Displaying posts published in

March 2017

TRAFFIC IN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA

Skirting the issue by Roger Franklin

Ah, the joys of living in Melbourne, where the constant quest to cement the City on the Yarra’s reputation as ‘the world’s most liveable city’ invokes an exquisite sensitivity to the needs and yearnings of all our many demographic categories and sub-categories. Hence the new pedestrian ‘walk’ signs featuring the silhouette of a women striding boldly into traffic. Apparently, or so one gathers, legions of baffled ladies have been stranded on the kerb, unable to cross the street because they did not relate to the outline of a male pedestrian that formerly directed their footsteps.

Now that this shockingly sexist presumption has been remedied, what next next? In a word, trouble.

Consider the plight of transsexuals, who have been instructed by the Safe Schools curriculum to explore gender fluidity to the point where it may soon be necessary to re-name tuck shops, lest they be mistaken for centres of guidance in the art of genital obscuratanism. Where are the transsexual traffic signs, eh? No doubt they will be introduced in the near future, as the quest for social justice is a never-ending crusade.

And Presbyterians, what of their cultural needs? Surely we could adopt signs urging pedestrians to walk but never dance.

On Southbank, where the local ABC office makes its home, we will need to introduce walk signs that are not green but red. At the corner of Collins and Spencer streets, where the un-subbed Age is headquartered, the signs will need to say ‘WLAK’.

Clearly, the expense of meeting the needs and preferences of pedestrians of all varieties will be a costly exercise, so what to do?

Here is a modest proposal that advocates of multiculturalism, feminists and tokenists of all stripes are bound to endorse, as it will further encourage the cultural enrichment on which they are so keen. Atop this post is a pedestrian-crossing sign from Qatar that would be perfect for Melbourne.

Muslims will recognise one of their own and be happy. Women will construe the long robe as a dress and be no less satisfied. The figure’s short hair will please lesbians of the butch variety and, for that matter, short-back-and-sides crossdressers. What we will have is a simple, cost-effective palliative for the grievances of one and all.

Monica Crowley: Plagiarism Charges Were a ‘Political Hit Job’ By Debra Heine

Conservative columnist Monica Crowley, in her first appearance since a plagiarism scandal forced her to forgo a White House position as deputy national security advisor, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday night that the allegations were a hit job that was part of a greater effort to destabilize and destroy the president.

“What happened to me was a despicable straight-up political hit job,” said Crowley. “It’s been debunked, my editor has completely supported me and backed me up.”

In January, Crowley’s publisher HarperCollins pulled all copies of her book, What The (Bleep) Just Happened?, from shelves following allegations of plagiarism raised by CNN.

“The book, which has reached the end of its natural sales cycle, will no longer be offered for purchase until such time as the author has the opportunity to source and revise the material,” the publisher, which is owned by News Corp., told CNN in a statement.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy recently defended Crowley at National Review, saying that the uproar over the plagiarism allegations took “an emotional toll” on his friend.

McCarthy said Crowley’s oversights had been “blown wildly out of proportion, to the point of smear,” citing copyright attorney Lynn Chu’s careful study of the plagiarism allegations.

Ms. Chu concluded:

I found CNN’s splashy “plagiarism” accusation to be ill-supported — a heavily exaggerated, political hit job. Instead, after reading texts side by side with footnotes, I came away impressed by the very high quality and care taken by Ms. Crowley in her writing, scholarship and research overall. Many parallels in fact read on the page as rather different even if certain content or phrases were the same, and they were largely short, fragmentary, and routine. Historical research inevitably draws heavily on the work of other scholars. Dissertations exist to synthesize. The relatively few examples of unsourced copying found was in my opinion de minimus, should just be corrected, and not allowed to besmirch Ms. Crowley’s reputation.

“There is a very toxic—and it’s getting increasingly toxic and poisonous—atmosphere of personal destruction in Washington and the media…It’s always sort of been there, but now it’s at a whole different level,” Crowley told Hannity.

“In some ways, I was something of the canary in the coal mine — the attack on me was a test,” she continued. “What happened to me, what happened to General Flynn, what’s happened to Attorney General Sessions and others is all of a piece. There is a very dangerous and very effective destabilization campaign underway against this president, his administration, and his agenda.”

Crowley warned that forces are not only trying to delegitimize Trump, they want to personally destroy him.

“They are out for blood,” she declared. “And the reason they have to destroy him is that Donald Trump is an alien organism that has been injected into the body politic by the American people to reform it. He must not be allowed to succeed. They have swarmed him, they have swarmed everyone around him, in order to reject him out of the system. Just like any alien organism.” CONTINUE AT SITE

MARITAL ADVICE FROM ISIS…

ISIS Warns of ‘Lack of Manliness’ in Marriage in Relationship Advice Column By Bridget Johnson
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/03/08/isis-warns-of-lack-of-manliness-in-marriage-in-relationship-advice-column/

The latest issue of ISIS’ Rumiyah magazine, which in the past has included how-to articles on terror tactics and calls to attack Western sites, wades into relationship advice with a new article warning husbands and wives against talking about their marriage behind their spouse’s back.

“Some spouses – be they men or women – are not careful when it comes to exposing their homes to gossip and idle talk. We often find husbands talking about the problems that happen between them and their wives in both private and public gatherings, and also find that wives do so as well. Each of them might mention the other, in the latter’s absence, with displeasing terms,” states the article titled “The Flesh of Your Spouse Is Poisonous.”

“Backbiting is a disease of the tongue that only incurs ruin and loss,” argues the terror group, adding that neither spouse “is allowed to backbite the other – even when one is right concerning his claims.”

The ISIS advice heaps particular scorn upon women backbiting “their husband and their co-wife” and wistfully noted “if some of them were to only limit themselves to listening!”

“When one woman complains against her husband, some of her friends react with incitement and provocation. Worse still, some women even guide their sister to the court and explain the procedure for divorce,” the terror group continued.

“…The same applies regarding one’s co-wife. Many women do not refrain from speaking ill of their co-wives. Instead, among them is she who would go as far as to insult her co-wife and curse her in her absence due to excessive jealousy. This happens during a meeting of women or in the presence of the husband, who often has no clue as to what he can do! Should he fight off the hostility of this sharp-tongued woman against himself or against his absent wife? Indeed, Allah’s help must be sought!”

Parsing Clapper What he said was probably true, but what he didn’t say was more revealing. By Andrew C. McCarthy

In Monday’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty usefully outlined some intriguing statements made by former Obama national intelligence director James Clapper regarding the FISA surveillance controversy. Clapper’s remarks, in an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on Sunday, are being taken as a blanket denial of the allegations that the Obama administration used the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Trump-campaign figures, potentially including Trump himself.

But what Clapper said is far from a wholesale rejection of the allegations. To be sure, General Clapper’s statements convincingly shoot down the claim that Trump himself was wiretapped by the government. But to my knowledge, no one has made that claim other than President Trump, in a series of controversial tweets on Saturday morning. Clapper’s statements do nothing to undermine the overarching allegation that the Obama Justice Department investigated associates of Trump who had varying connections to his campaign.

I’m going to assume the truth of General Clapper’s statements. Understandably, many commentators stress that, in the past, he has been caught testifying to things that were untrue (denying bulk metadata collection by intelligence agencies) or ridiculous (asserting that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular”). Making false or misleading statements under oath is serious business, so obviously this history weighs on Clapper’s credibility.

Still, I’ve never believed he was fundamentally a shady character. On the metadata issue, he gave an untrue answer to a senator who intentionally asked an unfair question about classified information in a public setting (though that, of course, is no justification for answering falsely). On the Muslim Brotherhood, he was dutifully toeing the Obama line — not admirable, but not shocking. Those things aside, Clapper is a longtime soldier and intelligence pro, generally well regarded by his peers. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that, in the Sunday interview, he was trying in good faith to walk the difficult tightrope of answering questions accurately while not compromising sensitive or classified information.

Now, before parsing General Clapper’s statements, let’s rehearse the allegations that have been made about Obama-administration investigative activity against the Trump circle — understanding (as I underscored in yesterday’s column) that we are necessarily speculating based on reporting that we cannot verify because the relevant documents (if they exist) have not been disclosed.

Khizr Khan’s story that his travel privileges were ‘restricted’ comes apart By Rick Moran

Khizr Kahn, the Gold Star father whose speech at the Democratic National Convention became a sensation when he accused Donald Trump of never having read the Constitution, says he was forced to cancel a speech in Canada because his travel privileges were being “reviewed” by the U.S. government. Now, after several attempts by news outlets to clarify how it is possible that a U.S. citizen could be denied travel, it has become an open question whether Khan is lying.

Washington Post:

Ramsay Talks, the organizer of the event Khan was to speak at, seemed to take Khan at his word on Monday and included a statement from him in a cancellation post on Facebook. “This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad,” said Khan, according to the post. “I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.”

The claim, which does not state which U.S. agency contacted him, immediately raised doubts about how it was possible that a U.S. citizen was being prevented from traveling abroad.

On Tuesday, Bob Ramsay, who runs Ramsay Talks, said he didn’t know the specifics of Khan’s predicament. “I don’t know exactly who conducted the review, but in speaking with Mr. Khan, it was certainly U.S. authorities,” Ramsay said. “That’s all I know.”

As questions about his motivations for making the claim swirl, Khan has refused to elaborate on his initial statement to The Washington Post and other publications. A more detailed request for clarification did not receive an immediate response Tuesday afternoon.

It is unclear whether Khan has previously traveled outside the United States since he was naturalized.

U.S. citizens don’t need visas to enter Canada, or even the electronic travel authorizations required of all other foreign visitors there. As a general rule, the United States cannot prevent passport-holding citizens from traveling if they have not been charged with a crime. Public records indicate that Khan has no criminal history, either at the federal level, in Charlottesville, where he lives, or in Silver Spring, his previous place of residence. Furthermore, U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Politico that, as a rule, it does not contact travelers before their trips.

The Canadian foreign ministry also denied issuing any review of Khan’s ability to travel there.

“We are unaware of any restrictions regarding this traveler,” said Camielle Edwards, spokeswoman for Canada’s Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen.

Obama’s Snowflakes By Karin McQuillan ****

As President Trump focuses on jobs, Barack Obama’s oddness as a President is thrown into relief. How little we heard about jobs during Obama’s two terms — not even jobs in the inner city. We did hear a great deal about racism and sexism and homophobia on college campuses. On college campuses?

The media created the impression that Obama didn’t do much as president besides fundraise and play golf. He was actually both busy and effective in radicalizing his chosen identity groups.

It is not necessary for the hard-left to win over a majority of their targeted demographics. They only need to create a vocal, domineering minority that gets their hands on the levers of power and money. Nowhere do we see the success of this strategy more than on college campuses.

Jobs for radicals was Obama’s major jobs initiative: get progressives hired on campus, where they recruit thousands of young people, encouraging vulnerable kids to major in grievance studies, then use threats and funds from the federal government, and campus agitation to require more hiring of grievance professors and staff, more power for the hard left.

Obama’s Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department and the Department of Education’s own Office for Civil Rights accused our colleges of being hotbeds of racism and rape. In response, colleges staffed up their rape protection, diversity and bias offices – 150 full time professionals at U.C. Berkeley alone. These professional community organizers set to work creating a culture of antagonism and grievance on campus. They turned colleges into centers of progressive indoctrination and bullying.

UC Berkeley’s Division of Equity and Inclusion has placed vertical banners across the main campus reminding students of the contemporary university’s paramount mission: assigning guilt and innocence within the ruthlessly competitive hierarchy of victimhood. Each banner shows a photo … beside a purported quotation from that student or bureaucrat. (snip) “I will think before I speak and act,” promises a white male student from the class of 2016. … it means: “I will mentally scan the University of California’s official list of microaggressions …

The transformation of our campuses into Orwellian safe spaces for snowflakes did not happen spontaneously. There was a snow machine behind it all. Obama’s Department of Education sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to every campus in America, threatening them with sexual discrimination lawsuits and loss of federal funds. Due process for those accused, protection for free speech or freedom of religion, were no longer allowed on campus – our Bill of Rights is redefined as abusive to victims.

Williams documents how she went from being “Dean of Students” (to) “Dean of Sexual Assault

“… because of misguided pressure from the Office of Civil Rights and the Obama administration as part of their hysterical campaign against the alleged campus rape culture.

The new head of the DNC, Tom Perez, led the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. He deliberately scared the heck out of college administrations:

For reasons that baffled us all, OCR released a list of colleges and universities under investigation for alleged Title IX complaints, despite the fact that these institutions had not yet been found to be in violation of anything.

So Far, So Good, Mr. Trump Seven weeks in and he’s sticking to his promises to help the urban poor and improve school choice. Jason Riley

During the campaign, Donald Trump said that improving the quality of life in our nation’s inner cities would be a focus of his presidency and that better outcomes for the urban poor would flow from better educational opportunities. Apparently, it wasn’t just talk.

Since winning the election, Mr. Trump has tapped a school-choice stalwart in Betsy DeVos to head the Education Department. In a joint address to Congress last week, he called for an education bill that would allow low-income families “to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them.” On Friday, Mr. Trump and Mrs. DeVos visited a Catholic school in Orlando, Fla., where hundreds of low-income students attend with the help of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program.

The Washington Post reported that Mr. Trump’s was the first visit to a Catholic school by a sitting president since Ronald Reagan in 1984 and “a clear signal that the Trump administration intends to push forward with expanding school choice as a key priority.” That’s welcome news to millions of low-income minority parents nationwide who have long expressed overwhelming support for reforms that would free their children to matriculate at schools not controlled by teachers unions.

President Obama also claimed to support school choice, but he was referring only to those education options approved by the teachers unions that bankroll the Democratic Party. In practice, the Obama administration worked to shut down voucher programs in Washington and elsewhere and thus reduce choice for the disadvantaged. For Mr. Trump, school choice means the parents get to decide—not the president or special-interest groups. There’s a reason why 56% of voters tell pollsters that President Trump is doing what he said he would do.

Now that the Senate has approved Ben Carson as housing secretary, the administration is poised to help poor communities in other ways. A primary function of the Housing and Urban Development Department is to oversee various rental-assistance programs for people in need. How these HUD initiatives are administered at the federal and local levels can have a major impact on the life outcomes of our most vulnerable citizens.

As someone who was raised in poverty before becoming a world-renowned brain surgeon, Mr. Carson knows that his background differs greatly from that of the typical Washington bureaucrat, let alone cabinet secretary. In some respects this means he will bring a different perspective to the task. But it also means that he has his work cut out for him. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Carson said that in preparation for the new job he would go on a “listening tour” of the country. Instead of talking only to “the sage people of D.C.,” he quipped, “I want to hear from people with boots on the ground who are administering programs.” Imagine that. CONTINUE AT SITE

ISIS Trading in Antiquities and People By Eileen F. Toplansky

With the Jewish holiday of Purim approaching, it is incumbent upon all decent people — whatever their religious persuasion — to fully understand that ISIS jihadists are the lineal descendents of the cruel and ancient Amalekites with their bestial destruction of people.

In fact, “[i]n rabbinic literature, the reasons for the unusual eternal remembrance of Amalek are the following: (1) Amalek is the irreconcilable enemy and it is forbidden to show mercy foolishly to one wholly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Moreover, the attack of the Amalekites upon the Israelites encouraged others. All the tragedies which Israel suffered are considered the direct outcome of Amalek’s hostile act.”

Though the evil may begin with the Jews, it will always encompass everyone else.

Thus, at Jihad Files, one learns that “ISIS is now apparently instructing its followers on the religious protocols of cannibalism.” This follows the nauseating news that 250 children were murdered through bread kneading machinery and men were baked alive. Moreover, jihadists throughout the world offer money to behead Islamic scholars who disagree with them. Yazidi girls are sold as sex slaves and little girls ages 7-9 bleed to death after being raped by ISIS militia multiple times a day.

And such abhorrent ideas are promoted in the West when Georgetown University, Professor Jonathan Brown emphatically states that “consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex.” Thus, “marital-rape is an invalid concept in Islam” and “a male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her.” Rape of the infidel certainly does not merit any concern because “her ‘consent’ would be meaningless since she is his slave.” In fact, Brown asserts that “it’s not immoral for one human to own another human.”

Then one learns that “an estimated 49 percent of individuals indicted for carrying out or conspiring to perpetrate a terrorist attack linked to the Islamic State are ‘from established Muslim countries.'” Equally disturbing is that “the vast majority (83 percent) of ISIS indictees are naturalized U.S. citizens, and 65 percent are born in this country.”

That Trump’s newest executive order mandates government reports on honor killings committed by migrants is a solid first step in stopping the madness of “gender-based violence against women.” Katie McHugh asserts that “like female genital mutilation, [honor killing] is a practice that would not exist in the U.S. without mass immigration bringing its practitioners into U.S. communities.”

On another front, Yaya J. Fanusie and Alexander Joffee published “Monumental Fight: Countering the Islamic State’s Antiquities Trafficking” which was published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This November 2015 report highlights that “although the antiquities trade is considerably smaller than other elements of the IS financial portfolios, it offers the group the prospect of high mark-ups, global demand, a low likelihood for military disruption, and a willing pool of civilians who supply labor for the trade.”

Since 2010 there appears to be a 23% uptick in antiques arriving from the area that the Islamic State controls. IS generates “enough revenue within the territory it controls to cover a payroll of hundreds of millions of dollars in its fighters’ annual salaries.”

Although oil remains the group’s most important commodity, “the role of foreign funders directly through cash or indirectly through Islamic charities” aids IS because it avoids a trail of transactions while also exploiting the Qatari and Kuwaiti banking systems.”

Dozens Killed in ISIS Attack on Kabul Military Hospital The gunmen disguised themselves as doctors to penetrate the hospital’s security cordon By Ehsanullah Amiri and Margherita Stancati

KABUL—Islamic State fighters disguised as doctors fought elite government forces inside Afghanistan’s largest military hospital on Wednesday in a seven-hour battle that left at least 30 people dead and 50 others wounded, Afghan officials said.

Islamic State’s regional affiliate, Khorasan Province, said it carried out the attack, which began when a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb at the entrance of the heavily guarded medical facility in the Afghan capital. In a statement, Khorasan Province said four of its fighters armed with suicide vests then entered the compound.

As the gunmen and security forces exchanged fire inside the complex, hospital personnel scurried to protect patients and evacuate them to safety. Among those killed were an unknown number of doctors, the Afghan defense ministry said.

A photo distributed by Islamic State’s official Amaq news agency purportedly taken inside the besieged hospital showed what it said was a militant posing next to an automatic rifle, wearing a surgical mask and holding a dagger. Another photo showed the bodies of unidentified victims. All the gunmen died in the fighting, Afghan officials said.

Getting to the Bottom of a Climate Crusade Are investigations by the ‘Green 20’ an effort to intimidate scientific dissenters? By Rep. Lamar Smith(R-Texas 21) see note please

Mr. Smith, a Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He is rated a minus 4 by the Arab American Institute for his strong support for Israel.

Transparency for thee, but not for me—that seems to be the motto of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Last year they led a group of their colleagues—dubbed the “Green 20”—in a sweeping initiative to target dissenting views on climate change. Exxon Mobil, for instance, was asked to turn over decades of documents.

The Green 20 investigations have been criticized as blatantly political. Last year a federal judge overseeing Ms. Healey’s suit against Exxon expressed concern that she may be conducting it in “bad faith.”

For nearly a year, the congressional committee I lead has been trying to understand the effects of these investigations on scientific research. Unfortunately, the attorneys general have obstructed our inquiry at every turn. Last July, after two months of unanswered requests for information, the committee issued subpoenas to Mr. Schneiderman and Ms. Healey.
The subpoenas asked for communications between Green 20 offices and environmental activists. This would show the level of coordination in this campaign to harass and silence scientists who challenge prevailing climate-change orthodoxies. The attorneys general have refused to comply, hiding behind vague excuses.

The committee has not sought information about the investigations of Exxon. Instead, our interest is in discovering how this attempt at intimidation affects federally funded scientific research. Then we may consider changing the law to allow this research to continue.

The hypocrisy of the attorneys general here is evident—though perhaps understandable. Mr. Schneiderman has accepted nearly $300,000 in campaign donations from environmentalist donors, including members of the Soros family. He has also used the investigation as a way to curry favor with anti-Exxon billionaire Tom Steyer for a potential gubernatorial run, according to the New York Post.