Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Do Americans Want A Polished, Dignified, Weak President Or A Fighter? We Prefer The Latter

He Fights
  
My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum.  They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”  Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.  We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?  We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.
This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.
I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party.  I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks.  I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent.  Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”
The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s.   To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.  It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.
The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war.  While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.
With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end.  Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.
During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors.  Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming.  Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today.   Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man.  He fights.”
General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch.  In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank.  But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum, then Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich. 
Trump is fighting.  And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”  That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.
That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.   It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. 
First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolated CNN.  He made it personal.  Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”
Everyone gets that it’s not just CNN – in fact, in a world where Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof are people of influence and whose “reporting” is in no way significantly different than CNN’s – CNN is just a piker.
Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position.  With Trump’s ability to go around them, they cannot simply stand pat.  They need to respond.  This leaves them with only two choices.
They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery. 
The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve.  It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive. 
Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s, church. 
Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.
This makes “going high” a non-starter for CNN.  This leaves them no other option but to ratchet up the fake news, conjuring up the next “nothing burger” and devoting 24 hours a day to hysterical rants about how it’s “worse than Nixon.”
This, obviously, is what CNN has chosen to do.  The problem is that, as they become more and more hysterical, they become more and more obvious.  Each new effort at even faker news than before and faker “outrage” only makes that much more clear to any objective observer that Trump is and always has been right about the fake news media. 
And, by causing their hysteria, Trump has forced them into numerous, highly embarrassing and discrediting mistakes.   Thus, in their desperation, they have lowered their standards even further and run with articles so clearly fake that, even with the liberal (lower case “l”) libel laws protecting the media, they’ve had to wholly retract and erase their stories repeatedly. 
Their flailing at Trump has even seen them cross the line into criminality, with CNNusing their vast corporate fortune to hunt down a private citizen for having made fun of them in an Internet meme.  This threat to “dox” – release of personal information to encourage co-ideologists to visit violence upon him and his family -- a political satirist was chilling in that it clearly wasn’t meant just for him.  If it were, there would have been no reason for CNN to have made their “deal” with him public. 
Instead, CNN – playing by “Chicago Rules” – was sending a message to any and all: dissent will not be tolerated. 
This heavy-handed and hysterical response to a joke on the Internet has backfired on CNN, giving rise to only more righteous ridicule.
So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well -- do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”?  Of course I do.   These aren’t those times.  This is war.  And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting  without opposition for the past 50 years.
So, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.  I don’t care.  I can’t spare this man.  He fights.
Evan Sayet is the author of The KinderGarden of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks.  His lecture to the Heritage Foundation on this same topic remains, some ten years later, by far the single most viewed lecture in their history.  Evan can be reached at contactevansayet@gmail.com.

Monday, November 27, 2017

America Is Disintegrating Right In Front Of Our Eyes

Are Americans Destroying Themselves from Within, as Lincoln Feared?

By November 27, 2017


BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 658, November 27, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedom, it will be because we destroyed ourselves,” wrote Abraham Lincoln. Americans must keep his wisdom in mind. The wheels of two Russiagates – Trump’s and now Hillary’s – are deepening domestic conflicts, and calls for Trump’s impeachment grow. Where is the US headed?
Trump and Putin’s Joint Statement on Syria
Among the accomplishments of Donald Trump’s just completed Far East tour was a joint statement on November 11 with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Syria. (Their planned Danang summit was canceled, however. As prominent advisor to the Russian foreign affairs ministry Andrey Kortunov explained, “Putin is presently toxic for Trump;” i.e., any contact with him harms Trump at home.)
In the statement, the two leaders agreed:
 “…there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria… the ultimate political solution… will include … free and fair elections under UN supervision.” They also resolved “…to maintain open military channels of communication between military professionals to help ensure the safety of both US and Russian forces …until the final defeat of ISIS is achieved.”
As Kortunov said, Syria was “a step in the right direction, but collaboration remains situational, not strategic.”
Trump’s foe, Hillary Clinton, and her advisor, former acting CIA Director Mike Morell, had a very different agenda for Syria. In August 2016, Morell advocated “killing Russians” and “mak[ing] Russians pay a price.” A hawkish supporter of US military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Clinton publicly endorsed Morell’s advice. Trump, on the other hand, rather than threaten to fight the Russians, sought a limited partnership with them against ISIS. It is thus hardly surprising that Putin decided to support Trump in the 2016 election.
Clinton, the defeated candidate, has not accepted the election result and is leading the effort to try to undo it. Her reasoning, as she alleges in her new memoir, What Happened, is that Trump’s victory was the result of a “Russian plot.” To Morell, Trump’s election was “the political equivalent of 9/11.”
North Korea: Coercive Diplomacy
As Trump was preparing for his Far East tour, he was demonized by two former presidents with smear code words. “Bigotry,” declared George W. Bush on October 19, “…is blasphemy against the American creed…Russian interference in our election should never be tolerated.” Obama followed a day later: “We have folks who are deliberately trying to get folks angry, to demonize people with different ideas.” On November 7, the eve of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, a third president, her husband Bill Clinton, spoke of Trump’s comments about “fake news” as mirroring the “’dictators’ club’ of world leaders.”
All three presidents failed to cope with the North Korean threat, leaving Trump holding the much-kicked can. Unlike them, Trump is trying something new: coercive diplomacy. Along with Trump’s “fire and fury” rhetoric” has come the deployment of three US Navy aircraft carriers in the waters off North Korea, flights of the US and allied air force near North Korea’s borders, US army maneuvers near the DMZ with their South Korean counterparts, and a tightening economic embargo.
This is something North Korean dictators have not experienced since their capture of the Pueblo US navy intelligence ship in 1968. Like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, President Trump has thus come to be viewed by his adversary as an unbalanced, unpredictable hawk. Yet his coercive diplomacy has already had a sobering effect on “Rocket Man.” There have been neither nuclear explosions nor ballistic missiles over Japan since September 15.
Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un’s depiction of Trump as a deranged “dotard” has been effectively endorsed by Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, who called him “mentally unstable.” This, and calls to impeach the “warmonger,” have the North Koreans licking their lips.
Hillary and Vlad: From Love to Hate
Adding to the growing rift at home is an emerging new Russiagate – Hillary’s.  Viewed by Putin in 2009 as the quarterback in the “reset” of US-Russo relations, he welcomed Bill and Hillary’s help in the purchase of vast uranium stakes in America’s west by his nuclear agency, Rosatom. From 2010-13, three purchases of stakes from Canadian mining company Uranium 1 were made by Rosatom with the consent of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the nine-member Committee on Foreign Investment in the US  [CFIUS].
The sales gave Russia a controlling interest in over 20% of America’s uranium reserves. Thereafter, the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in donations from interested parties, as reported by Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash.  Bill also earned a $500,000 speaking fee for a single speech at a Kremlin-allied bank.
What is now being investigated is whether the sale of the uranium to Russia endangered US national security. New revelations indicate that the Obama administration approved the deal despite evidence obtained by the FBI allegedly linking the Clintons to collusion with Russia in a massive uranium racketeering scandal involving kickbacks and money laundering.
Then there is the unverified dossier of Trump’s purported activities with prostitutes while staying at the Moscow Ritz Carlton in 2013. The dossier was produced, with Hillary’s money, by British MI6 agent Christopher Steele from Russian sources. Steele was a subcontractor for a Washington company, Fusion GPC, that provided opposition research to both political parties. The dossier is said to have been passed to the FBI by Trump foe and Hillary Clinton’s close friend, Senator John McCain.
The Trump-Putin Bromance
In 2013, while organizing the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, Donald Trump developed an excellent relationship with the pageant’s host, Russian mogul Aris Agalarov. This is the same Agalarov whose family manager, Rob Goldstone, arranged the June 9, 2016 meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and a lobbying group headed by Russian lawyer Natalia Vesselnitskaya. She is connected to Russia’s chief prosecutor and Putin’s confidant, Yury Chaika. Like Steele, she also worked with Fusion GPS.
Goldstone e-mailed Trump Jr.: “Emin [Agaralov’s son] just called … with something very interesting.” He had offered to provide “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.” Trump Jr. responded with interest and a meeting took place – a meeting about which political novice Trump Jr. should have informed the FBI. But he denies ever receiving any Hillary “dirt,” and there’s no evidence that he did.
It is true that President Trump doesn’t want to show his tax returns for 2008-13, and it is undeniable that he had some lucrative real estate dealings with Russian oligarchs during those years. We may yet learn more.
“Toxic” Putin
The canceled summit prevented Trump from exploring with Putin a possible dual Russian-Chinese embargo of North Korea. However, Trump does at times display naiveté about foreign leaders, who might try to exploit his lack of experience.  Now, with the help of his savvy generals, he has the time to bone up on Putin, the complex anti-communist, Machiavellian autocrat, who manages at the same time to be a friend of Israel, an ally of Iran, and an anti-ISIS partner with Trump. Trump must be careful with the “toxic“ Kremlin leader, whom Henry Kissinger has described as “a cold calculator of the Russian national interest.”
Trump has finally realized that Putin organized the hacking of DNC e-mails to find compromising material on Hillary Clinton. As Donna Brazile revealed in her book, Hacks, the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders (a sort of Menshevik) lost in the primaries to Clinton (referred to in Bill’s White House as a “Bolshevik”) through the devious machinations of her loyalists.
Trump’s reluctance to accept that it had been Putin who ordered the hacking derived from his mistrust of the leaders of the intelligence community, who were largely Obama loyalists hostile to him. He does trust his new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, who briefs him daily. Thus he finally acknowledged, “…I am with our agencies, especially as currently constituted with the leadership.”
Conclusion
Like Nixon in 1973-74, Trump returned from a successful trip abroad greatly concerned about the future of his presidency. Even Nixon during Watergate, however, was not so viciously and repeatedly attacked at home while he conducted diplomacy abroad.
Trump’s congressional foes continue to slow down crucial legislation and his new senior appointments to the government while railing that progress is not being made. If the Democrats become the majority party in Congress in 2018, they will control its agenda and might even prepare the president’s impeachment, as occurred in Washington in 1973-74.
Though we cannot predict the outcome of the ongoing power struggle, we worry about the continuing pattern in American politics in which the party out of power seeks primarily to sabotage and block the one that’s in.
In spite of Trump’s fumbles, political correctness deficit, and failure to combine his coercive diplomacy with a public one to expose the horrors of the North Korean communist gulag, his savvy foreign affairs strategy is working. He became the first American leader to be honored with an invitation to dine in Beijing’s Forbidden City. Like Nixon earlier, he is respected by some foreign leaders of both an authoritarian and a democratic bent.
Still, the crucial question persists. Can America overcome the perils of domestic division that Lincoln feared on the eve of the Civil War? At present there is a lack of bipartisanship in Congress, a media that too often conflates fact with speculation, a growth of extremist groups on both sides of the political spectrum, and increased killings of police.
Can the idiosyncratic yet patriotic president find some of Lincoln’s inner strength and skill to forge a national consensus at home? And can Americans, for the sake of the survival of the republic and the preservation of alliances with democratic partners in Europe, Asia, and Israel, stop hating each other?  Or are they destined to destroy themselves from within, as Lincoln feared?
Dr. Jiri Valenta is a Non-Resident Senior Research Associate at the BESA Center. He and his wife, Leni, are the principals of The Institute of Post Communist Studies and Terrorism (jvlv.net). A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jiri served for a decade as a professor and coordinator of Soviet and East European Studies at the US Naval Post-Graduate School and was a consultant to senior members of the Reagan administration.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

What Happens Now That The Election Is Over?

With the world's attention focused on the U.S. presidential election, some attention must be devoted to the problems we will continue to face the day after the election, regardless of who is elected. Here are some of these problems.


1. The world will continue to move away from the center and toward the extremes on both the right and the left. In many parts of Europe -- from Poland to Hungary to Greece -- neo-fascist parties are strengthening their influence in their governments. In the United States the "alt-right" has been considerably strengthened during this election.
The hard left is also increasing its influence in some part of Europe and on many university campuses. The British Labour Party has now been hijacked by radical extremists on the left. In many universities, the absurd concept of "intersectionality," which has become a code word for anti-Semitism, is dominating discussions and actions by the hard left.
The center is weakening. The empowerment of extremes poses great dangers to the world. The hard right and the hard left have more in common than either has to centrist liberals and conservatives. They both hate America, distrust government, demonize Israel and promote anti-Semitic tropes.
2. Following the election President Obama may try to tie the hands of his successor, regardless of who it may be. During the lame-duck period, when Presidents can act without political accountability, he may foolishly send the Israel-Palestine conflict to the United Nations. This would mean the end of the peace process, because the Palestinian would be dis-incentivized from entering into the kinds of direct negotiations without preconditions that the Israeli government continues to offer, and that is the only realistic road to peace. The only hope of stopping this counterproductive move would be for the President-elect to insist that her or his hands not be tied by the lame-duck president.
3. The problem revealed by FBI director Comey's ill-advised statements over the past four months will not end with the election. Comey is a good man, but he has demonstrated an inability to control himself and his agents. The problem of unlawful FBI leaks has become pervasive. It must be addressed by the new administration. Replacing Comey will not be enough, the entire culture of the FBI must be changed and it must be restored to its rightful position as the silent investigative arm of the Justice Department. Indeed, even more fundamental structural changes are now required. The entire Justice department, of which the FBI is one component, has become too politicized. In most other western democracies, there is a sharp division between the Minister of Justice, who is a political aide to the president or prime minister, and the Director of Public Prosecution, who is a civil servant completely removed from politics. Only the Director of Public Prosecution decides who to investigate and who to prosecute. The political minister plays no role in such decisions. But in the United States we merged these two distinct roles into the job of Attorney General. This must change if our system of justice is to be de-politicized.
4. This election has exacerbated the long-standing problem of criminalizing policy differences. We are quick to confuse differences in policy with charges of criminal behavior. During this election, both sides accused the other of criminal conduct. I have long railed against this development, whether it involved accusations against Democrats like Hillary Clinton or Republicans like Congressman Tom Delay and Governor Rick Perry. The criminal law must be reserved for willful, deliberate and clearly defined crimes. We are moving away from that understanding and toward a dangerous expansion of the concept of crime in the context of political differences.
5. Finally, the healing process must begin the day after the election. Lincoln's words should be our guide: "With malice toward none, with charity for all." It is unlikely that either the winners or the losers will be able to avoid malice and extend charity following this most contentious of elections, but it is essential that the loser accept the result and that the winner be gracious. Both Richard Nixon and Al Gore provide somewhat different models of appropriate responses.
This election revealed that there are deep divisions within the American electorate. Some of these divisions are reasonable and indeed desirable. These include differences over economic policies, foreign policies and other political issues. But this election revealed that there are divisions across impermissible lines: racial, ethnic, gender, religious, class, and a willingness to resort to violence. These divisions will be much harder to heal. But the process must begin on the day after the election.
Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author ofTaking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction. An earlier and somewhat different version of this article appeared in the Boston Globe.
  • Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Israel Hate In Britain's Colleges. Will They Ever Want To Know The Truth




  • Britain's National Union of Students (NUS) is in crisis. Three major university student associations -- Newcastle, Lincoln and Hull -- have disaffiliated themselves from the organization.
  • Bouattia's role is meant to entail representing the best interests of students in the UK. How does endorsing and legitimizing terrorist attacks in Israel the best way to improve conditions for students in the UK? Is Bouattia trying to radicalise students in the UK?
  • When students need representation, the voice often heard is that of the NUS. Is it any wonder that when this voice has a history of endorsing terrorism, including sharing platforms with convicted terrorists, that students may want a different voice?
The United Kingdom's National Union of Students (NUS) is in crisis. Three major university student associations -- NewcastleLincoln and Hull -- have disaffiliated themselves from the organization, and more are set to follow. NUS is struggling even to retain its previous strongholds, such as Exeter's Student Association.
The Exeter University campaign to leave the NUS managed to increase the number of votes to defect from roughly 200 to 2546. This stampede occurred despite the massive protests by the "stay" campaign, including text messages to thousands of students and visits to the school by more than 10 senior NUS officials, including two Vice Presidents-elect and the President-elect.
Why are students from so many British universities fighting to leave the NUS? Well, take for example statements by its new president-elect, Malia Bouattia.
Bouattia actively promotes violence against Israel. She has argued that,
"To consider that Palestine will be free only by means of fundraising, non-violent protest and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is problematic... Boycott can be misunderstood as the alternative to resistance by the Palestinian people."
Presumably, then, Bouattia means that violent "resistance" against Israel is something she supports -- such as the theocratic group, Hamas, whose policies include preaching genocideagainst the Jews, or ISIS, who crucify children and also believe in murdering Jews.


Malia Bouattia, the president-elect of the UK National Union of Students, actively promotes terrorist violence against Israelis. (Image source: NUS press office)

Supporting terrorism against the only free state in the Middle East, according to Freedom House, is, and should be, deeply concerning. It is to the students' credit that they seek to distance themselves from Bouattia's views.
Bouattia's role is meant to entail representing the best interests of students in the UK. How does endorsing and legitimizing terrorist attacks in Israel the best way to improve conditions for students in the UK? Is Bouattia trying to radicalise students in the UK? The more Bouattia legitimizes violence, the more students might decide that violent "resistance" is acceptable.
Of course, statements such as Bouattia's also make Jewish students across the UK feel even more at risk, especially in the wake of rising anti-Semitism throughout the UK.
Bouattia's remarks at a Middle East Monitor (MEMO) event included arguing that:
"David Cameron and [Israeli PM] Netanyahu seem to be in competition over who can deliver the most over-the-top and outlandish sermons on the apparent existential threat their nation seems to be facing from these invisible 'terrorists."
Invisible? Does Bouattia mean that Israel only imagines it is under threat from nations such as Iran, which is on the fast track to acquiring nuclear weapons and which repeats, "Death to Israel"? Or from Hamas, which threatens genocide not only to Israelis but to all Jews? Or from Hezbollah, a puppet of Iran, which has 100,000 missiles pointed at northern border of Israel, a country the size of New Jersey? Or from organizations that openly wish to destroy Israel?
What about the terrorists who murdered Israel's athletes at the Munich Olympics, in 1972, or who murdered an elderly wheelchair-ridden Jew by throwing him overboard from a ship in 1985? What about the terrorists who spent years blowing up cafes, buses, discotheques -- and now the better part of a year in knifing Israeli Jews and car-ramming attacks? All, of course, are totally invisible.
Bouattia also seems to have missed the nine attacks on Israeli military personnel and civilians in January 2016, and the 18 attacks in February 2016. A quick Google search of "list of Palestinian terror attacks" reveals 1,210,000 entries -- that is a lot of invisibility. It seems bizarre, therefore, that Bouattia would claim such violent terrorism does not exist.
It also seems bizarre that she implies that there is no threat to the UK from terrorism. A quick Google search of "Terrorism incidents in the United Kingdom" lists 1,130,000 entries -- so evidently there is nothing to worry about. These include London's 7/7/2005 transport system attacks, which included among its victims students such as Atique Sharifi. It also seems odd to state that there is no threat to the UK from terrorism just as London is "preparing for up to 10 simultaneous terror attacks" in the wake of the Paris attacks of November 13, 2015. Subsequent arrests in Paris and Brussels revealed that attacks on central London landmarks such as the London Eye were also planned.
Bouattia, it seems, has either concluded that either the organizations preaching anti-Jewish violence and trying to destroy Israel do not exist -- along with those targeting London -- or it would appear that she is she is simply not interested in facts.
Bouattia also argued that "Muslims in the UK find themselves in a situation where their democratic freedoms have been comprehensively stripped." Really? Didn't London just elect a Muslim mayor, and isn't the Business Secretary a Muslim, and haven't there been Muslims in the cabinet and the House of Lords?
Bouattia spoke at an event for the Middle East Monitor, MEMO, an organization which has claimed that Israelis are "pathological liars from Eastern Europe, who lie as much as they breathe oxygen." Wouldn't one think that appearing on the event platform of an organization that promotes negative national stereotypes is the exact opposite of what an "anti-racist" should be doing? Bouattia claims she has "always been a strong campaigner against racism and fascism in all its forms."
MEMO's senior editor, Ibrahim Hewitt, also a Holocaust-denier -- he has referred to the "so-called Holocaust" -- claims that homosexuals would suffer "severe punishments" in an Islamic state for their "great sin." How should Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) students feel about their newly elected president sharing a platform with an organization whose editor calls for "severe punishments" against homosexuals? The NUS actually campaigns against homophobia and homophobic attitudes, with slogans such as "Zero tolerance to LGBT bullying." How does appearing at events organized by those who would like to see homosexuals "suffer" help to fight homophobia?
On a final note, it is important to ask, what is the purpose of the NUS? According to the organization's official website, it is to "make a real difference to the lives of students and its member students' unions." Its successes include electing new Black student officers who "will help to make sure that issues such as racism, anonymous marking and a 'no platform policy against fascists and racists' remain high in the agenda of their students' unions."
When students need representation, the voice often heard is that of the NUS, and that is often channelled through its president, Malia Bouattia. Is it any wonder that when this voice has a history of endorsing terrorism, including sharing platforms with convicted terrorists, that students may want a different voice?
Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.