Displaying posts published in

June 2016

Daryl McCann Hillary’s Nocturnal Omissions

In the light of day she mouths the pablum and platitudes her supporters want to hear. It’s not the Islamist holding the gun that is the problem, she says, but the gun itself. And the crowds cheer, which is no less than her due. All that midnight work erasing an inconvenient record deserves some acclaim.
In the aftermath of December 2, 2015, San Bernardino massacre, Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton paid careful attention to her PC-observant supporter base: “I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now.” However, she did begin to speak more frequently about the perils of terrorism, especially after the March 22, 2016, Brussels carnage. Clinton presented herself as the sensible alternative to Donald Trump and his fellow Republican presidential candidates, who she disparaged for using inflammatory terms such as “radical Islamic terrorism”, rather than her less jarring descriptor, “radical jihadist terrorism”.

After the horrific Orlando atrocity, in the early hours of Sunday, June 12, Hillary Clinton has again depicted herself as the presidential candidate with the no-nonsense, effectual wherewithal to combat both domestic and international terrorism.

Politicians are frequently casual with the truth. Maybe it goes with the territory of wanting to appear sincere about an issue in the glare of the media spotlight, only to be caught out when the situation changes and public opinion shifts to a different position. Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate for high office who could be embarrassed by a visual record of policy reversals, as in this awkward collection, and yet is there not something disturbing about the high-handed manner in which she relentlessly insists that day is night?

In the same vein, a new paperback edition of Clinton’s memoir, Hard Choices, omits passages containing views that are no longer expedient. In the hardback Hard Choices (2014), Hillary Clinton supported President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and wrote favourably about his 2011 military intervention in Libya. However, to neutralise Bernie Sanders’ left-populist (or “democratic socialist”) challenge during the Democratic Party primaries, Clinton jettisoned these and a range of other, suddenly unhelpful opinions championed in the hardback version of her memoirs. The expurgation visited upon the new edition of Hard Choices is, according to publisher Simon & Schuster, “to accommodate a shorter length” – or, more accurately perhaps, the disposing of inconvenient truths in the memory hole.

Is there a pattern here? Take the case of the relatives of three of those killed in the second 9/11, the 2012 Benghazi bloodbath, C.I.A. contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Foreign Services officer Sean Smith. Most of them are emphatic that in their various encounters with Hillary Clinton, the then-Secretary of State blamed an online video made by an Egyptian Copt living in the U.S.A. for the murder of the men. For instance, Tyrone Woods’ father, who took notes at his meeting, said this: “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.” Hillary Clinton continues to deny this.

Peter Smith Eeny, Meeny, Miny but Never Mo’

Another massacre and where to sheet the blame? Polite convention precludes making more than passing mention of the killer’s creed, while ‘too many guns’ and ‘mental illness’ are getting tired. So let’s settle on a non-specific strain of homophobia and leave the Prophet out of it
Another barbaric Islamic terrorist massacre, killing 49 people and injuring over 50 in an Orlando gay nightclub; and the heart searching begins among the mentally challenged. What drove American-born, Afghani-parented, frequent-mosque-attending, prayer-mat-toting, Omar Mateen? It is a mystery.

His ex-wife said he was mentally unstable. He apparently beat her and kept her housebound. CNN after flirting as best they could with all kinds of possibilities, including white supremacism, had a get out. Of course, it makes sense now; he was around the bend. Well, wife-beating and keeping women secluded might just be the way devout male Muslims go about their lives. Sounds crazy to us but not to an Afghani or, say, Saudi-Arabian, I dare say.

President Obama couldn’t bring himself yet again to mention Islam as being complicit, though he did manage to blame guns. Expect the gun laws in the US to get most emphasis by Democrats who are clearly oblivious to the zero correlation between worldwide terrorist attacks and gun laws. There is no accounting for sheer wilful blindness and imbecility.

Mind you it is likely that Mateen was unbalanced. I tend to think that anyone who would deliberately gun down people in a nightclub is probably deranged. But where does that get us when clearly there are so many deranged people inspired by Islamic scripture.

Wikipedia lists 220 worldwide Islamic terrorist attacks in the six years 2010 – 2015, which have received “significant press coverage.” So far 29 are listed for 2016, including the Orlando attack. Countless other less significant attacks have occurred. It is quite easy to see online estimates of over 20,000 Islamic attacks since 9/11.

These are numbers of plague proportions carried out by people who are apparently mentally unbalanced. Is it something in the water? In fact, it is something in the book. And more of us better start comprehending that before we are buried as a civilisation – the LGBT crowd among them.

It just might have been no accident that Mateen targeted a gay nightclub at the start of Ramadan. There is plenty of support in the Hadiths for killing homosexuals, including by throwing them from high buildings. Of course Islamic apologists are fond of quoting Old Testament condemnation of sodomy. I too would think this relevant if there were bodies of Jewish or Christian religious zealots who went around giving life to these passages by encouraging the killing of homosexuals. As it is, it is totally and completely irrelevant and, I suspect, deliberately deceptive and distracting.

Trump Plays the Radical Islam Card The GOP candidate forces Hillary Clinton to address language she has avoided.By William McGurn

On Sunday morning, the nation awoke to the news that nearly 50 innocent people had been murdered by a gunman at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando. Soon they would learn the shooter was 29-year-old Omar Mateen, born in America to parents of Afghan origin.

In other words, a heavily-armed man with Afghan parents and a Muslim name had targeted a gay nightclub for his bloody rampage. And yet as the American people watched those Sunday press conferences on their TV sets, they were treated to a parade of officials, including the obligatory imam, all reluctant to connect the killer with anything suggesting Islam.

At 1:59 p.m. it was the president’s turn.

Though he did call the slaughter at Pulse an “act of terror,” anyone relying on Barack Obama for a read of the situation would have had no idea that the killings at a Florida nightclub might have been inspired by the same ideology behind the forces still confronting American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now ask yourself: Does this undermine the Trump message or fuel it?
On Monday, after a security briefing, President Obama conceded the shooter was “inspired by various extremist information” online. His sole reference to what this might be was a line about the “perversions of Islam that you see generated on the internet.”

Characteristically Monday found Mr. Trump repeating his call for a temporary ban on Muslims. Let’s stipulate this call is all his critics say it is: overly broad and not well thought out, given, for example, that to defeat the Islamists making war on America we will need the full assistance both of Muslim nations and individual Muslims, not least Muslim Americans.

But Mr. Trump’s comments are not received in a vacuum. They come in the context of an Obama administration and a Hillary Clinton campaign that, 15 years after al Qaeda hijackers flew civilian airliners into buildings in New York and Washington, still have trouble acknowledging radical Islam as a motivating force. CONTINUE AT SITE

President Canute and Orlando Barack Obama discovers too late that he cannot order the tide of war to recede. Bret Stephens

In the spring of 2013 Barack Obama delivered the defining speech of his presidency on the subject of terrorism. Its premise was wrong, as was its thesis, as were its predictions and recommendations. We are now paying the price for this cascade of folly.

“Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants,” the president boasted at the National Defense University, in Washington, D.C. “There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.” The “future of terrorism,” he explained, consisted of “less capable” al Qaeda affiliates, “localized threats” against Westerners in faraway places such as Algeria, and homegrown killers like the Boston Marathon bombers.

All of this suggested that it was time to call it quits on what Mr. Obama derided as “a boundless ‘global war on terror.’ ” That meant sharply curtailing drone strikes, completing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, and closing Guantanamo prison. It meant renewing efforts “to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians” and seeking “transitions to democracy” in Libya and Egypt. And it meant working with Congress to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al Qaeda.

“This war, like all wars, must end,” he said. “That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

King Canute of legend stood on an English shoreline and ordered the tide to recede. President Canute stood before a Beltway audience and ordered the war to end. Neither tide nor war obeyed.

In 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq—Islamic State’s predecessor—was “dead on its feet,” as terrorism expert Michael Knights told Congress. World-wide, the U.S. government estimated al Qaeda’s total strength at no more than 4,000 fighters. That was the result of George W. Bush’s surge in Iraq, of Mr. Obama’s own surge in Afghanistan, and of the aggressive campaign of drone killings in Pakistan and Yemen.

But then the Obama Doctrine kicked in. Between 2010 and 2013 the number of jihadists world-wide doubled, to 100,000, while the number of jihadist groups rose by 58%, according to a Rand Corp. study. That was before ISIS declared its caliphate. CONTINUE AT SITE

Islam’s Jihad Against Homosexuals The rise of modern Islamic extremism has worsened an institutionalized Muslim homophobia. By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The Orlando massacre is a hideous reminder to Americans that homophobia is an integral part of Islamic extremism. That isn’t to say that some people of other faiths and ideologies aren’t hostile to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community. Nor is to say that Islamic extremists don’t target other minorities, in addition to engaging in wholly indiscriminate violence. But it is important to establish why a man like Omar Mateen could be motivated to murder 49 people in a gay nightclub, interrupting the slaughter, as law-enforcement officials reported, to dial 911, proclaim his support for Islamic State and then pray to Allah.

I offer an explanation in the form of four propositions.

1. Muslim homophobia is institutionalized. Islamic law as derived from scripture, and as evolved over several centuries, not only condemns but prescribes cruel and unusual punishments for homosexuality.

2. Many Muslim-majority countries have laws that criminalize and punish homosexuals in line with Islamic law.

3. It is thus not surprising that the attitudes of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries are homophobic and that many people from those countries take those attitudes with them when they migrate to the West.

4. The rise of modern Islamic extremism has worsened the intolerance toward homosexuality. Extremists don’t just commit violence against LGBT people. They also spread the prejudice globally by preaching that homosexuality is a disease and a crime.

Not all Muslims are homophobic. Many are gay or lesbian themselves. Some even have the courage to venture into the gender fluidity that the 21st century West has come to recognize. But these LGBT Muslims are running directly counter to their religion.

In his 2006 book “Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law,” the Dutch scholar Rudolph Peters notes that most schools of Islamic law proscribe homosexuality. They differ only on the mode of punishment. “The Malikites, the Shiites and some Shafi’ites and Hanbalites are of the opinion that the penalty is death, either by stoning (Malikites), the sword (some Shafi’ites and Hanbalites) or, at the discretion of the court, by killing the culprit in the usual manner with a sword, stoning him, throwing him from a (high) wall or burning him (Shiites).”

Under Shariah—Islamic law—those engaging in same-sex sexual acts can be sentenced to death in nearly a dozen countries or in large areas of them: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, the northern states of Nigeria, southern parts of Somalia, two provinces in Indonesia, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates. Death is also the penalty in the territories in

Saudi Arabia’s New Oil Policy by Sabah Khadri

Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed’s vision for Saudi Arabia, the way he puts it, is as a country no longer dependent on oil; with a growing economy and transparent laws, which will consequently give it a strong position in the world.

The prince has already received negative blowback from conservative members of the Al Saud clan. They have been resistant to change in the past and may not appreciate new reforms which might threaten their authority in the country.

The status quo is that Saudis are raised with the conviction that the state will always provide for their needs, healthcare and security, in exchange for their loyalty to the ruling Al Saud clan. However, the recent oil crisis has witnessed many luxuries stripped away from the Saudi people, as the state prepared to deal with a growing budget deficit. The move to impose taxes, a concept alien to the country, is sure to create discontent among ordinary Saudi people.

Saudi Arabia, long associated with oil wealth and extravagance, has decided that time has come for it to revamp its image. Last year, King Salman, 80, ascended the Saudi throne, and since then has unleashed major reforms, introduced a more assertive domestic and foreign policy, and handed over the reins of some of the most significant posts of the Saudi leadership to a younger group of Saudi leaders.

The driving force behind these reforms is the 30-year-old deputy crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, otherwise known as MBS. Prince Mohammed’s vision for Saudi Arabia, the way he puts it, is as a country no longer dependent on oil; with a growing economy and transparent laws, which will consequently give it a strong position in the world. All of this may come across as appealing, but the ability of Prince Mohammed to deliver these reforms depends on several variables. To succeed, Prince Mohammed, although he enjoys a broad mandate, still needs the support of the rest of the country.

RUTHIE BLUM: IT’S GLOBAL JIHAD STUPID

Shouting “Allahu akbar,” a 29-year-old American citizen with roots in Afghanistan entered a Florida nightclub at 2 a.m. on Sunday morning and committed what is being called “the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.”

Prior to slaughtering at least 50 people and seriously wounding dozens of others, Omar Mateen phoned 9-1-1 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Mateen had planned the massacre in advance, purposely targeting a venue known to be frequented by lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgenders — the perfect personification of liberal Western values considered abhorrent to radical Muslims, regardless of their specific jihadist affiliation.

The FBI promptly launched an investigation into the now-dead Mateen, who had been working as a security guard at G4S Secure Solutions since 2007. It quickly emerged, however, that Mateen was already on the FBI’s radar for having various ties to Islamic radicalism.

About 10 hours after the massacre, with bodies still inside The Pulse — Orlando’s self-described “premier gay nightclub” — President Barack Obama addressed the nation to condemn the horrific incident, which, surprisingly, he referred to as an act of terror. Not the least bit surprisingly, he refused to utter the word “Islamist.” Instead, he declared the perpetrator a person “filled with hate.”

On a Fox News panel in the aftermath of the bloodbath, counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka stressed the need for the White House and the world to acknowledge the clear connection between this attack and all the others with the same ideology. Linking the Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels massacres, Gorka — author, most recently, of “Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War” — was the only one who mentioned Israel. The point he was making, and has been trying to hit home in his writings and lectures, is that the Islamist assault on the West is not a series of individual lone-wolf attacks, but rather a global movement, whose “propaganda by deed” is terrorism. And, he said, these recent acts, unlike the 9/11 attacks, are relatively small in scope and cheap to carry out, but nevertheless terrorize and paralyze whole cities. In other words, they get a lot of bang for their buck, both literally and figuratively.

Ripping Apart the Second Amendment Jed Babbin

In the wake of Orlando, “good cause” suddenly takes on new meaning.http://spectator.org/ripping-apart-the-second-amendment/
“Last week’s decision in Peralta v. San Diego County attacked the Second Amendment directly. And now, of course, Obama is blaming the Orlando massacre on everything except Islamic terrorism. Imagine how the Supreme Court will look – and how the Bill of Rights will be destroyed — by an Obama/Clinton court.”

Last week, in the case of Peralta v. County of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the California law that requires applicants for concealed carry permits to show “good cause” — i.e., a need specific to the person — in order to obtain such a permit. The law leaves to county sheriffs how to define the term “good cause.”

California law doesn’t bar home ownership of firearms, but it does prohibit transporting loaded firearms even when going to or from a target range. It also exempts security guards and the like.

Sustaining a lower court’s decision upholding the California law, the Ninth Circuit could have limited its ruling by finding, as some other courts have, that the “good cause” requirement is reasonable. But it didn’t. The Ninth Circuit (the most liberal in the nation, and the most reversed by the Supreme Court), went far beyond to create a direct challenge to the Second Amendment. It held that “…the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Most of us thought that this matter was disposed of by the late Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Orlando Jihad Carnage, and A Mainstream, Authoritative U.S. Muslim Fatwa on “Atrocious” Homosexuality and Its Lethal Punishment by Andrew Bostom

The late Taher Jaber al-Alwani (d. March, 2016), trained at Al-Azhar University, founded in 973 C.E., and Sunni Islam’s most prestigious religious teaching institution since the mid-13th century, till now. Receiving his Ph.D in Islamic Law from Al-Azhar in 1973, al-Alwani subsequently taught Islamic Law at the Imam Muhammad b. Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Al-Alwani participated in the founding of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in the United States in 1981. He was also a founding member of the Council of the Muslim World League in Mecca, a member of the international Organization of Islamic Cooperation Islamic Fiqh [Islamic Jurisprudence] Academy in Jeddah, since 1987, and President of the Fiqh Council of North America from 1988, till his recent death. In short, al-Alwani was a highly trained, greatly respected, mainstream Muslim authority on Islamic Law, internationally, and within the US.

Al-Alwani’s June 18, 2003 “fatwa” on homosexuality—an Islamic “legal” ruling per Islam’s theo-political totalitarian “legal” system, the Sharia, merits careful consideration in the wake of pious Muslim jihadist Omar Marteen’s mass murderous attack on an Orlando gay night club early yesterday, Sunday, June 12, 2016.

Citing precedent from the Koran itself, and the most trusted hadith or “traditions” of Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, and human behavior prototype, al-Alwani makes plain homosexuality is a “moral atrocity,” punishable by death in the corporeal world, and eternal torment in the hereafter.

[I]t should be clear that homosexuality is sinful and shameful. In Islamic terminology it is called ‘Al-Fahsha’ or an atrocious and obscene act. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts, nor in any way indulge in their propagation. Allah says, “Those who love (to see) obscenity published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not.” (Al-Nur [chapter 24]: 19)

Highways to Hell Paved With Utopian Dreams Book Review by By Andrew Harrod, PhD.

In an era of resurgent collectivism, Religious Freedom Coalition founder William J. Murray “stands athwart history yelling ‘stop’” with his new book Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World with Central Planning. Therein he provides a valuable primer into mankind’s rogue gallery of radicals who have ravaged humanity from antiquity to the present with interrelated utopian delusions both authoritarian and hedonistic in nature.

The born-again Christian conservative Murray brings unique personal perspective to his intellectual subject matter as a self-professed “‘Red diaper’ baby.” His family attempted to defect to the Soviet Union in 1960 and as a teenager he met Communist Party USA chairman Gus Hall, among other leftist luminaries. Murray has thus “served nearly equal periods of my life on opposing sides of reality.”

Murray surveys the collectivist thought of intellectuals from Plato, born in 429 B.C. in Athens, to Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 socialist paean Looking Backward, and President Woodrow Wilsonadvisor Edward Mandell House. “If Plato had lived in the early nineteenth century, he would likely have become a dedicated Marxist,” Murray interestingly reveals. Plato’s Republic, for example, envisioned a society that denied medical care to the chronically ill who had no value to the state.

Likewise English statesman Sir Thomas More’s 1516 book Utopia described a totalitarian government that offered free medical care but urged gravely ill persons to commit suicide. Utopianism’s namesake fictional writing “had great influence on the collectivist leaders of the twentieth century,” Murray notes. Vladimir Lenin “championed More’s Utopia as worthy of honor in his newly created worker’s paradise of the Soviet Union.”

Statistics cited by Murray attributing almost 100 million deaths to Communist regimes bear witness to Marxism’s harsh reality. “This is the legacy of utopian thinking: people die by the millions,” he writes, and quotes William Bradford’s seminal 1623 recounting of the Pilgrims’ experiment with collective agriculture. Struggling for survival in a harsh, infant New England colony removed from intellectual thought experiments, the Plymouth governor noted that the Pilgrims experienced the

emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.