https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-isnt-the-eus-problem-1487723421 Vice President Mike Pence spent the past few days trying to reassure Europeans about America’s commitment to NATO, but in some continental precincts that isn’t enough. Europe’s mandarins are sore that Mr. Pence didn’t embrace the European Union with similar enthusiasm, as if an American Administration is responsible for the EU’s fate. Mr. Pence […]
President Donald Trump (R) (and doesn’t that phrase sound wonderful, especially considering what was the alternative?) insulted Sweden by mentioning…um, certain unpleasant events against some Swedish citizens by some other Swedish residents who are…um….newly arrived from…um…other nations where the dominant religion is not… um, Amish. Their backgrounds shall be unmentioned by me because Sweden and other lefties would consider that racist, but others consider it racist not to mention it.
Making a larger argument about the alleged threat posed by admitting migrants from majority-Muslim countries, Trump ominously warned:
We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.
There was, of course, no terrorist or refugee-related incident in Sweden on Friday, as Swedes have been helpfully pointing out since Trump’s apparently unscripted remark. After mentioning the so-called incident, Trump went on to list a series of places in Europe where there have, in fact, been Islamist terrorist attacks over the last few years, but no such horrors have happened in Sweden.
Former Swedish Foreign Minister tweeted https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/833219648044855296
Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound.
But Bildt also later tweeted:
Last year there were app 50% more murders only in Orlando/Orange in Florida, where Trump spoke the other day, than in all of Sweden. Bad
Orlando…Orlando…that sounds familiar. Oh, yeah: Disney World. And this.
ORLANDO NIGHTCLUB MASSACRE
Forty-nine people were killed and dozens more were wounded after a gunman opened fire and took hostages at a LGBT-friendly nightclub in Orlando on Sunday, June 12.
And the gunman was Omar Mateen born in America to Afghan Muslim refugee parents. Afghanistan is a Muslim major majority country. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/us/orlando-shooter-hostage-negotiator-call/
Omar Mateen, the gunman who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in June, repeatedly told a police hostage negotiator that he was a soldier of ISIS and that the United States had to stop its bombing in Syria and Iraq, according to a police transcript released Friday.
The media is now mocking President Trump for highlighting trouble in Sweden, and specifically for him using the words “last night” in referring to what, at first, seemed like a reference to a specific incident in that country. But as the president himself later explained, he was referring to an actual, accurate news report that was broadcast the night before on Fox News about Muslim immigration to Sweden. On Friday night, Tucker Carlson interviewed documentarian Ami Horowitz about his upcoming film about the surge in rape and violence that has accompanied the increase of immigration to Sweden.
While the president could have used better technical wording to make his point, his overall thesis was correct. There may not have been some single huge news-breaking incident the night before in Sweden, but Trump was referring to a news program that demonstrated that there is something very horrible happening in Sweden — and not just “last night”, but every night.
In response to President Trump’s legitimate reference to trouble in Sweden, and the media’s illegitimate mockery of him over it, TheGlazov Gang is running its special episode with journalist and authorIngrid Carlqvist on the Muslim Rape of Sweden, which unveils the horror Sweden is now facing.http://jamieglazov.com/2017/02/20/trump-and-the-rape-of-sweden-on-the-glazov-gang/
Don’t miss it!
How is it possible that books that advocate violence and extremism meet the “selection criteria” of the Ottawa Public Library, but those that speak out against violence and extremism do not?
The presence of these Islamic books, and these books alone, in Canada’s public libraries, without any others to contradict them, gives them legitimacy. They are seen to represent a certain form of Islam that the government of Canada and the City of Ottawa recognize.
This indicates that there is official support for the extremist and terrorist version of Islam, and at the same time no support for a humanist interpretation of Islam.
This surah [4:74] also indicates that if you are a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, then you are in a state of war against your host country. If you are a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, then you are living with the enemy.
If we are to reject this danger, it is important that libraries and other institutions have books that reject these Islamist views and confront their hatred, extremism and violence.
The Muslim Brotherhood classifies as one of their great intellectual leaders Imam Mohammed al-Ghazali (1917-1996). He famously decreed that the assassination of the Egyptian Muslim thinker, Farag Foda, was acceptable. In the views of al-Ghazali, Farag Foda was an apostate for defending secular values and human rights. Moreover, al-Ghazali went into an Egyptian court and defended the assassins: “Anyone who openly resisted the full imposition of Islamic law,” he said, “was an apostate who should be killed either by the government or by devout individuals.” He added: “There is no penalty in Islam to kill the apostate by yourself when the government fails to do so.”
In public libraries across Canada (and elsewhere), the books of Imam al-Ghazali are available, along with others that incite hatred, violence and terror, by authors such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Imam Nawawi. There is not a single Arabic language book in a library that I have visited in Ottawa that attacks or criticizes terrorism and violence and hatred.
Last week, Hamas received an offer that no sane entity would turn down. The offer did not come from Hamas’s allies in Iran and the Islamic world. The offer, to turn the impoverished Gaza Strip into “the Singapore of the Middle East,” came from Israel.
“The Gazans must understand that Israel, which withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last millimeter, is not the source of their suffering — it is the Hamas leadership, which doesn’t take their needs into consideration… The moment Hamas gives up its tunnels and rockets, we’ll be the first to invest.” — Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Hamas does not want a new “Singapore” in the Middle East. Hamas wants Israel to disappear from the face of the earth. The welfare of the Palestinians living under its rule is the last thing on the mind of Hamas. The dispute is not about improving the living conditions of Palestinians, as far as Hamas is concerned. Instead, it is about the very existence of Israel.
Hamas deserves credit for one thing: its honesty concerning its intentions to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. Hamas does not want 40,000 new jobs for the unemployed poor Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It would rather see these unemployed Palestinians join its ranks and become soldiers in the jihad to replace Israel with an Islamic empire.
The Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas has once again demonstrated its priorities: killing Jews. That clearly takes precedence over easing the plight of the two million Palestinians living under its rule in the Gaza Strip.
Since Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, the conditions of the Palestinians living there have gone from bad to worse. Crisis after crisis has hit those under the Hamas rule; electricity and water as well as lack of medicine and proper medical care are in dangerously short supply.
Disputes between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have left the Gaza Strip dangerously short of fuel, resulting in massive power outages. Palestinians there consequently have had to resort to using wood for cooking and heating. Hamas, which has brought about three wars that wreaked havoc on its people, is unable to provide them with basic needs.
Last week, Hamas received an offer that no sane entity would turn down. It is to be noted that the offer did not come from Hamas’s friends and allies in Iran and the Arab and Islamic world. Rather, the offer, which promises to turn the Gaza Strip, where most residents live in the poverty of “refugee camps,” into “the Singapore of the Middle East,” came from Israel.
Specifically, the offer was made by Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who proposed building a seaport and an airport, as well as industrial zones that would help create 40,000 jobs in the Gaza Strip, if Hamas agreed to demilitarization and to dismantling the tunnels and rocket systems it has built up.
“The Gazans must understand that Israel, which withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last millimeter, is not the source of their suffering — it is the Hamas leadership, which doesn’t take their needs into consideration,” Lieberman said in a televised message to the residents of the Gaza Strip. “The moment Hamas gives up its tunnels and rockets, we’ll be the first to invest.”
Only Israel has ever made such an offer to Hamas. Such a plan would vastly improve the living conditions of the Gaza Strip population. All Hamas is required to do is abandon its weapons and plans to kill Jews, and return the bodies of missing Israeli soldiers.
A little backbone on the part of educators might go a long way toward promoting Islamic integration. Of course, before they do that, the initial step would be to recognise that gender equality is a rather more valuable concept than the fashionable exaltation of identity politics.
A few thoughts on the controversy surrounding the issue of Muslim schoolboys’ refusal to shake hands with women being endorsed by those responsible for supervising their educations.
Firstly, it is not clear that this is, per se, an expression of misogyny, as many are claiming. The specific hadith supposedly says:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘If one of you were to be struck in the head with an iron needle, it would be better for him than if he were to touch a woman he is not allowed to’.
That reference goes on to say:
There is no doubt that for a man to touch a non-mahram woman is one of the causes of fitnah (turmoil, temptation), provocation of desire and committing haraam deeds.
So it is clear this is not about women being unclean but, rather, about the inability of Muslim men to control their baser urges. Surely, Muslim men (sensible ones, at any rate) should feel outraged at this slight. Sadly, this brings to mind the remarks of Sheik Hilaly, then Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, who in 2006 infamously likened uncovered women to cat meat. “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?” he asked his lakemba congregation.
“If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab,” he continued, “no problem would have occurred.”
Secondly, if we look at the strict wording of the relevant hadith, might it not be argued that ‘touch’ in this context means rather more than a casual physical contact, such as shaking hands, but ‘touching’ in a sexual context?
My point is that this is just one more example of Islam’s inability to adapt to changing times and the mores of societies other than those of the Arabian Peninsula in seventh century. I wonder how vigorously this particular hadith is observed in countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia? How does it work in the case of paramedics, nurses, doctors, firemen? Are exceptions made in such cases and, if so, why not in this country to accommodate the host society’s cultural practices?
My curious tickled, I came across this advice detailing Islamic doctrine in regard to the medical treatment of Muslim women, who must first seek medical counsel and treatment from a female Muslim doctor. Should such not be available, a non-Muslim female medico is the second preference, followed by a Muslim male and, last of all, a non-Muslim man.
As to shaking hands with women, this source of Islamic guidance explains that Allah is against it
Some Muslims feel too embarrassed to refuse when a woman offers her hand to them. In addition to mixing with women, some of them claim that they are forced to shake hands with fellow-students and teachers in schools and universities, or with colleagues in the workplace, or in business meetings and so on, but this is not an acceptable excuse.
The Muslim should overcome his own feelings and the promptings of the Shaytaan, and be strong in his faith, because Allah is not ashamed of the truth. The Muslim could apologize politely and explain that the reason he does not want to shake hands is not to offend or hurt anybody’s feelings, but it is because he is following the teachings of his religion. In most cases this will earn him respect from others. There is no harm done if they find it strange at first, and it may even be a practical opportunity for da’wah. And Allaah knows best.
They perch and preen atop their grants, sinecures and self-regard, forever predicting planetary doom unless their addled sermons are heeded and the carbon-spewing sins of our modern world are expiated. When your lights next go out, blame them and the politicians on whose teats they suckle.
As Australia’s electricity systems slide towards unreliability and more blackouts – half a dozen so far, at last count – let’s pin the responsibility on the true culprits: activist climate “scientists” peddling their dodgy CO2 alarm and insane zero-emission targets.
At their forefront is the climate cabal within the Australian Academy of Science, our peak science organisation. In 2015, speaking for the Academy, they blithely recommended to the federal government that Australia embarks on “significant, urgent and sustained” emissions cuts. Their desired 2030 scenario — which remains the Academy’s policy — is for CO2 emission cuts 30-40% below 2000 levels, en route to the Academy’s desired zero- emissions regime by 2050.
I emailed the Academy the following questions about its submission:
1. I don’t see any costing of the Academy’s 2030 and 2050 targets. Can you provide me with best estimates or something on costings anyway — I assume the report authors did some work on that.
2. I don’t see any breakdown of Academy targets into solar, wind, coal, nuclear, hydro, whatever. Can you assist me by detailing such breakdowns?
3. The report has little/nothing to say about how a reliable base load electricity system will operate on your 2030 and 2050 scenarios. In light of recent events, does the Academy have any suggestions on how blackouts will be avoided as Australia moves to the desired RE [renewable energy] targets?
Th reply:
“The Academy has a broad brief across the sciences. Its Fellows step up in a voluntary capacity to write documents such as this… We don’t have the in-house expertise or resources to answer your detailed questions.”
This reply went on to list the contributors to the Academy’s submission, namely Dr John A Church FAA FTSE FAMS;
Dr Ian Allison AO; Professor Michael Bird FRSE; Professor Matthew England FAA; Professor David Karoly FAMS FAMOS; Professor Jean Palutikof; Professor Peter Rayner; and Professor Steven Sherwood.
The Academy of Science itself admits that it lacks the “in-house expertise or resources” to explain why it wants to destroy the country’s electricity security and raise the price of power to all Australians. But wow, it’s great at puffing itself. The same cabal that is clueless about the real-world impacts of its emissions recommendations bragged in their 2015 submission:
“The Academy promotes scientific excellence, disseminates scientific knowledge, and provides independent scientific advice for the benefit of Australia and the world… The Academy would be pleased to provide further information or explanation on any of the points made in this submission.” (My emphasis. But the Academy wimped out when I actually asked for such information).
The Academy has form in pandering to green nostrums.
Most reporters for mainstream American news organizations were loathe to describe the obvious improvement in the atmosphere when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Donald Trump held their joint press conference on Wednesday, compared to the frigid and tense poses when Netanyahu and former President Barack Obama held joint appearances in the preceding eight years.
It was not hard to understand why the Israeli prime minister was smiling during his interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News the next day. One reason is that both Trump and Netanyahu are aware they help their own political positions by strengthening the ties between the two countries.
But the reality is deeper: The two men get along because they actually see the world the same way. Obama had a very different world view. Although he saw a link between Israel and the United States, this was mainly as colonialist bullies. No American president before Obama, and hopefully none in the future, will ever be so equivocal about his own country’s history and values.
The improved special relationship between Israel and the United States is not entirely new. President George W. Bush had solid ties with Israel’s leaders and endorsed a 2004 letter ahead of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza acknowledging that the 1949 borders were not permanent and that facts on the ground made it inevitable that many Jewish communities beyond the Green Line would not be uprooted in a future peace agreement. Obama ignored this letter, refused to give it any authority, and, along with others in the White House and State Department, attacked Israel after each and every bit of news of new Jewish housing in the West Bank, as if those were crimes against humanity. No supposed foe of the United States received such scorn and rebuke over eight years as Israel. And there was the coup de grace in Obama’s final months, the American abstention at the United Nations on Security Council Resolution 2334, which effectively resulted in awarding the entire territory to the Palestinians and treating any Israeli activity in the area as illegal.
American officials argued they needed to make it clear to Israel they were unhappy about the “stepped-up” pace of settlement activity, which represents an obstacle to achieving the two-state solution. The Obama action, forcefully defended by Secretary of State John Kerry (who seems to be contemplating a run for president in 2020), ignored pretty much all the other reasons for the failure. The Palestinians themselves are divided into two political entities, one run by Hamas, the other by the Palestinian Authority. Elections for PA president and parliament have not been held in over a decade. No Palestinian leader has ever been willing to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state and that there will be no “right of return” for Palestinians who never lived in or who left Israel and are falsely classified as refugees — more than 98% of the so-called Palestinian refugees. Only among Palestinians is refugee status conferred to endless descendants of the original refugees. The refugee issue was one of five mentioned by Max Singer in a Wall Street Journal column calling for telling the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A small number of Canadians took signs and banners to a mosque in downtown Toronto to protest what was being said inside — namely, the imam’s desire that Jews be killed one by one. When police received complaints, however, they acted swiftly and purposefully… announcing they were investigating the protestors. Const. Allyson Douglas-Cook explained to CBC Toronto that they wondered if the protestors had perpetrated a hate crime:
There’s a “fine line,” Douglas-Cook said, between the free expression of thoughts and views, and breaching the law or violating a particular group.
Asked what that line is, Douglas-Cook responded: “That’s a conversation we’ve been having all day.”
Here’s an idea that doesn’t even come close to a “fine line,” and it doesn’t even require one of those long, irritating conversations: if people are advocating for the mass genocide of Jews, maybe the police should pay attention to those guys. (Pssst: advocating for genocide is a criminal code offense in Canada.) But is that what is really happening inside the mosque? Surely they’re not so bold as to actually advocate for the slaughtering of people who oppose them, right?
Thankfully, someone filmed inside the mosque and discovered that’s exactly what’s happening:
Note that the man praying asks Allah to count the number of people who oppose Islam, and kill them one by one. “Spare not one of them,” he says.
Well, that seems pretty clear to me, but apparently it took a little time for the Canadian police to get clued in. Finally, they decided not to investigate the people at the rally. No word if they’re investigating the people inside the mosque.
France’s Muslim population could quickly grow to close to 15-17 million, but no one can know precisely unless the law prohibiting the official collection of ethnic data is changed.
These figures do not take into consideration the Muslim population that immigrated to France from North Africa in the 1960s and early 1970s. There are a few million of them — nobody knows how many exactly. For demographers, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are not regarded as immigrants anymore. These Muslims are, rather, integrated into statistics as French citizens born of French parents. They are Muslim, but under the statistics radar.
From time to time, France’s National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee) offers a glimpse of the ethnic composition of French society. The study, “Being born in France to an immigrant parent” (Être né en France d’un parent immigré), published in February 2017, is one of them.
Like few other glimpses, the Insee study offers a partial view of the ethnic composition of the French population. A statistical breakdown — with the answer to the perennial question: how many Muslims in France? — would be perceived as discriminatory and outrageous. Given France’s “integration model,” nobody should dare identify people by their origins, religion, color of skin and so on. A Frenchman is a Frenchman, whatever the color of his skin or his religion, and any measurement of the sub-Saharan population — for example, their level of education, that of their children, the type of jobs their parents are doing, how many times they go to mosque or if they have spent time in prison — is illegal, discriminatory and racist. Sub-Saharan populations must disappear in aggregate data about French people.
The study, however, provides some telling information. In 2015, 7.3 million people born in France had at least one immigrant parent (11% of the population). Of these 7.3 million people, 45% are of European origin, most of whom are children of immigrants who arrived in France from Spain (8%) or Italy (12%) as early as the 1930s, or from Portugal in the 1970s onwards. One can assume, although it is not written in the study, that these people are of Christian origin.
Another group is composed of Africans. 42% of the 7.3 million children born in France to an immigrant parent are of African background, mainly North Africa. They came from Algeria (15%), Morocco (11%), Tunisia (5%) and sub-Saharan Africa (11%). Although it is also not specified in the study, it would seem that the great majority are Muslim.
Another group, children from Turkish migrant families, represent 4% of the 7.3 million. These people are classified as Asian; they are not included in the African and Muslim group. Most of these Turks are also presumably Muslim.
A conclusion therefore would assume that 46% of the descendants of immigrants are Muslim and 45% are Christian. The remaining 9% are from East Asia or the Americas.
