RUTHFULLY YOURS

Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/death-and-terror-in-ottawa?

Two people, a reserve soldier from Hamilton, Ontario and his apparent murderer, were killed Wednesday morning in an attack that started at Canada’s national War Memorial.

One gunman was shot and killed a short time later inside the nearby Parliament building. It is not yet clear whether additional people were involved in the attack. Video taken by a reporter for Canada’s Globe and Mail seems to capture a shootout inside the Parliament building that led to the gunman’s death.

Canadian authorities are saying very little. But the murder of 24-year-old Nathan Cirillo comes two days after another Canadian soldier died near Montreal after being run down by a car driven by a recent convert to Islam.

CBS News reported late Wednesday afternoon that Canadian officials informed American counterparts that the dead shooter is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian native who was about 32 years old. A Twitter post claimed that the terrorist group ISIS released a picture it claimed was Zehaf-Bibeau.

If Wednesday’s attacker also proves to be a radical Islamist, it would be at least the fourth attack by Muslim radicals in North America in recent months.

Martin Couture-Rouleau, 25, was shot and killed after he rammed his car into two Canadian soldiers Monday. He reportedly told a 911 operator he was acting in the name of Allah. A friend told reporters that Rouleau had grown radical after converting to Islam about a year ago and dreamed of dying as a martyr.

His passport was confiscated and he was among 90 suspected Islamic radicals being monitored by Canadian authorities. During a news conference Wednesday afternoon, officials declined to say whether the man shot and killed in Parliament also was on that watch list.

Last week, before the two attacks, Canada raised its terror-threat level for the first time in four years. A spokesman said the move was prompted by “an increase in general chatter from radical Islamist organizations like (ISIS), Al Qaida, Al Shabaab and others who pose a clear threat to Canadians.” The advisory from Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC), warned that “an individual or group within Canada or abroad has the intent and capability to commit an act of terrorism. ITAC assesses that a violent act of terrorism could occur.”

‘In the 19th century, as today, there were those who wished to use the empirical claims of science to draw conclusions about philosophy, morality, and religion. Among such advocates of what is now called “scientism” were the social Darwinists, who drew on the biological ideas of Darwin and the political ideas of Herbert Spencer to create an alternative to traditional morality. These views were rejected outright by Darwin and his friend and self-proclaimed publicist, T. H. Huxley, writes Gertrude Himmelfarb:

The emergence of social Darwinism recalls the adage of another eminent Victorian. “Ideas,” wrote Lord Acton, “have a radiation and development, an ancestry and posterity of their own, in which men play the part of godfathers and godmothers more than that of legitimate parents.” Darwin, the unwitting godfather of social Darwinism, disowned even that degree of parentage. He dismissed as ludicrous the charge of one reviewer that he had endorsed “might is right,” thereby justifying the idea “that Napoleon is right & every cheating Tradesman is also right.” Challenged on another occasion to declare his views on religion, he replied that while the subject of God was “beyond the scope of man’s intellect,” his moral obligation was clear: “man can do his duty.” Averse to controversy in general (even over On the Origin of Species itself), Darwin played no public part in the dispute over social Darwinism. That battle was left to Darwin’s “bulldog,” as T. H. Huxley proudly described himself—“my general agent,” Darwin called him. Huxley’s arguments against social Darwinism are all the more telling because they come not, as might have been expected, from a cleric or theologian, but from an eminent scientist and ardent Darwinist.

They persuade the world of what is false by urging upon it what is true.” That is John Henry Newman in The Idea of a University (1852) referring to the sciences of his day, which threatened to dominate and even overwhelm theological education in the university. A science’s teaching might be true in its proper place but fallacious “if it be constituted the sole exponent of all things in heaven and earth, and that, for the simple reason that it is encroaching on territory not its own, and undertaking problems which it has no instruments to solve.”

While Newman’s notion of science was far broader than ours, including even painting and music, his description of the overreach of science is still apt. We now have a term — “scientism” — for that fallacy, exemplified, as has been demonstrated in these pages, by Richard Dawkins’s pronouncement that genes “created us, body and mind,” and Edward O. Wilson’s claim that biology is the “basis of all social behavior.” If scientism has become so prevalent, it is partly because of the emergence of new sciences, each encroaching, as Newman said, on “territory not its own” (invading, we would now say, the turf of others), and each professing to comprehend (in both senses of that word) the whole. Intended as an epithet, the term has been adopted as an honorific by some of its practitioners. A chapter in the book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized (2007) by three philosophers is entitled “In Defense of Scientism.”

At what point does a political hack choose to sacrifice one’s grasp of right and wrong for the job, or for the cause? Time and again, this election season has shown Washington’s careerists to be capable of just about any negation of ethics towards the goals of a campaign, and we’ve certainly seen that from this State Department before, most notably when Hillary Clinton lied about the Benghazi attack to a victim’s family, alongside his body.

But a baby was just thrown “10 to 20 meters” through the air and landed on her head.

The following quote is what the Obama administration, via Jen Psaki, came up with. Bear in mind that the deceased child — called “a pure girl with a holy soul” by her stricken grandfather, and what words could better describe a three-month old – is an American citizen:

The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms today’s terrorist attack in Jerusalem. We express our deepest condolences to the family of the baby, reportedly an American citizen, who was killed in this despicable attack, and extend our prayers for a full recovery to those injured. We urge all sides to maintain calm and avoid escalating tensions in the wake of this incident.

The moral sacrifice made by the administration here is the placement of the administration’s worldview ahead of the protection of the grieving family, the nation of Israel, the citizens of the United States, and those members of humanity able to delineate the ramifications of what just occurred. Would you, as a member of a grieving family – and grieving over a baby! – appreciate being told to “remain calm,” being told your place in this event is as one of several “sides”?

The people at State, presumably not psychopaths, know how the family might receive this. They considered the family’s reaction, and weighed that when constructing this quote. And, being political hacks who have objectively jettisoned their compass, the family’s emotions lost.

Be aware that yesterday, someone at State considered employing the word “murdered,” but instead used “killed.” And be aware that the Obama administration’s detestable, amoral foreign policy trumped all else, and resulted in that enraging closing sentence.

Within three days there have been two jihadist attacks in Canada, carried out by Canadian citizens who recently converted to Islam. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility, at least as yet. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed no reluctance in calling the terrorists … terrorists.

Bravo!

Whether the attackers were incited by the summons to jihad from groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, or were actual members of such groups, there should be no question that these were terrorist attacks. The Obama administration’s practice of denying that terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks has been profoundly foolish – and it was good to hear the president seem to inch away from it today.

The point of this cockamamie denial approach is part political correctness and part plain politics.

President Obama has repeatedly claimed to have “decimated” al Qaeda and put it “on the path to defeat.” Actually, the terror network is on the rise. Furthermore, it is now rivaled by ISIS, a jihadist organization that may be even stronger. Denying obvious instances of terrorism, such as the jihadist mass-murder at Fort Hood, is a transparent effort to conceal the obvious falsity of the president’s claims. If these attacks are not really terrorism, the reasoning goes, then there must be less terrorism; therefore, the pretense of defeating terror networks can be spun as validated. As I’ve said before, it is a way of miniaturizing the threat.

It is more than that, though. Terrorism is fueled by an ideology. It is rooted, quite literally, in Islamic scripture. To cite one of many examples, in the Koran’s sura 8:12, Allah instructs Muslims: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.” Thus, Omar Abdel Rahman, the infamous “Blind Sheikh” I prosecuted for terrorism in the nineties, used to exhort followers:

Why do we fear the word “terrorist”? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. . . . The Koran mentions the words “to strike terror,” therefore we don’t fear to be described with “terrorism.” . . . We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.

There’s no crime too horrific that a large checkbook and campaign donations won’t solve.

The Office of the Inspector General of the State Department found in its latest investigation that Clinton aides had “created an appearance of undue influence and favoritism” in a number of cases including that of Ambassador Howard Gutman.

The investigation is largely a whitewash. There is no mention of the fact that one whistleblower related to the case, Richard Higbie, had his emails deleted by a hacker. Or that the main whistleblower, Aurelia Fedenisn, was harassed at home and had her law firm burgled.

It goes almost without saying that Richard Nixon went down for much less than that.

There is also no mention of the more explosive allegation that Howard Gutman had not merely solicited a prostitute on a single occasion, as the report mentions, but had escaped his detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children.”

Also overlooked is the fact that the Gutman case was shoved under the rug by Cheryl Mills, who was not only Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff but the White House Counsel who ferociously protected Bill Clinton when questions were raised about his own sexual activities.

Mills is a fanatical Clinton loyalist. During her days in the Clinton White House, a colleague was quoted as saying, “If something’s on the other side of a brick wall and the Clintons need it, she’ll find a way to get to it: over, around or through.”

It should come as no surprise that Cheryl Mills also played a key role in covering up Benghazigate. It was Mills who had ordered Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission, not to talk about what happened. Hicks testified that he had been punished for refusing to keep quiet.

Covering up for Gutman’s sexual abuse of children would have been about more than just the State Department’s usual white wall of silence. Like many European ambassadors in the new administration, Gutman was not a diplomat — he was a donor. A man like Christopher Stevens might be sent to Libya, but positions in European capitals were mostly reserved for major contributors to the Democratic Party.

On November 5, 2009, at Ford Hood, Texas, U.S. soldiers were getting their final medical checkups before deploying to Afghanistan. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist began gunning down the soldiers. His victims, all unarmed, included Francheska Velez, a 21-year-old private from Chicago who pleaded for the life of her unborn child. The Muslim major killed two other women that day along with 10 men, more than twice as many victims as the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

Hasan also wounded 33 others, including Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford, who played dead then fled the building. Major Hasan chased down Lunsford, an African-American, and shot him seven times, including one bullet in the back. Firing a high-capacity handgun fitted with laser sights, Major Hasan shot Sergeant Shawn Manning in the chest and pumped four rounds into Sgt. Patrick Zeigler. Hasan would have killed and wounded more if civilian police officer Kim Munley had not wounded the assailant, who yelled “Allahu akbar,” as he killed. That familiar cry was hardly the only indicator of Hasan’s motives.

Hasan had been emailing terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about the prospect of killing infidel American soldiers, and the “Soldier of Allah,” as he called himself, did everything but take out an ad on the Super Bowl to announce his jihadist intentions. The U.S. security establishment was well aware of the communications but did nothing to stop Hasan, who claimed to be acting on behalf of the Taliban. Anwar al-Awlaki was orgasmic with joy that Hasan had done his duty.

President Barack Obama’s first response to Hasan’s mass murder was brief, low key, and failed to ascribe any responsibility to Islamic terrorism. “We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing,” the president said. Such breathtaking denial soon became official policy. The Obama administration’s Department of Defense issued Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, which contains not a single reference to jihad or jihadists. Its only mention of “Islamic” is an endnote reference to “Countering Violent Islamic Extremism,” a 2007 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

The United States Army and federal government did not call Hasan’s attack terrorism or even gun violence. Major Hasan killed African Americans, hispanics and non-Muslims, but the government did not call the attack a hate crime. Rather, the government proclaimed the murder spree a case of “workplace violence,” an absurdity for the ages with consequences for the Hasan’s victims. The refused to classify Hasan’s attack as terrorism rendered victims ineligible for medals and other benefits related to combat.

As yet more evidence that academics are regularly able to engage in what George Orwell sardonically referred to as “doublethink,” “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them,” this month 40 professors of Jewish studies published a denunciation of a study that named professors who have been identified as expressing “anti-Israel bias, or possibly even antisemitic rhetoric.”

While the 40 academic “heavyweights” claim they, of course, reject anti-Semitism totally as part of teaching, they were equally repelled by the tactics and possible effects of the AMCHA Initiative report, a comprehensive review of the attitudes about Israel of some 200 professors who signed an online petition during the latest Gaza incursion that called for an academic boycott against Israeli scholars—academics the petitioners claimed were complicit in the “latest humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s new military assault on the Gaza Strip.”

“We believe the professors who have signed this petition may be so biased against the Jewish state that they are unable to teach accurately or fairly about Israel or the Arab-Israel conflict, and may even inject antisemitic tropes into their lectures or class discussion,” wrote Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith, co-founders of the AMCHA Initiative and authors of the report.

Calling “the actions of AMCHA deplorable,” the indignant professors were insulted by the organization’s “technique of monitoring lectures, symposia and conferences,” something which, they believe, “strains the basic principle of academic freedom on which the American university is built.” That is a rather breathtaking assertion by academics; namely, that it is contrary to the core mission of higher education that ideas and instruction being publicly expressed by professors cannot be examined and judged, and that by even applying some standards of objectivity on a body of teaching by a particular professor “AMCHA’s approach closes off all but the most narrow intellectual directions and,” as academics who do not want the content of their output to actually be examined for the quality of its scholarship are always fond of saying, “has a chilling effect on research and teaching.”

Only in the inverted reality of academia could a group of largely Jewish professors denounce a study which had as its core purpose to alert students to professors who have demonstrated, publicly and seemingly proudly, that they harbor anti-Israel attitudes, attitudes which unfortunately frequently morph into anti-Semitic thought and speech as part of discussions about Israel and the Middle East. Since the individuals named in the report teach in the area of Middle East studies, they are also likely to bring that anti-Israel bias into the classroom with them, and students, therefore, would obviously benefit from AMCHA’s report.

The nation of Canada is reeling today from a brutal terrorist attack in the capital city of Ottawa that claimed the life of Canadian reservist Nathan Cirillo. The attacker has been identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a 23-year-old convert to Islam, who was killed by authorities as he opened fire inside the Canadian Parliament. The incident comes just two days after two Canadian soldiers were deliberately struck by a speeding vehicle driven by another Islamic convert, leaving one soldier dead. The twin attacks have demonstrated that even the unassuming nation of Canada is not immune to the threat of Islamic terrorism, which once again has been allowed to flourish under a lax regime of global leadership.

Shortly before 10 a.m. Wednesday morning, Zehaf-Bibeau, using a keffiyeh to cover his face and brandishing a long-barreled rifle, approached the Canadian National War Memorial, dedicated to the memory of Canadian soldiers who have lost their lives in defense of the country. Corporal Cirillo was standing watch at the Tomb of the Unknown solider when he was shot in the abdomen by Zehaf-Bibeau at point-blank range. Zehaf-Bibeau then ran to the Canadian Parliament, where he was killed following a shoot-out with authorities.

Cpl. Cirillo, a 24-year-old father, was rushed to the hospital, but tragically succumbed to his injuries. A parliamentary guard sustained a gunshot wound to the leg during the attack and is said to be recovering.

Warning signs for Canadians have abounded in recent weeks. In early October, reports broke that an ISIS-connected terrorist plot had been thwarted by authorities. Two separate intelligence agencies warned Canadian law-makers that the threat of Islamic radicalism inside the country was growing. However, officials ultimately downplayed the idea that an any attack was imminent. Nonetheless, less than a week ago the government quietly raised the domestic terrorism threat level to medium for the first time in four years.

I have trouble with political labels. I understand they are convenient for political reasons, but they miss the essence of the individual. Compartmentalization works to the advantage of politicians, pollsters and the media, and fits a nation sickened with attention deficit disorder. Instant messaging and Twitter feeds are the way we communicate. Interviews are relayed to viewers in sound bites, designed to fit the political philosophy of the cable station or network running them. Political ads run thirty seconds. Since the principal goal of a political candidate is to get elected, he or she would rather mimic the polls. The last thing any politician wants to do is explain a complex situation that requires thought and reason. Either they don’t understand the problem, or they believe we are incapable.

As humans, we are complex. After almost seven years of writing this column, I thought it useful to more fully explain my beliefs regarding inequality. I get pegged and boxed like everyone else. Some may be surprised; others not, but in fairness I thought this digression worthwhile.

The question of equality is on everyone’s mind. My belief is that the world is Schumpeterian. Change is always with us, and for the most part, the new and the better knock off the old and less viable. There are obvious exceptions, but, on balance, change is healthy. There are times when change is slow and other times when it is revolutionary. We are living through one of the latter periods. But change is also destabilizing. It puts at risk, as do all evolutionary forces, those least capable of adapting.

Inequality is our natural state. There have always been utopian dreamers who have sought a world that was totally equitable. But men and women differ intellectually, physically, emotionally and in their character and aspirations. Some are diligent and hard working; others are careless and lazy. Cynically, both Communism and Nazism promised redistributive equality, but obviously delivered something far different, including oppression and forced inequality.

Our nation was founded with the principle of equality under the law, which is a right, and with the promise of equality of opportunity, which is a worthy, but ultimately unattainable, goal. Some are born to wealth, others to poverty; some to homes with book-lined walls, others to the illiterate; some in cities, others on farms. As a society we can set goals of equal opportunity, but we mislead when we promise what can never be realized.

The state, though, does have a responsibility to ensure that the stairway to social and financial success is available to all. The mark of a fair society is the ease with which intelligence, aspiration and hard work make that escalator accessible.

An expert witness says blacks and Hispanics are “less sophisticated voters” who can’t figure out how to register.

Attorney General Eric Holder has waged a litigation war against voter-ID laws as well as state efforts to reduce early-voting periods and eliminate same-day voter registration. These practical reforms, he huffs, are intended to suppress the votes of minorities. But the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice and a number of civil-rights groups against North Carolina over such measures is unintentionally revealing. The filing makes it clear that these self-appointed champions of minorities have a thoroughly patronizing attitude toward black and Hispanic Americans.

As John Fund has succinctly explained, early voting, a relatively new phenomenon, is a bad idea for several reasons. It increases the expense of campaigns and elections, diffuses the effectiveness of get-out-the vote efforts (potentially hurting turnout), and encourages voters to cast ballots before they have all the relevant information about candidates. Same-day registration is a recipe for fraud, since it prevents election officials from checking eligibility and the accuracy of voter-registration information before the voter casts a ballot.

There is no constitutional right to either early voting or same-day registration. Indeed, many states have neither. Failure to offer these options does not constitute racial discrimination, nor is it discriminatory to shorten an early-voting period to ten days (from 17), as North Carolina has done. Early voting is a costly administrative headache for election officials. That reducing it is de facto racism is the bizarre claim being pushed by the U.S. Justice Department, the NAACP, the ACLU, and others in their suit against North Carolina.

Why are such measures supposedly discriminatory? According to the “experts” hired by the Justice Department and the NAACP to testify in the North Carolina lawsuit, they’re discriminatory because African Americans are “less sophisticated voters” and can’t figure out how to register and vote. No, really, that’s what they said.