REVIEW: The Promise: A Powerful, Memorable Film

With “The Promise,” filmmaker Terry George, known for his 2004 Oscar-nominated “Hotel Rwanda,” set out to tell the story of 20th century’s first genocide.

Following the timeline of events that led to the Ottoman Empire’s perpetration of genocide against the Armenian population in 1915, the plot is centered around a love triangle between an Armenian student named Mikael Boghosian (played by Oscar Isaac), an Armenian from Paris named Ana Khesarian (played by Charlotte Le Bon) and an American reporter named Chris Myers (played superbly by Christian Bale).

Leaving his small Armenian village in the Ottoman Empire, Boghosian travels to the Turkish capital Constantinople to study medicine.

The film depicts Turkish-Armenian relations at a high point (“high” is meant in the vaguest sense). Many Turks still held venomously racist views towards Armenians, but they went to the same universities, lived in the same cities and shopped in the same markets (when walking through the market, a Turk exclaimed to him, “that Armenian pig will rip you off.”)

Shortly after, as the Ottoman Empire entered the First World War, Turkish aggression against the Armenian population became a mainstay of government policy. This film portrayed this accurately, as the blueprints for Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich soon spread to every village in the Ottoman Empire.

Turkish officers began rounding up Armenian intellectuals and businesspersons, executing them on a whim. Boghosian was yanked out of medical school and sent to a labor camp where he was effectively starved, and made to work while awaiting execution.

Miraculously, Boghosian escaped. Following his harrowing journey back to his home village in an attempt to save his family, the film vividly portrays the horrors of the Armenian genocide. From cargo trains packed full of prisoners, to their coerced death march through the desert where they were executed.

Read More >>

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING. QUICK, ELECT A REPUBLICAN!

After spending the last eight years pushing the notion of foreign policy as an afterthought with America needing to “lead from behind,” Democrats have suddenly recast themselves as foreign policy hawks. Particularly towards Russia.

Following last week’s report in The Washington Post regarding Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s meetings with Russia’s US ambassador last year, Democrats collectively lost their minds, calling for Sessions’s resignation with alacrity.

That story has two key points. First, Sessions’s meetings were nothing out of the ordinary (he met with over twenty-five foreign ambassadors while in the Senate), with one of the two meetings even organized by the Obama administration. Second, Sessions attended the meeting as a member of the Armed Services Committee with no ties to the Trump campaign (hence his testimony!).

Nevertheless, sharpening her tomahawk, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted, “And we need Attorney General Jeff Sessions – who should have never been confirmed in the first place – to resign. We need it now.”

The Washington Post’s’ Chris Cillizza wrote, “Jeff Sessions is in deep trouble. Bigly.”

The New York Times’s headline read: “Jeff Sessions Needs to Go.” Another of its op-edheadlines read: “What to Do With Jeff Sessions.”

Presumably, for the next four (eight, if they keep this up) years, liberals have concluded their best argument against securing the border and deporting criminal illegal aliens: THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!

So, in light of the Democrat Party’s newfound infatuation with the former USSR, let’s briefly review the party’s history with Russia.

— WOODROW WILSON:

Near the end of the First World War, as the Bolsheviks’ rise to political prominence grew commensurate with increasing destabilization of the Romanov Dynasty, US troops were sent to Archangel, Murmansk, and Vladivostok. The campaign was called, ‘The Northern Russia Expedition.”

In 1917, as the Bolshevik revolution broke out, the Russian aristocracy was exiled and replaced with communists: Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin (or, as they’re referred to at the University of California, Berkeley; The Three Wise Men)

Once the Armistice of Compiègne was signed in 1918, Woodrow Wilson withdrew US troops from the region instead of engaging the communist uprising. As a result, the Bolsheviks prevailed, and communism spread, leading to the mass slaughter of millions.

— HARRY TRUMAN:

President Harry Truman, at the Yalta conference, agreed with Joseph Stalin that Poland – along with the rest of Eastern Europe – would have free, democratically elected governments following its liberation from Nazi control. Predictably jettisoning that promise, Stalin went on to institute a communist, USSR-controlled puppet government in Poland. The Soviets went on to do the same in Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Hungary.

Truman’s efforts to halt (or even slow down) the Soviet Union’s rapid expansion into Eastern Europe and far-reaching influence into Turkey and Iran went nowhere.

And then we have Korea. For all their banal tirades of George W. Bush’s Iraq War (which he won, handily!) liberals are quick to forget about Truman’s disastrous Korean intervention. Despite no formal obligation to intervene, Truman sent an armada of US forces to Korea, against the Soviet-backed communists in the peninsula’s north. As the war escalated and it became clear that Truman didn’t have a clue what he was doing, much less a vision for victory, his approval rating dropped so low, it just barely hovered above smallpox.

Read More >>

‘LAWS RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH’ ARE OUR STRENGTH

Canada’s Liberal Party is currently spearheading Motion 103 (M-103) through Parliament. Set for debate in April, the motion calls on the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear” and “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The motion also calls for the establishment of a governmental committee to  “undertake a study on how the government could reduce or eliminate systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”

As opposed to a bill (or law), M-103 is a motion. Its purpose is to “raise awareness,” drawing attention to an issue (extolling their own virtue is the Liberal Party’s raison d’être, after all). Although M-103’s passage wouldn’t change Canada’s legal system, the motion is intended to become a progenitor or future legislation.

Why do we need new motions or laws to combat “Islamophobia”? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) and the Criminal Code of Canada already protect Muslims and other religious groups. The motion ostensibly seeks to combat “systemic racism against Muslims”, despite zero evidence that Canadian laws systemically target Muslims. And if there was evidence, why doesn’t Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just change the law? He runs the government.

Moreover, “Islamophobia” is an elusively defined term. The proposed motion fails to explain what Islamophobia actually is. “Islam,” after all, is a religion. Would criticizing its tenets be considered a “phobia”?

Late last year, Liberals amended Canada’s Human Rights Act, again adding vaguely-defined terms to the CCRF: “gender expression” and “gender identity.” In effect, it became a human rights violation to refer to a biological male as a “he,” insofar as he self-identified as a woman. Motion-103 is drafted along the same lines.

Anti-Semitism – which is far more prevalent in Canada than Islamophobia – is omitted in toto. According to 2015 police data, Jews were the identified group most targeted by hate crimes in Canada, with the LGBTQ community coming in second.

The CBC – which recently published an editorial entitled, “Anti-Islamophobia motion offers a chance to take a stand against hatred. Why quibble over semantics?” –  is yet to print one (just one!) article on the Muslim Imam in Quebec delivering a sermon in which he prayed for the annihilationof the “accursed” Jews.

And if Quebecois Imams don’t make the CBC’s cut for required reporting, a Toronto Mosque, Masjid Toronto, has a story ripe for the picking. An Imam was caught on video calling for the extermination of the Jews, saying, “O Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!”

Recently at Toronto’s Ryerson University, the Muslim Students’ Association and Students for Justice in Palestine Jewish Persecution organized a joint protest, blocking a motion commemorating Holocaust Education Week.

But not to worry, Trudeau has a foolproof plan to combat anti-Semitism via a rapid increase of Muslim refugee admissions to Canada.

Read More >>

Rebuttal to UToronto Student Newspaper’s Defense of Suppressing Free Speech

Less than a month after anarchists, communists, and a bevy of other perpetually useless members of society shut down a speech at the University of Toronto, the school’s student newspaper, The Varsity, published a column titled “Bigotry bears no right to a platform”.

The author, Adina Heisler, a second-year gender studies major, writes,

Speakers at the event included [Jordan] Peterson, Psychology Professor who has been called transphobic by some students on campus following his Professor against political correctness YouTube lecture series…

Remember. The first rule of writing an editorial that justifies – better yet encourages – forcefully shutting down public speakers with whom you disagree politically, is to avoid fairly characterizing your opponent at all costs. Don’t bother watching Jordan Peterson’s videos, providing their links, and highlighting the exact quotes which suggest he’s a bigot, unworthy of speaking at the university that employs him. Just go ahead and write it. Be sure to back up this already-robust accusation with “has been called”.

Heisler continues:

According to protester and community activist Qaiser Ali, the protesters objected to “the fact that the university has both allowed and sanctioned an alt-right, neo-fascist hate conference starring Ezra Levant.”

Qaiser Ali – as reported by The Varsitywas one of the protesters who helped shut the event down, screaming “F-Trump, and F-white supremacy”. The only person Heisler’s interviewed in her entire editorial on why it’s ok to forcefully shut down a speech at a public university is one of the people who actually shut down a speech at a public university.

Heisler claims that she contacted Ezra Levant for comment on the article to no avail. However, I spoke to Ezra myself. He told me that nobody by the name Adina Heisler from The Varsity reached out to him.

Going forward, the author paints a truly Orwellian portrait, writing,

The protesters are correct in saying that the speakers should not have been permitted to have this platform in the first place…

…whether or not a speaker should be allowed to have space on campus cannot necessarily be boiled down to a left-versus-right issue. There are a number of reasons why we might object to having certain types of events on campus.

For example, it was completely unacceptable when Ken O’Keefe, a conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier, was given a space to speak on campus in June 2016, because he was propagating blatantly false anti-Semitic views.

That last part is actually correct. Ken O’Keefe is a Marxist Holocaust denier who was invited to speak at the university. His speech, however, was somehow not interrupted by the same people who felt Ezra Levant was about to pull out a sword and sacrifice a transgender Syrian refugee he had locked up in a cage somewhere.

Read More >>

Back in the USSR. You Don’t Know How Lucky You Are, Boy

On Saturday, left-wing protesters abruptly shut down a University of Toronto (UofT) lecture hosted by Generation Screwed and Students in Support of Free Speech. After screaming “No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA”, the liberal activists proceeded to pull the university fire alarm, forcing everyone out of the building.

The panel had several speakers, including Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant and University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson – who rose to infamy in 2016 after sparking liberal hysteria, suggesting that there are fewer genders than Baskin Robbins ice cream flavors. The topic of discussion was fiscal responsibility and free speech – it was also held in Canada, raising the question why on Earth the protesters would chant “Trump” or “USA”.

This deliberate disruption by the social justice cabal comes less than a week after college campus liberals in the United States tried shutting down Rebel Media commentator Gavin McInnes in New York University. Gavin was dismayed to discover that “tolerance” apparently comes packaged as pepper-spray, as he was full-on assaulted by the “protesters”.

Adding insult to injury, a woman claiming to be an NYU professor began berating police officers ASKING THEM TO ASSAULT Gavin McInnes. Remember when the left suggested police brutality was a bad thing?

The NYU speech debacle was just mere days after California communist rioters shut down Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley. As reported by Tucker Carlson, people in black masks began hurling rocks at the building Yiannopoulos was scheduled to appear in. The social justice AntiFa intifada set the campus ablaze, forcing the Conservative commentator into immediate evacuation.

If you’re thinking Milo Yiannopoulos being an openly gay immigrant, who boasts about sleeping with black men would in any way preclude him from being a “xenophobic racist homophobe”… Don’t forget, he’s a right-wing Trump supporter.

And we’re not done yet! Just one week ago, Marquette University’s program assistant for the Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies was caught attempting to sabotage an upcoming lecture by Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro, rounding up reams of students to protest the event.

Over the past decade, political violence has been increasingly normalized on the far-left. We’ve come to a point where forcefully shutting down events is no longer some offshoot occurrence when a professional provocateur like Pam Geller is invited to speak and draw Mohamed cartoons with crayon.

Today, it’s practically leftist dogma. Try finding me one notable conservative speaker who’s successfully been able to deliver a speech on a college campus without security having to show up. Just one.

It’s about time we stop referring to these acts as protests. They’re not protests. You can read Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of what protests are here (before liberals have it banned).

Protesters didn’t pull the fire alarm on Ezra Levant, start a fire at Milo Yiannopoulos’s venue or pepper-spray Gavin McInnes (all in the last seven days!). Soviet-style fascists did.

Ironically, the social justice juggernaut flavor-of-the-month label is “AntiFa”, an abbreviation of “anti-fascism”.

When you’re dressed in black, with a mask covering your face and are violently seeking to shut down speech, you can scream “I’m anti-fascist!” as much as you want. Despite what your fervid imagination would have you believe, you’re still the fascist.

Whether it’s screaming “fascist KKK” like a petulant child, pulling fire alarms, starting actual fires or pepper-spraying people – which apparently is justified because they’re Nazis! – the far-left has somehow convinced itself they’re Seal Team 6 tasked with taking out Bin Laden anytime a conservative shows up to campus.

Read More >>

Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy Of Appeasement And Broken Promise To The Armenians

In his initial 2008 run for office presidential candidate Barack Obama said this to the Armenian community: “Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term ‘genocide’ to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

In a transcript posted on his own website (it’s now deleted and only viewable on the internet archives) Obama states:

Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common security and common humanity. Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics – displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter – that were used by the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915 … America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.

This was Obama’s great paean to morality and human rights back in 2008 – Prior to him officially taking office.

Before I break down why this is one of the biggest letdowns of the Obama legacy (yes, bigger than Obamacare), here’s a quick history lesson.

As of 301 A.D., Armenia became the first Christian nation in history. For centuries, the country flourished and grew. Things took a turn for the worse roughly around the 15th century, when Armenia was absorbed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

As the Ottoman empire crumbled through the 1800’s, Armenians grew weary living as second-class citizens under the Islamic regime. As they pushed for independence, the Ottoman Turks objected violently. In the mid-1890’s, the Sultan unleashed an armada, massacring some 300,000 Armenians in what would be called Hamidian massacres.

Years later, during the early 20th century, Ottoman reformers known as the Young Turks ousted the Sultan. Eventually, a trio of Islamists from the Young Turks, known as the Pashas, seized power. Perceiving the resilient Christian Armenian population as a threat, they set out to exterminate them. On April 24, 1915, 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders were rounded up and shipped off to be executed.  Through the First World War, the Ottoman Turks carried out what became the first genocide of the 20th century, wiping out 75 percent of the Armenian population – a million and a half human beings.

Being masked by the scope and scale of the First World War, the unspeakable Ottoman atrocity was not instantly known to the rest of the world.

The phrase “Armenian genocide” did not even appear in the New York Times until 2004. (The New York Times taking 89 years to accurately report something is actually better than their usual record.)

Read More >>

A Complete Timeline of Race Relations Under Obama

President Barack Obama marketed himself to the American people as penicillin to the nation’s racial woes. A vote for Obama was a vote for unity! How could you vote against that?

And so, a self-serving slice of the electorate indulged their virtuous exigencies, casting their ballot for what they perceived to be “something bigger.” Obama’s gleeful cry for “hope and change.”

Prior to the Obama presidency, President George W. Bush united Americans as… Americans through 9/11. He kept us safe, and unapologetically defended our common values of freedom and self-governance. But according to our national media, race relations prior to Obama’s presidency were like our healthcare system. Worse than Zimbabwe’s.

How successful was President Obama in mending these supposedly broken bonds? Here’s a comprehensive timeline of all the racial healing in the past eight years.

President Obama’s first headline hobnob with race-in-America dates back to the early days of his presidency. In 2009, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates arrived home to find his front door lock jammed. He opted to force his way in through the back door. Worried neighbors weren’t sure what was happening, and in good faith alerted the police.

Upon arrival, the officers – one of whom was black – asked Gates for ID, to which Gates then infuriatingly exploded, accusing the officers of racial profiling. “This is what it means to be black in America! … Do you even know how many graduate degrees I have! Do you know who you’re dealing with here!? … I’m a professor at Harvard. CAN YOU EVEN SPELL HARVARD?”

The befuddled, browbeaten officer arrested Gates on charges of disorderly conduct for his shrieking tirade.

The newly elected President disregarded the facts, kicking off what would be a long 8 years of poisonous rhetoric aimed at law enforcement. Joining the Cambridge coterie in haranguing the white working-class officer, Obama said: “he acted stupidly.”

Fast forward three years, and the glare of the national spotlight is on Sanford, Florida. In February of 2012, Hispanic-American George Zimmerman – leader of his community’s neighborhood watch – saw a young black man, Trayvon Martin, lurking around his community. Zimmerman called the police, reporting that the man appeared to be on drugs (autopsy confirmed this) and was urinating in front of a house.

After being instructed not to pursue the suspect, Zimmerman hung up. The initial confrontation between the two remains a mystery. However, all the available evidence aligned with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin attacked him, knocking him to the ground. Jumping on top of him, Martin allegedly began beating Zimmerman, pounding his head into the pavement. Zimmerman subsequently reached for his gun, and shot Martin, killing him.

America’s racial-healer-in-chief Barack Obama responded to the incident, saying “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Busy acting as the pillars for Obama’s skewed racial narrative, the media failed to ask why exactly the President’s son would be high, lurking around neighborhoods and beating heads onto pavements.

When Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges, riots broke out across the country. Police cars were smashed and stomped on; windows were broken. A random white guy was robbed, the assailants yelling “this is for Trayvon!”

In November 2013, police officers shot and killed 16-year-old black teenager Kimani Gray in Brooklyn, New York. After observing suspicious behavior, the officers approached Gray, and he responded by drawing a firearm, pointing it squarely at the officers. (Not a good idea).

Despite the damning evidence that the officers were fully justified in shooting the suspect, riots ensued. Between 60 and 100 people took to the streets looting shops and smashing windows, allegedly chanting “NYPD, KKK, how many kids did you kill today”. Really all the hallmarks of a post-racial Obama America.

Read More >>