https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/12/german-muslim-politician-supports-introduction-of-sharia-law-in-europe/ A politician has controversially voiced her backing for Sharia law being introduced in Europe, calling it “absolutely comparable” with current legislation. Absolutely comparable in what way exactly? Sharia demands that married individuals who cheat be stoned to death. To me, that doesn’t seem very compatible with Germany law. After all, Germany has actually abolished the death penalty. And […]
Nowhere was the hysteria, panic, and fearmongering attending Donald Trump’s win in the 2016 presidential election felt more strongly than on college campuses — and Middle East studies academics were no exception. Rather than acknowledging that justified concern over increasing terrorism in the U.S. was a strong factor, they dismissed Trump voters as angry, fearful, ignorant, “Islamophobic” white supremacists.
This despite Trump’s receiving more minority votes than did Mitt Romney in 2012, and the support of the same white working-class population that twice voted for biracial President Barack Obama.
It was not millions of American voters, but the professors themselves who exhibited bigotry, fear, and anger.
Admitting that the “segment of society” who voted for Trump “frightens me,” Muqtedar Khan, director of the University of Delaware’s Islamic Studies Program, ascribed his win to “myopia” and “cultural insecurity.” Accordingly, he announced that he was “frightened for the future of minorities in this country.” No word on whether Khan is frightened of his own shadow.
Similarly, Rhodes College Islamic studies professor Yasir Qadhi suddenly feared “for the safety of my wife in a hijab, of my children in the streets, of minorities everywhere struggling to understand what happened.” He maintained that white Americans’ racist, irrational fear of “melanin content” led them to support Trump.
Reza Aslan, University of California, Riverside creative writing professor, tweeted hysterically, “Someone please tell me how I tell my kids that the president whose picture will soon be on their classroom wall hates them, wants them gone.”
University of Denver Center for Middle East Studies director Nader Hashemi bemoaned “the new white extremism in middle America,” while accusing Trump of being “so radical and so extreme” that ISIS is “celebrating” his victory.
Meanwhile, University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole claimed that white Trump voters were motivated by “rage,” “anti-immigrant sentiment,” and the loss of “cultural supremacy.” He declared 2016 to be “the equivalent of a red scare, only now it is a Muslim scare,” and warned of the coming “nativism” and, ludicrously, “the third big wave of the Klu [sic] Klux Klan.” Curiously, Cole had no such concerns when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton eulogized Robert Byrd, the late Democratic congressman and former “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK, as her “mentor.”
Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center, insulted a significant percentage of the electorate by angrily demanding of white evangelical Christians, “When you had to choose between your white privilege and your Jesus, how did you live with yourself putting Jesus on the bottom?” Here’s a rhetorical question: would Safi would have directed such ire at his fellow Muslims, let alone substituted Muhammed for Jesus, were the tables turned?
Liberals have always prided themselves as promoters of freedom of religion, expression, and equality. At face value, these concepts are the key ingredients to a thriving society. But as time has passed, there is an growing abyss stretching between the original ideals of the liberal movement and what it actually supports. When analyzing the goals and agenda of liberalism, one may become confounded at their faithful, unconditional support of Islamic culture. Islamic culture is the very opposite of what the liberals claim to celebrate and uphold. Instead of exposing and critiquing the components of Islamic culture that are in direct opposition to their core beliefs, liberals would quiet critics of the religion, despite facts and experiences. Muslim women are the silent majority in the matter and their experiences and voices are often dismissed. Their opinions and plight are largely met with harsh treatment and more oppression. This represents a paradox for those seeking to uphold the values of liberalism, while exposing their contradictory stance as well.
Liberals have built upon concepts such as freedom of expression, gender equality, and religious freedom. They relentlessly oppose and attack those whom they perceive as violators of these human rights. During the 2016 presidential election, there was a huge outcry against the statements that president-elect Donald Trump made about women. Many critics argued that his stance on women disqualified him from running a country that prides itself on being a progressive nation. Liberals used every media outlet they could to highlight this shortcoming, replaying sound-bites of Trump’s comments repeatedly to garner support for their position. While Trump’s indiscretion toward women may be alarming, it is not nearly as alarming as the culture of Islam that the liberals unconditionally support. More than any other major religion, Islam is closely associated with oppressive views toward women, violence and terrorism, and inequality. Even in moderate Islamic nations, such as Turkey, freedom for everyone is not necessarily thriving. Recently a Turkish girl was sentenced to two years in prison and 100 lashes for being raped by her neighbor. According to the Sharia courts, she was not accompanied by a male guardian, thus making herself more accessible to rape. Liberals largely ignore these common human rights violations and often refuse to speak out against these horrendous offenses. Instead, they attempt to separate the violence and oppression associated with Islam and label it as “Islamic extremism.” Outside of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, Sharia law is still the predominant influence and governing standard in many Islamic countries. Despite the numerous facts and experiences that are presented to the liberals, they still align themselves with support for Islam, which is not consistent with the values they vehemently strive to defend.
THIS IS FROM AUSTRALIA BUT SO APPOSITE TO EDUCATION IN AMERICA…..RSK
The next time some teachers’ union cup-rattler blames the galloping ignorance and rising idiocy of Australia’s youth on a lack of funding, remember that no amount of money will ever make a disruptive teen sit down, shut up and learn.
Blogger JF Beck spent 30 years teaching in Western Australia’s public high schools, so the recent and shameful news that academic performance is declining even as the bureaucrat-infested, jargon-clouded Chalk Industrial Complex demands and gets ever-larger sums to “educate” Australia’s children came as no surprise.
As part of a long post at his site, he details the process teachers must follow when confronted by some nasty little piece of work who refuses to learn and behave, all the while stopping fellow classmates from learning:
Correct the pupil.
Contact the parents.
Develop an IEP and, if necessary, a BMP (Behaviour Management Plan) after reflecting on the situation.
Implement the IEP and BMP.
Enter behavioural details into the Schools Information System (SIS). The details must be dated and written so that management can, if necessary, copy and paste them into appropriate documents. The school network is often down, however, and unless a teacher provides his own computer – either through purchase, or rental from the Education Department – there is no way to access the network.
Consult with the line manager and year coordinator. DO NOT do this unless all previous steps have been taken and proved ineffective.
Meet with the pupil and the line manager to draw up a behaviour contract. The contract will likely require modified behaviour by both pupil and teacher, the pupil having complained at length about teacher shortcomings.
Guess it depends on what you mean by “authoritarian.”
During the election, Donald Trump was routinely likened to Hitler. The headlines suggest not much has changed.
From the New Republic: “Donald Trump Is Already Acting Like an Authoritarian.” National Public Radio: “Donald Trump: Strong Leader or Dangerous Authoritarian?” The New York Times: “Beyond Lying: Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Reality.” The New Yorker: “Trump’s Challenge to American Democracy.”
What’s striking here is that the same folks who see in Mr. Trump a Mussolini in waiting are blind to the soft despotism that has already taken root in our government. This is the unelected and increasingly assertive class that populates our federal bureaucracies and substitutes rule by regulation for the rule of law. The result? Over the Obama years, the Competitive Enterprise Institute reckons, Washington has averaged 35 regulations for every law.
In the introduction to its just-released report on how to address this federal overreach, CEI President Kent Lassman puts it this way: “It is time for a reckoning.”
Philip Hamburger is a law professor at Columbia and author of “Is the Administrative State Unlawful?” He believes the president-elect’s cabinet selections thus far—Scott Pruitt for the Environmental Protection Agency, Betsy DeVos for Education, Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Puzder for Labor—may give Mr. Trump a unique opening not only to reverse bad Obama rules but to reform the whole way these agencies impose them. If Mr. Trump really hopes to drain the swamp, says Mr. Hamburger, cutting these agencies back to constitutional size would be a terrific start.
For one thing, almost all these departments are legacies of some progressive expansion of government. While an uneasy William Howard Taft, for example, made Labor its own cabinet office on the last day of his presidency, Woodrow Wilson named its first secretary.
Meanwhile, HUD is a child of LBJ’s Great Society. The EPA was Nixon’s attempt to buy liberal approval for his administration. As for the Education Department, it was a reward from Jimmy Carter for the endorsement the National Education Association gave him in 1976. At the time this cabinet seat was established, even the New York Times called it “unwise” and editorialized against it.
More Main Street
There’s a good case that Americans would be better off without most of these departments meddling in our lives and livelihoods, however politically unfeasible this might be. The next best news, however, is that Mr. Pruitt, Dr. Carson, Mr. Puzder and Mrs. DeVos are not beholden to the orthodoxies that drive the rules and mandates these bureaucracies impose.
Mrs. DeVos, for example, has spent her life promoting school choice, and her husband founded a charter school. It is difficult to imagine an Education Department under Secretary DeVos ever sending out a “Dear Colleague” letter to bully universities into expanding the definition of sexual harassment and then encouraging them to handle allegations in a way that has turned many campus tribunals into Star Chambers. Not to mention making a federal case about bathrooms. CONTINUE AT SITE
In a time of rising global prosperity and newfangled technological wizardry, it’s easy to forget that, for virtually all of human history, living standards have been very low. Even so, there are those who respond to economic dynamism, and the accompanying volatility, by pining for the supposed stability of the past. Others look ahead and claim that economic progress is imperiled by bad policies or bad business practices. These weighty issues, among others, are taken up in two new books whose authors have divergent, though neatly complementary, views.
In “Progress,” the Swedish author Johan Norberg deploys reams of data to show just how much life has improved—especially over the past few decades but over the past couple of centuries as well. Each chapter is devoted to documenting progress in a single category, including food, sanitation, life expectancy, poverty, violence, the environment, literacy and equality.
In response to people who look fondly on the “good old days,” Mr. Norberg underscores just how grim they could be. Rampant disease, famine and violence routinely killed off millions. In the 14th century, the so-called Black Death wiped out a third of Europe’s population. Five hundred years later, cholera outbreaks throughout the world led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and even killed a U.S. president, James Polk. Out of the squalor of everyday life came an outlook best expressed by Thomas Malthus in 1779: “Premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”
Set against such misery are the advances of the modern era. At the start of the 20th century, average life expectancy globally was just 31 years. Today it is 71. Every country in the world has seen improvements in infant and child mortality since 1950. The so-called Green Revolution has increased food supply and reduced famine in parts of the world where malnutrition and starvation had long seemed inevitable. Throughout the world, there’s less violence, more literacy and greater political freedom.
Will this progress continue? Mr. Norberg thinks so. He cautions that “progress is not automatic” but doesn’t elaborate. His otherwise persuasive narrative would have benefited from an exploration of future threats to well-being, or worrying trends, such as the dramatic increase in obesity rates—in the United States but also in other parts of the globe—or falling birthrates throughout the world (in China in particular).
Picking up where Mr. Norberg leaves off are Fredrik Erixon and Björn Weigel, two fellow Swedes who make a thought-provoking and refreshingly non-ideological argument that a bleak future lies ahead unless capitalism undergoes a shake-up. In “The Innovation Illusion” they argue that “there is too little breakthrough innovation . . . and the capitalist system that used to promote eccentricity and embrace ingenuity all too often produces mediocrity.” CONTINUE AT SITE
THIS IS A WAIT AND SEE NOMINATION….HOW WILL HE RESTRUCTURE THE STATE DEPARTMENT….RSK
WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump will name Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state, a transition official said Monday, picking a veteran chief executive who has had extensive overseas business dealings but whose relationships with foreign leaders could complicate his confirmation prospects.
Mr. Tillerson was a comparatively late entry in the secretary of state competition, but he impressed the president-elect as a successful deal-maker in what one transition aide called the “Trumpian” mold.
If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Mr. Tillerson will be the public face of a diplomatic approach that envisions more cooperation with Russia and concessions from China on trade and security matters.
Mr. Trump injected a bit of theater into what is normally a staid and behind-the-scenes process, offering personal impressions of the candidates and tweeting out his timetable for a decision.
On Sunday, he tweeted that Mr. Tillerson is a “world class player and dealmaker.”
“Stay tuned!” he wrote.
Word of Mr. Trump’s selection began leaking out Monday night.
The hot-button topic today is whether or not the Russian government hacked into the email servers of the Democrat National Committee and the Clinton campaign, and whether or not they did so to support one candidate or detract from another. While the CIA has declared it as “quite clear” that electing Donald Trump was Russia’s goal, the FBI calls the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” The only thing that is clear is that there is no definitive evidence to deduce anything.
These divergent conclusions by the FBI and CIA reflect the cultural differences in the two organizations. While the CIA is adept at drawing conclusions based on probability, inference and established behavior, the FBI – who recently came under-fire for not acting on overwhelming evidence of criminal acts in the Clinton email scandal, in true law enforcement form, relies on the weight of evidence; evidence required at a threshold to “convict.” The CIA’s conclusion, additionally, demonstrates that the Agency is willing to delve into American politics through the advancement of its conclusions.
While the federal law enforcement and intelligence communities debate the merits of the facts that have brought them to their respective conclusions, the mainstream media has already decided that the Russian did, in fact, commit cyberattacks and hacks upon the DNC and Clinton campaign. The only question they are asking is what the Russian motives might have been: To damage Clinton, aid Trump or attack the American election process as an institution.
It is undeniable that the Russian hacks – if in fact it was the Russians who hacked into the DNC and not “black hat” independent hackers or another nation State using Russian hacker fingerprints – exposed a wholly unethical and, in fact, criminal mindset deemed acceptable for American electoral politics by the Democrats, Progressives and the Clintons.
In the hacking of the DNC it was exposed that the Democrat hierarchy was quite alright with weighting the Primary Election in favor of one candidate over another. In stepping down from the post of DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz tacitly acknowledged that a culture of oligarchic corruption schemed to disenfranchise almost half of the Democrat rank-and-file. This conspiracy to defraud the Democrat voters is, at the very least, unethical to the maximum degree. At its worst it could be criminal, although not a soul called for a criminal investigation into the matter.
Only a few weeks ago Hillary Clinton’s campaign was denouncing Donald Trump as un-American for saying the election might be “rigged.” We criticized Mr. Trump at the time. But now that Mrs. Clinton has lost, her campaign is claiming the election really was rigged, albeit for Mr. Trump by Russian meddling, and it wants the Electoral College to stage what amounts to a coup.
That’s the only way to interpret the extraordinary statement Monday by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta endorsing a special intelligence briefing for electors a week before they cast their ballots for President on Dec. 19. He released the statement hours after 10 members of the Electoral College sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seeking information on foreign interference in the election to judge if Mr. Trump “is fit to serve.” One of those electors is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter.
“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security. Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed,” Mr. Podesta said. “We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”
What should really distress Americans is that the losers are trying to overturn the election results based on little more than anonymous leaks and innuendo. Whatever Russia’s hacking motives, there is no evidence that the emails it turned up were decisive to the election result. Mr. Podesta is citing a CIA judgment that Americans have never seen and whose findings are vaguely public only because one or more unidentified officials chose to relate them to a few reporters last week.
Much of the press is reporting these as the gospel truth, though it isn’t clear that the CIA’s judgment is even shared across the intelligence community. The FBI doesn’t share the CIA’s confidence about Russia’s hacking motive, and our sources say the evidence is thin for the CIA’s conclusion.
https://www.jcrcny.org/2016/12/7722/Attacks on Jews in the U.S. 1969-2016 « Jewish Community Relations Council
FULL REPORT:http://www.jcrcny.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CSS-Report-2016.pdf
Take a look at the important new CSS publication, Terrorist Incidents and Attacks Against Jews and Israelis in the United States, 1969-2016, by our talented, good friend, Yehudit Barsky, with a forward by another friend, Mitchell D. Silber. The publication supplements the JCRC’s own Selective Threat Scan which was designed to assist Nonprofit Security Grant Program applicants complete the “Threat” and “Consequences” sections of the Investment Justification.
Here’s the Executive Summary of the document which aligns with JCRC’s ongoing advice:
It is vital that the American Jewish community, together with our law enforcement partners, learn the lessons of the past, understand the nature of the challenges arrayed against it, and take the proper precautions to ensure that violent acts against Jews and Jewish institutions can be prevented in the future.
Jewish targets often serve as precursors to larger attacks: Perpetrators of well-known larger attacks, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, were first involved in anti-Jewish incidents.
Awareness is critical: In many of these incidents, perpetrators conducted pre-operational surveillance. Training and engagement of community members to detect suspicious activity is thus essential.
A need to invest in community security infrastructure: The Jewish community can ill afford passivity and apathy against security threats. The community should broaden its understanding of what effective security entails, and invest in initiatives that provide tangible results. Foremost amongst these strategies is ensuring community members have the training and capacity to assist in securing their own communities, and partnering more closely with law enforcement agencies.
Unfortunately, much as we do not care to admit it to ourselves, the threats are real; there have been too many incidents to deny that. Now in the second decade of the twenty-first century, we find ourselves in an era where those who promote anti-Jewish rhetoric and instigation have the technical tools to reach a broader audience in less time than ever before. In fact, as recently as March 2016, the Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) publicly encouraged its followers to attack Jews and their allies, “wherever they find them.”
It is vital that the American Jewish community, together with our law enforcement partners, learn the lessons of the past, understand the nature of the challenges arrayed against it, and take the proper precautions to ensure that violent acts against Jews and Jewish institutions can be prevented in the future.
