Displaying posts published in

August 2017

In Britain, They’re Still Ignoring the Islamic Roots of ‘Grooming’ Gangs By Bruce Bawer

A few years ago, when the news reached the public that Muslim “sex grooming gangs,” for over two decades, had been systematically engaged in the mass rape of non-Muslim girls in the English city of Rotherham – and that local police and other government authorities had known about these atrocities for a long time but had said and done nothing for fear of being considered bigots – one thing seemed all but certain: this couldn’t just be going on in Rotherham.

It wasn’t. On August 10, the Express published a handy list of British cities that, since the Rotherham case exploded, have also been found to be targeted by similar sex-abuse rings. In 2012, nine men were convicted of having run such a gang in Rochdale, outside Manchester. In 2013, a group of Pakistanis and north Africans went to jail for the same crime in Oxford. In 2014, it was Somalis in Bristol.

Other places that are so far known to have been affected included Aylesbury, Peterborough, and Keighley – a motley grab-bag of municipalities, big and small, scattered across England from north to south. A piece in the Daily Mail the other day mentioned that grooming gangs have been uncovered in at least sixteen British towns and cities so far.

And there’s no reason to think that it ends there. Why Keighley and Aylesbury and not London and Liverpool, Bristol and Bradford? Chances are very strong that there’s still plenty of this sort of abuse going on, and armies of cowardly officials still looking the other way.

This month the spotlight was on Newcastle. A probe called Operation Sanctuary, launched in 2014, has led to the arrest of a mind-boggling 461 suspects, who are believed to have raped at least 278 victims. Among the 111 perpetrators convicted so far are men with names like Mohammed Azram, Jahanghir Zaman, Nashir Uddin, Saiful Islam, and Mohammed Hassan Ali.

The journalist usually credited with exposing the Rotherham rape factory (as well as the official cover-up) is Andrew Norfolk, who wrote about it in the Times in 2011 and 2012. But this past May Julie Bindel, the far-left feminist who has repeatedly taken on the Islamic oppression of women, recalled in the Independent that years before Norfolk came along, she had accumulated a great deal of material on the topic – but until 2007 was unable to get anything into print because “editors feared an accusation of racism.”

(Not to take anything away from Bindel, but one wonders: how many editors did she try? Was there really no publication in the English-speaking world that was willing to run a piece by her about grooming gangs? In any case, why couldn’t she have just posted her findings online?)

Also, as even Bindel admits, the British National Party had been trying to draw public attention to the rape gangs for years – but their charges had been dismissed by “respectable” media and politicians as the ravings of bigots.

The same left-wing British media that refused to expose the grooming epidemic in the first place are at last, grudgingly, reporting on it – but now they’d have you believe that Islam (surprise!) has nothing to do with it. CONTINUE AT SITE

New York Times Blames the Jews for Donald Trump Ira Stoll –

The New York Times is blaming the Jews for Donald Trump.https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/08/21/new-york-times-blames-the-jews-for-donald-trump/

That’s what I took away from two pieces in the newspaper over the weekend.

The first was a news article from Jerusalem, headlined, “As Trump Offers Neo-Nazis Muted Criticism, Netanyahu Is Largely Silent.”

The article faulted the Israeli prime minister for failing to condemn President Trump in a manner that the Times judged to be sufficiently speedy and specific.

This is strange on two fronts. First, it’s a double standard. When Netanyahu publicly faulted former President Barack Obama for the Iran nuclear deal, the Times complained he was meddling in US politics and making an enemy out of an American president. Now that Netanyahu is doing his best to avoid a public fight with an American president, he gets criticized for that, too.

Second, the Charlottesville marchers weren’t just antisemites, they were also, at least reportedly, racists. It was a Confederate statue that triggered the whole thing, not any Jewish symbol. But the only country whose leader got put on the spot in a full-length Times news article, at least so far as I can tell, was Israel. There was no full-length Times news article I saw about any majority black African or Caribbean countries or majority Asian countries (other than Israel) and their prime ministers’ or presidents’ reactions or non-reactions to Trump’s response to the Charlottesville events. Maybe there were some such Times articles that I missed. But I usually read the paper pretty carefully, and I sure did not spot any.

In the same Saturday issue of the Times came a column by Bret Stephens headlined “President Jabberwock and the Jewish Right,” critical of “right-of-center Jews who voted for Donald Trump in the election.” This is such a small group in proportion to Trump’s overall support that it’s hard to see why it merits an entire column. Not a single one of these “right-of-center Jews who voted for Donald Trump in the election” is actually named in the column, which claims that such Jews are now subject to “moral embarrassment.”

The column says Jews should have known not to vote for Trump because of “the denunciations of ‘globalism’ and ‘international banks’ and the ‘enemy of the American people’ news media.” Yet on July 3, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt sent a message denouncing “the old fetishes of so-called international bankers.” Plenty of Jews nonetheless voted for FDR without any moral embarrassment. Likewise, Bernie Sanders attacks the press, including CNN and the New York Times, just about as vociferously and directly as Trump does. Plenty of Jews voted for Sanders, too, and Sanders’ attacks on the press haven’t been widely interpreted as antisemitic.

In my own view, the danger of antisemitism right now is less in the Oval Office and more in the Times comment section and editorial moderation. It was just days ago that the Times was assuring us that its decision to award a gold ribbon and “NYT Pick” stamp of approval to a reader comment describing Netanyahu as a “parasitic thug” was an inadvertent mistake. Yet in the comments on the Stephens column, the Times again awards a gold ribbon and “NYT Pick” label to a comment that reads in part, “It also remains to be seen whether American Zionists have learned to stop prioritizing ‘good for Israel’ over ‘good for America.’” That comment, which earned “thumbs up” upvotes from at least 410 Times readers, could have easily fit into the Times news article about the Charlottesville racists and antisemites “in their own words.” (It was also consistent with the Stephens column itself, which explicitly mentioned Israel as part of “the gist of the Jewish conservative’s case for Trump,” but omitted taxes, deregulation, or the Supreme Court.)

There was an extended d

Jihad Does Not Stop in Spain By Rachel Ehrenfeld

As Spanish law enforcement was searching for the Moroccan terrorist who disappeared after ramming a van into pedestrians at Las Ramblas, the progressive pro-Muslim media lost no time in protesting the police checking of “Moroccan-looking drivers,” and warning against “Islamophobia.” The driver, a radicalized Muslim who was identified because of his looks, was shot dead by policemen in a vineyard west of Barcelona. But the efforts to stop identifying others like him and the Islamic ideology that motivates them are not going to die down anytime soon

After the Islamists attacked pedestrians strolling along Barcelona’s Las Ramblas and the nearby town of Cambrils, and blew up a house in the village of Alcanar, killing 14 and wounding more than 100 others, and after ISIS claimed responsibility for and celebrated the deadly attacks, Catalonia’s regional government’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Raül Romeva, insisted his region is known for its tolerance and “coexistence.”

This was not the message that Abdelbaki Es Satty, the Moroccan Salafist Imam, preached until last June at the mosque in Ripoll, which was attended by eight of the nine ISIS sympathizers who terrorized Catalonia last week. The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch reported that the president of the mosque, Ali Yassine, is a member of the Federation for the Comunidad Islamica Annour De Ripoll, which RAND’s 2007 report identified as “a federation with close ties to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.” While the region saw more jihadists arrested last year than any other region in Spain, only one of the attackers had a criminal background and therefore was known to the police. The imam disappeared, and one of the nine attackers vanished. But how many ISIS sympathizers and potential jihadists are among those who frequented the Ripoll mosque, and thousands who flock to more than 100 similar Salafi mosques in Spain are under the radar of the Spanish and international security agencies?

Islamic terrorism is not new to Spain. In March 2004, an al Qaeda group bombed four commuter trains, killing some 200 people and wounded more than 1,400 in rush-hour Madrid. In April 2005, a cell of forty-one al-Qaeda operatives in Spain that assisted the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., was tried in Madrid. In January 2008, fourteen Pakistani Taliban terrorist were stopped just before they blew themselves up in Barcelona’s subway. Many other Salafi jihadists who planned terror attacks or funded terrorism were arrested in Spain over the years.

None of that, however, alerted the Spanish to take seriously the Islamists calls to “reconquer al-Andalus” — a uniting theme for all jihadist groups, even those that often fight each other. Instead, Spain, in which according to a 2016 survey by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research, 68% of the population is Catholic, has been practicing willful blindness based on “political correctness” towards the radicalization of its Muslim population. Especially when the jihadists used pro-Palestinian anti-Israel propaganda, which in Spain, like other European nations is widely supported,

Spain has a long history of anti-Semitism. Jews were expelled from Spain on July 30, 1492, but anti-Semitism remained rampant although Jews were allowed to return more than four centuries later. The Jewish presence remained low even after the descendants of Sephardic Jews who were expelled from Spain have in 2014 been offered Spanish citizenship. Only 45,000 Jews live there today. Muslims, who were also driven out or forced to convert in 1492, were allowed to live in Spain in the late 18th century and today the two million Muslims account for 4% of Spain’s population, which is rapidly growing with illegals who flood the beautiful Spanish shores.

Spain and Catalonia in have been loudly supporting the Palestinian agenda. Catalonia became one of Europe’s major Salafist jihad hubs, with Hundreds of Saudi-educated and funded imams preaching the radical Salafi/Wahhabi version of Islam together with the Muslim Brotherhood’s version of “Political Islam” (an oxymoron, since Islam is a political movement posturing as a religion). The Muslim’s growing influence in the region was demonstrated in January 2009, when the provincial government of Catalonia canceled a ceremony marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. A Barcelona newspaper quoted a Catalan official saying, “Marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian Holocaust is taking place is not right,“ alluding to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead (December 27, 2008 – January 18, 2009) that was launched to stop the constant rockets and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip on its civilian population. This official, like other European political parrots, repeated the propaganda that is widely spread by Hamas, Iran and the Palestinian Authority, who while calling to take over al Aqsa, also swear to “reconquer al-Andalus” and Rome.

Russia’s New Ambassador to U.S. Seen as Hard-Liner Appointment of Anatoly Antonov, who served in defense ministry, seen as signal of more confrontational approach By Thomas Grove and James Marson

MOSCOW—Russian President Vladimir Putin appointed a hard-line diplomat known for his gruff style as Moscow’s new ambassador to the U.S., signaling a more confrontational approach to Washington.

Monday’s appointment of Anatoly Antonov, who served for nearly five years in the Defense Ministry, will bring a harsher line at a time when ties between the two countries are at their lowest point since the fall of the Soviet Union.

“His positions are defined by his experience with the Ministry of Defense,” said Andrey Kortunov, the head of the Russian International Affairs Council, which has ties to the Foreign Ministry. “Antonov has always been defending the Russian trenches.”

The diplomat will have to navigate what some analysts say may become a downward spiral in U.S.-Russian relations of sanctions and counter-sanctions. On Monday, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow said it would sharply cut back visa services in Russia after the Kremlin in July forced the U.S. to cuts hundreds of diplomats and staff.

Mr. Antonov will be taking his post in the midst of a growing investigation into ties between members of U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian officials, including former Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Analysts say Mr. Antonov was selected last year, when Moscow believed Hillary Clinton, who Russian leaders believed would take a harder tack toward the country, would win the presidential race. But they say given the increasing tensions between Moscow and Russia, Mr. Antonov will serve the Kremlin’s interests.

Mr. Kortunov said Mr. Antonov’s arrival likely signals the start of a new approach from Moscow toward Washington, one that will likely see a more adversarial stance and lower chances of cooperation.

“We must understand that any cooperation will be situational and be transactional and that otherwise the U.S. will be hostile to Russia,” he said. CONTINUE AT SITE

(Still) Seeking IRS Accountability Judge Walton orders the IRS to give straight answers for a change.

The Obama Justice Department dismissed the IRS political targeting scandal as no big deal, and the Trump Administration hasn’t been any better. At least the judiciary is still trying to hold someone to account for this government abuse.

In a little noticed decision last week, federal Judge Reggie Walton ordered the IRS to answer a series of questions by Oct. 16. Notably, the tax agency must finally explain the specific reasons for the specific delays in approving each of dozens of conservative nonprofit applications—delays that stifled free speech during a midterm and presidential election. Judge Walton is also requiring the IRS to name the specific individuals that it holds responsible for the targeting.

These are basic questions of political accountability, even if the IRS has stonewalled since 2013. President Obama continued to spin that the targeting was the result of some “boneheaded” IRS line officers in Cincinnati who didn’t understand tax law. Yet Congressional investigations have uncovered clear evidence that the targeting was ordered and directed out of Washington.

Former director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner was at the center of that Washington effort, but the IRS allowed her to retire with benefits. She invoked the Fifth Amendment before Congress. One of her principal deputies, Holly Paz, has submitted to a deposition in separate litigation, but the judge has sealed her testimony after she claimed she faced threats. The Acting Commissioner of the IRS at the time, Stephen Miller, stepped down in the wake of the scandal, but as far as anyone outside the IRS knows, no other IRS employee has been held to account. Even if the culprits were “rogue employees,” as the IRS claims, the public deserves to know what happened.

Judge Walton’s ruling means that “the IRS must finally acknowledge its wrongdoing (and the reasons for it) in the context of a judicial proceeding in which the agency may be held legally accountable for its misconduct,” Carly Gammill told Powerlineblog.com. Ms. Gammill is an attorney at the American Center for Law & Justice who represents tea-party groups in the litigation.

Is There a ‘Hispanic Perspective’ on Historical Banana Cultivation? Diverse classrooms are livelier, we’re told, but most students don’t know enough for it to matter. Charles L. Geshekter

Diversity, according to campus dogma, provides real educational benefits. Counting and mingling students and professors by race, ethnicity or gender is supposed to broaden perspectives and enhance classroom learning.

Maybe that’s true in the academic departments built on identity politics. But what critical perspective does a black academic bring to microbiology, civil engineering, or pre-1700 state formation in Ethiopia that a white scholar cannot? What distinctive viewpoint does a Hispanic professor rely on to explain French colonialism, the Afro-Asian history of banana cultivation, or Muslim slave systems that a black instructor cannot?

I taught African history for 40 years at California State University, Chico. When I criticized the overtly divisive racial preferences and gender double standards I witnessed on faculty hiring committees, I was vilified as an “enemy of diversity.” This was rich in unintended irony.

Raised in an orthodox Jewish home in west Baltimore, I graduated from the University of Richmond (founded by Southern Baptists), completed my master’s at Howard University (the country’s pre-eminent historically black college), earned my doctorate in history at UCLA, then taught at a modest liberal arts college. I was once married to a Catholic woman. Hostile to diversity?

As a Jewish American historian of Africa, I specialized in Somalia, a country that’s 99% Muslim. I visited Somalia 10 times, conducting research and teaching at the National University in Mogadishu. Somalis always welcomed me with hospitality and collegiality.

In 1984, while working on a PBS documentary called “The Parching Winds of Somalia,” I sought permission to film Muslim congregants at prayer in a Mogadishu mosque. The imam there, Sheikh Aden, insisted that I guarantee my crew would behave in a “worshipful manner” during filming. A practical scholar and revered community leader, Sheikh Aden knew I was Jewish.

After I led my crew in chanting the Muslim profession of the faith (shahada) in his office, I recall Sheikh Aden telling me: “I know who you are, Geshekter. I wish you were a Muslim of the heart. But you are just a Muslim of the mouth. That’s good enough.” Me, an enemy of diversity?

Defenders of diversity groupthink maintain that Asian or Hispanic students bring especially novel viewpoints to classrooms, making them essential for higher learning. The former president of CSU Chico once assured me that simply having a variety of students clustered by race or ethnicity contributed to a livelier mix in classes. This view is appallingly mistaken.

Deconstructing a Culture By Tom McCaffrey

President Trump has been fighting a one-man war against political correctness. He could use some help. The Confederate monuments are as good a place as any to start

The tearing down of Confederate monuments was sure to be a divisive issue. Why raise it now, when the people of the United States are as divided as they have been at any time since—the Civil War? The question answers itself. It was raised now precisely because it would be divisive. But to say this is to call into question the motives of those who have raised the issue. Indeed.

Those who advocate tearing down the monuments accuse their opponents of racism. It’s an easy accusation to make, and not an easy one to refute. It places the moral onus on those who would defend the monuments to justify their actions, while deflecting moral scrutiny from their accusers.

Surely those who oppose the monuments do so because the Confederacy was an affront to the individual liberty of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It is one thing to oppose slavery and racism, but it makes all the difference what one advocates in their place. And there’s the rub.

Consider Black Lives Matter. They are not a radical fringe group. Barack Obama welcomed them into the White House, where he praised their success as community organizers. They have enjoyed sympathetic nationwide media coverage, thanks in no small part to Colin Kaepernick and the entire cast of announcers at ESPN. They even have their own exhibit at the Smithsonian Exhibition.

Black Lives Matter has been at the very center of leftwing agitation against white “oppression” for the last year and a half. It is largely because of the success of BLM and their allies that the Left now feel emboldened to go after the monuments.

What exactly do Black Lives Matter advocate? According to their website, they are “committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another….” If this sounds like a turning away from Western-style individualism toward African-style tribalism, that’s because it is.

Consider their view of capitalism, which is the economic system based on private property, the foundation of individual rights. On their website, BLM described capitalism as an economic system “which deforms the spirit and fuels interpersonal violence.”

In a 2016 interview for the website Essence.com, BLM co-founder Alicia Garza was asked if she thought “revolution is the answer”. “[W]e have to be clear a revolution is a process,” said Miss Garza. In other words, yes, the current system of government in the United States does need to be torn down and replaced.

If there is any doubt about Black Lives Matter’s revolutionary inclinations, consider these words from Miss Garza on the BLM website: “When I use Assata’s powerful demand in my organizing work, I always begin by sharing where it comes from, sharing about Assata’s significance to the Black Liberation Movement, what its political purpose and message is, and why it’s important in our context.” “Assata” is JoAnne Chesimard, a former soldier in the Black Liberation Army convicted in the 1973 murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. Mrs. Chesimard escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba.

To understand that the effort to remove the monuments grows out of the same soil that Black Lives Matter has been tilling for the last year and a half is to understand that if every single Confederate monument in the country were torn down tomorrow, it would settle nothing. It would simply be one more victory on the way to deconstructing the culture of individualism to which men like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington gave political form. The Confederate monuments are just low-hanging fruit for the deconstructionists; who but racists would dare defend them?

Many Americans will find it fantastical to think that the removing of the Confederate monuments could possibly be just a step on the way to razing the Jefferson Memorial and the Washington Monument, much less to the extinguishing of our republican form of government. They should ponder this additional item from the Black Lives Matter website: “We are committed to … doing the work required to dismantle cis-gender privilege ….” “Cis-gender” is newspeak for people whose “sexual identity” corresponds with their anatomy.