lie. But when they think they can talk with impunity, they tell the truth.

In the bubbles of California, San Francisco, and a Democrat primary, where far-left opinions are fashionable and rewarded, Harris could truly speak her mind on guns. Now that she is answerable for those opinions to a wider American audience, she is – right on cue – trying to retreat from them. And, right on cue, her media collaborators are doing their best to help her deny and rewrite the historical record.

America’s gun owners, however, should neither forget nor forgive where Harris has stood on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We will have plenty more to say on that record – or, more precisely, we’ll tell you what Harris herself has said –in the weeks to come.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the rights of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Who’s Running the Country?

Biden’s decline exposes a much bigger national crisis.

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/whos-running-the-country/; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

[Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: HERE.]

The 2016 presidential election was going to come down to two candidates, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, whose ‘turns’ had come. And then Donald J Trump rode down an escalator, took their own turn, and the establishment has never been the same since. Because it was their ‘turn’.

In 2020, it was the ‘turn’ of Joe Biden, a man whose only political credential was that he had stuck around long enough to stick to things, like the Senate and the Vice Presidency.

Now in 2024, it’s Joe Biden’s ‘turn’ again. No one in his party was under the impression that he was the best candidate, the best campaigner or the best president, but damn it, it was his ‘turn’.

And now the Democrats are panicking because the candidate taking his ‘turn’ is imploding.

Biden’s debate meltdown has frightened Democrats, but they still have no answer for how to stop the car accident that everyone else could see coming from miles away. And no good strategy beyond getting party leaders to confront their candidate and ask him to step down. But how do you take away Biden’s ‘turn’ when turns are the most sacred thing in politics.

It’s not an exclusively Democrat problem. The GOP put up a Bob Dole against Bill Clinton and John McCain against Barack Obama because it was their turn. They let Mitt Romney go up against Obama a second time because it was his turn. And after Republicans lost two straight presidential elections because they ran establishment candidates taking their turn, voters were so sick of it that they did what they would have never done before and picked Trump.

Because it wasn’t his ‘turn’.

‘Turn’ politics mostly still rules. Candidates past their prime go up to bat because they have the biggest networks of fellow politicians, donors and party activists. It’s as if Major League Baseball favored players on the basis of seniority and how well they networked, not based on how well they can pitch or hit.

But unlike sports, politics isn’t a meritocracy, it isn’t even a democracy, it’s an oligarchy.

Voters self-importantly think of elections as a big political competition, but that’s like judging companies based on the keynote addresses of their CEOs. Elections are the least important part of politics. All the really important parts of politics happen behind closed doors. What politicians do isn’t run for office, they network, they cut deals and they plan their careers.

That network, which we occasionally call by wholly inadequate names like the “establishment” or “D.C. insiders” is the reason Biden is up again in 2024. And why he can’t be gotten rid of.

People who naively think that Obama is secretly running the Biden administration don’t understand the network or how it works. Obama took on Hillary when it was her ‘turn’ in 2008. He won and brokered a deal that moved the Democrat network further leftward. He did the same thing again in 2020, bringing in Bernie and Elizabeth Warren’s people (and his own people) so that the Biden administration was even more radical and extreme than it was.

But where did Obama come from? He came out of that network of radical activists, donors and government personnel now running the country. Obama is not a brilliant genius or one-man dynamo, he was a lazy and unoriginal activist lawyer, one of tens of thousands of Ivy Leaguers who joined the political side of the network, who wanted to live out his egotistical ambitions.

The leftist network gave him the opportunity to do it in exchange for seeding it deeper across the Democrat Party, the government and the country. Then his time came.

Obama did not want Biden to succeed him. He pushed Biden out in favor of Hillary and then tried to bring in a surprise candidate to run against him in 2020. But some things are sacred and not even Obama, especially once out of the White House, could take away Biden’s ‘turn’ twice.

It’s not really Biden’s ‘turn’ though. It’s the turn of the strategists, lobbyists, staffers, donors,  allies and more nebulous figures known as ‘friends’ whom he accrued over the years. They’re invested in his success and they’re profiting from it. And they won’t easily give it up.

Trying to replace Biden with Newsom (aside from legal and logistical issues) would be a clash between the two networks that would require either careful negotiations or outright civil war. It’s done all the time with primary rivals who become vice presidents or cabinet members, but displacing a sitting president who also won the nomination and has raised and spent a massive fortune would require a level of delicate negotiations akin to bringing peace to an African civil war.

Especially if that president is unstable, prone to fits of anger, and is insulated by the same political allies whose wealth and power depend on Biden winning a second term in office.

It’s not just about Jill and Hunter: Joe Biden has tens of thousands of political mouths to feed. Money has been collected, favors promised, people have bought homes in D.C. bedroom communities, lobbyists have secured fat contracts and donors have opened up their wallets.

Replacing Biden with another candidate would upend much of D.C., put tens of billions of dollars in flux and create massive instability in this corrupt local economy. Much of D.C. would rather ride it out (especially since the campaign people will make just as much money if Biden loses) and preserve the integrity of the network and the illicit pinkie vows that allow special interests to buy influence without having to worry if their man will suddenly be swapped out.

That is what “it’s his turn” really means.

It’s not impossible for the Democrats to replace Biden, but despite all the ‘Orange Man Bad’ alarmism that is their only campaign slogan, none of them view him as enough of an existential threat to disrupt a political way of life which allowed a mediocre grifter like Biden to get this far.

People who didn't understand that were baffled that Biden would run and that he would get the nomination. After his disastrous debate showing, much of the party panicked and outsiders assumed that they would dump Biden. The truth is that the Democrats wish they could.

‘Turn’ corruption once again threatens the survival of the party and yet they can’t break away from it because parties are vehicles for careerism and cash. The networks around powerful politicians build careers and move money. And those networks are running the country.

When people ask “who’s been running the country” after Biden’s debate performance, the answer is that it’s the same people who run most of the government. And have it all along.

Politicians in a state of obvious mental decline, like Biden and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who go on introducing bills, signing legislation, tweeting and expressing strong opinions on issues in their press releases, are not aberrations, they’re symptoms of a much bigger problem.

Not just Biden, but many, if not most, elected officials are figureheads who exist to broker favorable arrangements between their personal networks of donors and staffers, and those of other elected officials, and those in the bureaucracy that make policy. The revolving door between staffers, personnel, appointees and lobbyists who move between administrations, offices, boards, corporations, think tanks and firms is the actual force that runs the country more than most elections. Politicians play their part, meeting, greeting and signing off on what they’re told will be good for their careers within the networks they’re part of.

And if they build up enough cachet, one day it will also be their turn to be at the top..

That’s why Democrats can’t solve their Biden problem. The issue isn’t one man’s decline but a systemic crisis. Biden embodies what the Democrats (and the two-party system and politics really are) and while getting him out may fix the immediate problem, it won’t fix the system.

Biden is a test of how much the system is willing to risk and how high a public implosion it’s willing to tolerate to protect the sacred right of the "turn." Will Democrats let their party go down to protect the system? Will they go on lying to their voters and their donors? Will the media, which briefly broke away from the lies after the debate, resume going along with the scam?

Other .Bidens, some elderly, confused and inept like Joe, others middle aged, confused and inept, like Kamala, and some even young, confused and inept like AOC, fill the system because they are how the system works. It’s not a meritocracy that elevates the best, a democracy chosen by the people, but an oligarchy that runs the system and is also the system.