NYT Just Said It Wants Thousands Of Syrian Muslims To Move To This U.S. City

The headline of a recent New York Times editorial suggested that allowing foreign Muslims to “settle Detroit” is an ideal way to restore the largely destitute city. Authors David D. Laitin and Marc Jahr offer some theories to back up their hypothesis, including the fact that Detroit’s economic crisis and Syria’s civil war are potentially complementary humanitarian crises.

In the authors’ opinion, largely Muslim refugees from Syria would make an “ideal community” to assist in restoring Motor City, since “Arab-Americans are already a vibrant and successful presence in the Detroit metropolitan area.”

Based on evidence suggesting those currently here are often successful in business, the editorial posits that another influx of thousands from a similar culture could fare just as well. While they admit that we “cannot know for sure,” Laitin and Jahr cite anecdotal evidence that victims of violent crime “become more active citizens than similar compatriots who have not suffered from these traumatic events.”

Laying out the various federal agencies that would need to work in tandem to make such a project work, the authors concluded that their plan is “eminently feasible.”

To foster the diversity often exalted above all other considerations, the editorial also emphasized the role of “African-Americans and Latinos” in the future of Detroit.

The authors did address some of the concerns they acknowledged opponents might raise upon hearing their plan. For critics of any plan that would facilitate such a rapid immigration, however, the explanations were insufficient.

Readers left a variety of comments in response to a Right Wing News article about the editorial. Reaction ranged from a denunciation of the authors – and the Times – to assertions that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with American values.

At least a few pointed out that Laitin and Jahr seem to be addressing Detroit’s problems without acknowledging their root cause.

“You still need to get rid of the liberal idiots ‘running’ the city,” one reader insisted.

Should Syrian refugees be dropped off in Detroit? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

No, The Pope Didn’t Call Mahmoud Abbas An Angel Of Peace

On Saturday, a report made the waves that Pope Francis had called Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “An angel of peace” during a meeting at the Vatican in Rome. News agencies all over the world presented the Pope’s words as breaking news, among them Reuters, Associated Press and AFP.

Here’s, for example, the BBC report on the news:

“The BBC’s David Willey in Rome says that after 20 minutes of private talks, Pope Francis gave Mr. Abbas the medallion depicting an angel of peace adding: “It is appropriate because you are an angel of peace.”

Here’s what NBC wrote:

“Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

And here is The New York Times:

“Pope Francis praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as an “angel of peace” during a meeting Saturday at the Vatican that underscored the Holy See’s warm relations with the Palestinians as it prepares to canonize two 19th century nuns from the region.

Francis made the compliment during the traditional exchange of gifts at the end of an official audience in the Apostolic Palace. He presented Abbas with a medallion and explained that it represented the “angel of peace destroying the bad spirit of war.”

Francis said he thought the gift was appropriate since “you are an angel of peace.” During his 2014 visit to Israel and the West Bank, Francis called both Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres men of peace.”

There is just one problem with these reports: the Pope never called Abbas an angel of peace.

According to La Stampa and other Italian news sites that quoted the official Vatican statement the Pope actually said this: “ lei possa essere un angelo della pace,” (May you be an angel of peace).

Here’s the translation of the account by La Stampa’s Vatican reporter:

As is tradition with heads of State or of government, Francis presented a gift to the Palestinian leader, commenting: “May the angel of peace destroy the evil spirit of war. I thought of you: May you be an angel of peace.”

The Pontiff added that he wanted to express the wish that “direct negotiations between the parties might resume to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict.”

In Italian : “si è parlato del processo di pace con Israele, esprimendo l’auspicio che si possano riprendere i negoziati diretti tra le Parti per trovare una soluzione giusta e duratura al conflitto.

From this statement, it becomes clear that the Pope prefers a negotiated solution to the conflict and seems not to support Palestinian unilateralism.

This was the second time in a week the media got it wrong on news concerning relations between the Vatican and the Palestinian Authority. Last Wednesday mainstream media reported that the Vatican had now recognized the State of Palestine, as if it was breaking news.

But Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi later said: “We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook.”

The Israeli news site Ynet noted that the Vatican has been referring unofficially to the state of Palestine for at least a year. During Pope Francis’ 2014 visit to the Holy Land, the Vatican’s official program referred to Abbas as the president of the “state of Palestine.”

In fact on November 30, 2012 the Vatican decided to support the recognition of Palestine at the UN. The Vatican “called for full recognition of Palestinian sovereignty as necessary for peace in the region.”

So there was nothing new in the Vatican’s recognition of a Palestinian State.

The New York Times, however, thought it was big news and wrote that the agreement is an emotional blow to the Israeli people, no less.

“ For Israelis, it was an emotional blow since Francis has deep relationships with Jews dating back decades, and Christians are critical backers of their enterprise.”

NYT also thought that by signing a treaty with the PA “the Vatican was lending significant symbolic weight to an intensifying Palestinian push for international support for sovereignty that bypasses the paralyzed negotiations with Israel”.

As we learned from Pope Francis’ statement on this issue, the Vatican is promoting a negotiated settlement and not unilateral moves that will harm Israel’s position. So the New York Times was not reporting news but made an effort to rehabilitate Abbas and set up the Vatican as anti-Israel.

Remains the question why the Vatican decided to sign the treaty with the Palestinian Authority at this point?

The answer seems to be that the Vatican is driven by ‘realpolitik’ The Catholic Church is simply protecting its interests in “Palestine”.

Paragraph three in the joint statement of the Bilateral Commission of the Vatican and the State of Palestine at the end of the Plenary Meeting makes this clear:

“The discussions took place in a cordial and constructive atmosphere. Taking up the issues already examined at an informal level, the Commission noted with great satisfaction the progress achieved in formulating the text of the Agreement, which deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine.”

The Roman Catholic Church sees what’s going on with Christian communities in the Middle East and wanted to protect its interests in the Holy Land now that more and more countries are signaling that they support unilateral moves to create a Palestinian State. By signing this treaty,  the Vatican has chosen the State of Palestine as her interlocutor for protecting Christian communities and real estate of the church in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East that has a growing Christian community, is left out of this discussion.

 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The New York Times Starts Posting Questions It Would Like To Ask Hillary Clinton

Because Hillary Clinton, the prospective Democratic presidential nominee, has answered so few questions from the media since announcing her candidacy last month, The New York Times said it would begin publishing hypothetical questions to the former secretary of state.

The Times started the feature Wednesday and will run it on a regular basis. The first question pertained to the former first lady’s announcement that she would reform America’s immigration system. This would entail going above and beyond President Obama’s expansion of the Dream Act, which defers deporting children of illegal immigrants. Clinton wants to include parents as well.

This was The Times’ question:

President Obama said his executive action on immigration went as far as the law will allow. You say you would go beyond what he did. How could you stretch the law further than the president of your own party and his Justice Department says it can go?

Clinton has answered only seven questions from the media since announcing her candidacy on April 12, according to National Journal.

Veteran reporter Andrea Mitchell lamented to Politico that since Clinton launched her campaign, it has been less transparent than it was in 2008.

“To think that a presidential candidate can be driving around a primary or caucus state without anyone knowing where they’re going but have us waiting for hours for a very controlled conversation with pre-selected voters, it’s just inviting media criticism,” Mitchell said.

By contrast, the only other female in the presidential race, Republican Carly Fiorina, has answered more than 50 questions from the media, a spokesman for her campaign told Breitbart Wednesday. The former Hewlett-Packard CEO entered the race on Monday.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has also done several media interviews since jumping into the race last month.

“From NBC to Fox News and from Katie Couric to Mark Levin, if you are trying to spread a message you must engage with the media. Politicians who stay behind closed doors and avoid the media are perpetuating the worst Washington machine failures,” Paul spokesman Sergio Gor told Breitbart.

h/t: The Blaze

What questions do you have for Hillary? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Here’s The BOMBSHELL Book That Could Blow Hillary’s Campaign Out Of The Water

Recently declared GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul has been hinting for a while now that a new book would drop bombshell accusations on the Clinton campaign — revelations so explosive and so damaging that they could blow a huge hole in Hillary’s nascent run for the White House, if not sink it altogether. As The New York Times describes it: “The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings ‘big news’ that will ‘shock people’ and make voters ‘question’ the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The as-yet-unreleased book whose advanced word is already causing huge waves in many media circles is Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by Peter Schweizer. You may recall that Schweizer is the best-selling author of such hard-hitting political zingers as Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets and Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison.

The latest Schweizer exposé, as described by the Times, details what the author characterizes as a self-serving “pay to play” racket set up by Bill and Hillary Clinton involving their foundation and her influence while secretary of state. The Times articles calls Clinton Cash “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.” It reportedly describes the same sort of allegedly illicit activities that resulted in Democrat Sen. Robert Menedez recently being indicted for corruption in office.

A number of media outlets, including Fox News, are readying in-depth reports on Schweizer’s findings for the coming weeks. The New York Times — which has aggressively and repeatedly gone after Hillary Clinton for her questionable use of a personal, private email account to conduct official government business — is once again taking a lead position among liberal media in exposing Mrs. Clinton’s perceived political vulnerabilities.

The revelations in Clinton Cash, notes the Times article, are being downplayed by Clinton campaign operatives trying to dismiss the new 186-page investigation of donations by foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation as just another “conservative hit job.”

“The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.”

Because Mrs. Clinton seems to be able to dodge, shed, and inoculate herself against scandals that would likely bring down many other politicians, it will certainly be interesting to see if this latest round of disclosures and the intense media attention paid to them will actually resonate with Democrat voters who tend to overlook virtually all criticism of Hillary.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

LIB MEDIA POUNCES: Then-Sec State Clinton Gave The Brush Off To Congress, Ignoring Email Query

In what appears to be a sign that the liberal media is not done with their probe of the latest scandal to embroil Hillary Clinton, The New York Times is once again pouncing on the just-announced Democrat candidate for president over her highly controversial email practices.

For now, at least, the Times has not moved on past the investigative reporting that analysts say has helped to erode the public’s confidence in Mrs. Clinton’s integrity and trustworthiness.

In the most recent of a number of articles about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for both official and personal communications, the Times reveals that the then-secretary of state ignored congressional investigators in December of 2012 when they asked her directly about her possible use of a private email account.

Hillary gave the brush-off to the official request from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform headed at the time by Rep. Darrell Issa.

“…Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.”

Fox News reports that the 2012 question posed to Mrs. Clinton was straight-forward and could have been answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”

“The very first question asked by Issa was, ‘Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business? If so, please identify the account used.’”

Still, seven weeks after the date of Issa’s letter — by Mrs. Clinton’s last day as secretary of state on February 1, 2013 — neither Hillary nor any other State Department official had reportedly responded to the question about her use of a non-official email account.

Ignoring, obfuscating, even stonewalling over such matters is nothing new for Hillary Clinton. As the Fox News report goes on to point out: “Last month, the House select committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, subpoenaed all of Clinton’s personal emails. They received no response.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth