Jeremy Corbyn Deletes Personal Facebook Page Amid Anti-Semitism Row.

The notorious Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the UK’s Labour party, is furiously backpedaling after having been discovered to be a member of not one, but two anti-Semitic Facebook groups. But it is too late. His Labour party has a long history of Jew-hatred, and where Corbyn’s sentiments lie is quite clear. Corbyn is perhaps the only politician in the world who could make Theresa May look good. Corbyn has said that ISIS supporters should not be prosecuted for “expressing a political point of view.” A leading Corbyn activist caused outrage after claiming that Islamic terrorists are “freedom fighters.”

That’s not all. Corbyn has attended a “memorial” for jihad mass murderers. Here is his vicious screed about it.

And now this. If Jeremy Corbyn ever becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I shall never shed a tear for the Brits again.

The full story.

Jeremy Corbyn has deleted his personal Facebook account that he set up before becoming Labour leader, party sources have confirmed.

No reason has been given for the move, which follows criticism he had previously been a member of groups in which people had posted anti-Semitic content.

It is understood that his official Facebook page – Jeremy Corbyn MP – will continue to remain active.

Earlier, The Sunday Times reported that 12 senior staff working for Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell were members of social media groups containing anti-Semitic and violent comments.

The paper said an investigation into 20 of the biggest pro-Corbyn Facebook groups – numbering around 400,000 members – had uncovered routine attacks on Jewish people, including Holocaust denial.

Working with whistleblowers who were able to gain access to restricted membership groups, it said that it had uncovered more than 2,000 racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, violent and abusive messages.

A Labour source said such sites routinely received hundreds of postings a day, most of which were perfectly innocent messages about party policies or events.

Many of the staff concerned were either no longer active on Facebook or were unaware they were members of these and had not seen the content highlighted by the paper.

Following the investigation, one of Labour’s biggest private donors launched a bitter attack on the party’s failure to deal with anti-Semitism under Corbyn.

Sir David Garrard, who has donated around £1.5 million since 2003, said he had now left the party having seen it fail to respond to “the most blatant acts of anti-Semitism”.

Last week, Corbyn apologised for arguing on Facebook in 2012 against the removal of an anti-Semitic mural that depicted a group of Jewish men playing Monopoly on the backs of a group of emaciated people….

Obama Campaign Staffer Says Facebook Allowed Them to Harvest Masses of Data.

Barack Obama’s former director for media analytics told a shocked American public that Facebook allowed Team Obama campaign officials back in 2012 to mine tons of data that was collected on users by the social media site, and use it all for political purposes.

The collection normally would have been prohibited.

But because Facebook was “on our side,” it was allowed to go forth, the former campaign staffer said.

Shocked? Don’t be. Facebook is more political beast than social media friend.

Facebook representatives told Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was “on our side,” according to explosive claims from Obama’s former director for media analytics, Carol David send a series of tweets, Davidsen that Facebook was “surprised” that the Obama campaign was able to “suck out the entire social graph” (the “social graph” is an individual’s network of friends on Facebook), but did nothing to stop them once they found out. Davidsen also linked to a talk from 2015 in which she explained how Facebook’s privacy policies in 2012 allowed them to harvest data on friend networks across America.

Davidsen says that this gave the Democrats a massive advantage, as the Republicans did not gain access to the same data before Facebook shut off the feature.

“The privacy policies on Facebook were … if they opted in, they could tell us who all their friends were. So they told us who all their friends were…We were actually able to ingest the entire social network of the U.S. that’s on Facebook, which is most people.”

“Where this gets complicated is that freaks Facebook out. So they shut off the feature.”

“The Republicans never built an app to do that. So the data’s out there — you can’t take it back. The Democrats have this information, so when they look at a voter file and someone comes to them, they can immediately be like ‘Oh, here are all the other people that they know, and here are people they can help us persuade, because they’re really good friends with that person.’”

“The Republicans do not have that information and will not get that information. I’m a Democrat, so maybe I could argue that’s a great thing, but really it’s not, in the overall process. That wasn’t thought all the way through and now there’s a disadvantage of information that to me seems unfair. But I’m not Facebook…”

According to Davidsen, the Obama campaign used that data to target voters through their friend networks, and motivate people to vote. I worked on all of the data integration projects at OFA” said Davidsen. “This was the only one that felt creepy.”

What a Saudi Prince’s Visit to the U.S. Really Means.

Perhaps the most dramatic Saudi reform is the one that has received virtually no attention in America. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has led an effort to sweep out the Muslim Brotherhood from teaching and leadership positions in elementary, middle and high schools as well as colleges and universities.

MBS is kicking a dragon and he knows it.

The stakes of his fight with the Brotherhood could not be higher. If MBS succeeds, Saudi Arabia returns to pre-1979 roots, with movie theaters, women in the workplace, and features of a modern developing country. If MBS fails, he will be killed by the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia will become more repressive than ever.

The global stakes of MBS’s internal fight with the Brotherhood are large, too. If the crown price wins, nearly all Saudi funding for violent Islamic radicals ends — and if he dies, it grows to new heights.

His “Vision 2030” is the biggest planned change in any country since Turkey’s Ataturk or Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. With America’s encouragement, Saudi Arabia could lead a regional transformation that would be truly historic.

Saudi Arabia, with the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the United States this week, opens a new front in its war with Iran.

The visit is a collection of firsts. It is the first trip by Prince Mohammed bin Salman — known universally as “MBS” — to the U.S. since becoming the heir to the oil kingdom’s throne in June 2017. (President Trump’s first presidential trip to the Middle East began with a stop in Saudi Arabia.) More importantly, it is the first time a senior Saudi official, let alone a ruling royal, will venture outside the U.S. capital to make official visits to Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Never before has a crown prince — especially one who runs Saudi Arabia’s government on a daily basis — come to America’s financial and cultural capitals to do business. Indeed, MBS is hoping to drum up support for his plan to offer five percent of ARAMCO, the Saudi oil producer, to Western investors as well as to make investments in software upstarts and media empires. This is a Saudi royal who sees no division between commerce and statecraft, between diplomacy and investment.

President Donald Trump (right) shakes hands with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House on March 20, 2018, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

For Americans, the three most important items on MBS’s agenda are Saudi Arabia’s internal reforms, its new kinetic role in the war on terror from Yemen to Syria and its evolving relationship with Israel.

While much has been made of MBS’s opening “drivers ed” schools for women (which quickly attracted some 70,000 students) as part of the kingdom’s June 2018 move to allow women to drive, the domestic reforms have been far more rapid and sweeping than the conservative kingdom has ever seen.

Perhaps the most dramatic reform is the one that has received virtually no attention in America. The crown prince has led an effort to sweep out the Muslim Brotherhood from teaching and leadership positions in elementary, middle and high schools as well as colleges and universities. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, has been the birthplace of nearly every radical Islamist group in the past century — from Egyptian Islamic Jihad to al Qaeda. The Brotherhood came to power in Cairo, following the departure of Hosni Mubarak, and only lost its grip due to a Saudi-funded coup. Inside Saudi Arabia, the organization’s intellectual and financial influence is vast. It has shaped the thought of at least two generations of Saudis, and it counts many allies among the kingdom’s 15,000 princes and even more among its 20,000 major clerics. It also has a literal army of armed supporters. MBS is kicking a dragon and he knows it.

The stakes of his fight with the Brotherhood could not be higher. If MBS succeeds, Saudi Arabia returns to pre-1979 roots, with movie theaters, women in the workplace, and features of a modern developing country. If he fails, he will be killed by the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia will become more repressive than ever. The global stakes of MBS’s internal fight with the Brotherhood are large, too. If the crown price wins, nearly all Saudi funding for violent Islamic radicals ends — and if he dies, it grows to new heights.

MBS is betting his life that he can reform his country and offer it a future beyond its dangerous dependency on oil. He wants to build 18 nuclear power plants over the next two decades, thereby safeguarding his nation’s electricity prices from the rollercoaster of world oil prices. He wants to diversify the economy, allowing men and women to leave their subsidized and static lives for new roles as professionals, executives and entrepreneurs. His “Vision 2030” is the biggest planned change in any country since Turkey’s Ataturk or Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. And Saudi Arabia is larger in terms of both people and land than 1920s Turkey or 1960s Singapore. If he succeeds, his achievement will be studied for centuries. America should get behind MBS’s bold vision — it is the best roadmap for regional peace and security as well as domestic modernization.

Regarding the war on terror, Saudi Arabia has been one of America’s most steadfast allies. Since the September 11 attacks, it has killed or captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives and provided intelligence on thousands more. It has cracked down hard on sheikhs who once financed terror outfits, seized bank accounts and jailed malefactors.

America would also do well to support Saudi Arabia’s peaceful attempts to reform its neighbor, Qatar.

Finally, MBS’s visit allows the Saudi royal to talk about his nation’s increasingly warm relationship with Israel. The two nations have a common enemy (Iran) and a shared interest in thwarting terrorism. Together with MBS’s apparently close friendship with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, a new and less confrontational relationship with Israel could pay dividends for peace.

America should welcome MBS. With America’s encouragement, Saudi Arabia could lead a regional transformation that would be truly historic. Missing this opportunity to engage would be beyond tragic.

California College Campus Cops Crack Down on Questions about Islam.

Golden West College:

This is sharia enforcement on campus. It is increasingly the case that not the slightest critical word about Islam can be spoken on America’s college and university campuses. Imagine what would happen if a speaker about Christianity had police remove critical questioners. There would be an international outcry. But this is increasingly the norm: do not question Islam. It is the one topic that is off-limits to all but the most whitewashed presentations.

On March 14, I attended a public presentation entitled Islam 101 at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California. The presenter was Nicole Bovey, a convert to Islam and public information officer at the Islamic Institute of Orange County in Anaheim. Bovey also works with the Muslim Speakers Bureau in Orange County (an arm of the Islamic Networks Group). The presentation was sponsored by GWC professors Kaine Fini (Anthropology) and Communications Professor Kristine Clancy (most of the audience members were her students, and this was part of her class.) The event had been advertised publicly, hence was open to the public. Altogether, there were approximately 50 people present. I videotaped the entire proceeding. The event was scheduled to run from 6:45-9:30 pm. As it was, it was cut off at about 8:30 by one of the professors (more about that later.) During the event, Professor Clancy called in campus police and she admonished a couple of the people in the audience who had asked pointed questions.

Ms. Bovey’s presentation was a very basic and very vanilla presentation of Islam, explaining what Islam is, what it means, who Muslims are, Muslims’ worldwide demographic breakdown etc. Bovey’s lesson plan, consisting of slides posted on the walls, was about subjects like the 5 pillars of Islam, daily prayers etc. She stated at the outset that she was there to clear up misconceptions about Islam. In fact, the first image on the wall was of a masked man representing a terrorist. Yet, it was clear later into the presentation that she was not going to get into areas like terrorism or Sharia law. She invited the audience members to raise their hands to ask questions at any point.

Bovey was doing fine handling soft, non-controversial questions, but plainly could not handle pointed, uncomfortable questions from a few members of the audience, including myself. One audience member identified himself as a former Muslim from Egypt, who left Islam and became a Christian pastor. When he began to contradict statements by Bovey, she became uncomfortable. Subsequently, he was approached by Prof. Clancy who asked him to step outside. He returned a few minutes later. While Bovey was discussing Zakat (Islamic charity giving), another audience member asked her about the categories of Zakat and whether any of them allowed giving to non-Muslims. She was unable to answer the question. Another man in the audience, a Muslim, stated that there was a separate channel of giving other than Zakat that could be directed to non-Muslims.

During Bovey’s description of Islamic daily prayers, I asked her about Sura 1, verses 1-7, from the Quran, which are recited in those daily prayers. I read verses 6-7 to her from an English language Koran that referred to those who had incurred Allah’s wrath and those who had lost their way. I mentioned that according to a hadith, one of Mohammad’s followers had asked who that referred to and Mohammad’s answer was that the former were the Jews and the latter Christians. Bovey danced all around it stating that she didn’t know about that and that she had her own perception of who those people might be.

At one point, Bovey called for a 15-20 minute break because she and her AV assistant had to pray. At that point I turned my camera off and was looking at my cell phone when Professor Clancy began admonishing a couple of the men in the audience who had asked the above questions stating that this was her class. A campus police officer entered the room and a third staff member, International Student Program Director Melissa Lyon, asked a couple of them to step outside. One of the men had not even asked a question and eventually he was able to avoid going outside to talk to police. I captured most of this on my cell phone both inside the hall and outside. After talking with the police, the men were allowed to return.

Later on, Yet another audience member pointed out that modern archaeological studies had failed to identify Mecca as even existing during the time Mohammad was alive. Again, Bovey was unprepared. Professor Fini identified himself as an anthropological professor and responded that there were historical sites associated with Judaism and Christianity which could not be proven to exist during certain times, but that they were accepted as part of tradition.

I was called on for another question and asked Bovey about Hudud Sharia, the punishment section of Sharia law, specifically about the death penalty for apostates who criticized Islam, adulterers and homosexuals. Again her answer was evasive. She then asked me to stop videotaping saying that she feared I would edit it. I assured her I would not. I politely insisted that this was a public event in a public institution and that I had a right to videotape. This was affirmed by the aforementioned anthropology professor. (During the break I had occasion to talk to a campus police officer, and he affirmed my right to videotape.)

As other questioners steered the topic toward sensitive areas, Professor Lyon came racing to the rescue ending the event one hour before its scheduled time. It was pretty obvious that the conversation was going in a direction that Bovey and the professors did not want it to go.

It is clear that Bovey came prepared to give a “happy face” version of Islam to her audience. She was not prepared to deal with the obvious elephants in the room. Virtually every critical question was met with evasion.

Professors Clancy and Lyon completely overreacted to the questions to the point of calling in the campus cops and asking audience members to step outside. Whatever happened to free speech and the free exchange of ideas? There was absolutely no disruption whatsoever. Yet members of the audience were told that their questions were unacceptable. Since when?

And why did Ms. Lyon stop the event 60 minutes early? Because the speaker and her hosts were unwilling to engage in a discussion of aspects of Islam like Sharia law, draconian punishments, and terrorism.

Though the audience was mostly students and mostly members of Professor Clancy’s class, we (the aforementioned questioners) were not the only non-students in the audience. This event was announced to the public. That some chose to come and ask honest questions about Islam should be part of the protocol. Is that not what colleges are supposed to be engaged in? It was stated that Bovey wanted to explain “misconceptions” about Islam. Yet when asked to do so, she gave us tap dances and evasions while the professors tried to silence some of us — and then called the campus police to shut us down. Again, this was an event open to the public.

It is evident that all of these eerie developments clearly were a perfect lesson in Islam 101 — and in which happens to a free society once Sharia starts taking over.

Will we accept this laying down?

TAKE ACTION FOR FREE SPEECH:

[1] The president of Golden West College is Wes Bryan. Contact him and ask why his institution is submitting to Islamic blasphemy laws:
Email: wbryan@gwc.cccd.edu.
Phone #: 714 895 8101.

[2] Golden West College is part of the Coast Community College District. They have a board of regents whose contact info can be found HERE.

[3] One of the audience members who was escorted out of this event by police and warned by them not to ask any more questions was Steve Amundson, the head of the Counter Jihad Coalition. Contact him if you want to help defend America from Jihad and Sharia:
Email: counterjihadcoalition@gmail.com.