RUTHFULLY YOURS

“He’s just an ordinary guy”…the usual narrative….maybe it’s potty training gone wrong….nothing to do with Jihad…..rsk

ELIZABETH, N. J.—Until recently, Ahmad Khan Rahami was best-known in this blue-collar neighborhood as a quiet young man who served fried chicken at his father’s fast-food restaurant.

But on Monday morning, the 28-year-old Afghan immigrant, who some customers called “Med” or “Mad”—a nickname short for Ahmad—was on the run, suspected of planting two bombs in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood and placing several more explosive devices around New Jersey.

After a gunbattle with police, Mr. Rahami, shot in the leg, was taken into custody in Linden, just several miles from where he grew up in the immigrant enclaves of North Jersey.
Late Monday, Union County Prosecutors charged Mr. Rahami with five counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and weapons charges. Bail was set at $5.2 million.

What motivated Mr. Rahami, a naturalized U.S. citizen whose family came to this country from war-ravaged Afghanistan when he was a young child, is still murky, and authorities were trying Monday to puzzle together clues.
U.S. officials said Mr. Rahami traveled more than once to Afghanistan, but he wasn’t on a terrorist watch list. Investigators have also found he traveled to Pakistan, where he had family ties and married Asia Bibi Rahami. CONTINUE AT SITE

Here is a plain, inarguable truth: A series of Muslim immigrants and “visitors” are responsible for killing more Americans on American soil than the combined militaries of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Two more attacks over the weekend left 38 Americans wounded, and it appears that both were carried out by Muslim immigrants.

In Saint Cloud, Minn., Dahir Adan’s family identified him as the man who stabbed eight people in a mall before being shot and killed by an armed civilian, an off-duty police officer named Jason Falconer. Adan’s family said he was born in Kenya. In New York, police arrested an Aghan-American named Ahmad Khan Rahami after a shootout. He’s a “person of interest” in bombings in both New York and New Jersey that injured 29.

Despite making up a tiny fraction of the American population, Muslims are responsible for exponentially more terror deaths than any other meaningful American community. Even if you use the Left’s utterly ridiculous standard of “terror deaths since 9/11” (why exclude America’s worst terror attack when calculating the terror threat?), Muslim terrorists have killed almost twice as many people as every other American faction or demographic combined.

Yet when any politician or pundit suggests restrictions or even special scrutiny applied to Muslim immigrants — especially Muslim immigrants or visitors from jihadist conflict zones — entire sectors of the Left (and some on the right) recoil in shock and horror. Whenever there’s a terror attack, there’s an almost palpable desperation to determine that the attacker was not Muslim and the attack had “no connection” to international terror, in spite of the fact that it is now ISIS and al-Qaeda strategy to inspire lone wolves.

In the all too familiar pattern, things are going boom, Americans are under attack, and the American political class is already busy playing the “See No Jihad” minuet.

In a rational world, where our highest imperative would be to understand the threat that confronts us rather than to find the least offensive way of describing it, it would be patently, undeniably obvious that we are targets of international terrorism fueled by Islamic supremacist ideology. Nevertheless, the political class can only bring itself to say this kicking and screaming, and only if there is no other plausible alternative — which basically means a terrorist caught in the act while wearing an ISIS T-shirt.

That is because Islamic supremacism is a mainstream interpretation of Islam. The political class has convinced itself that uttering the plain truth would be condemning all of Islam, meaning all Muslims — notwithstanding that no one sensible claims Islamic supremacism is the only way of interpreting Islam, and, in fact, jihadist battalions kill more Muslims than non-Muslims.

Speaking forthrightly would also undermine a fiction the political class inanely believes is essential to social cohesion: The notion, oft-repeated by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, that Islam is part of the fabric of American life, as native in our history as apple pie and Judeo-Christian culture.

Islam, of course, is an alien belief system. That doesn’t make it bad per se. Our society is a melting pot and many things alien to it have blended their way in, making us more vibrant, dynamic, innovative, and successful. Clearly, though, not everything alien is benign and welcome.

Many Muslims embrace the Western culture of reason, liberty, and equality, and they flourish in our society, to which they are a real asset. Nevertheless, nothing is more alien and hostile to our society than Islamic supremacism — which, at its core, is sharia supremacism. Its adherents resist assimilation and seek to impose a totalitarian system that suppresses liberty and is systematically discriminatory against non-Muslims, women, apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and other groups.

“Obama has conspired with all Defendants and others to incite violence, looting, arson, assault against law enforcement and helpless communities with the purpose of making a new ‘fundamentally transformed America’ appear preferable to the crime waves and chaos they themselves are creating.”

These words come from a shocking lawsuit filed by an African-American police sergeant.

Obama’s war on cops has cast a fearful shadow over police forces across the country, but no single force has suffered as much as the Dallas Police Department which buried five of its own. Now a lawsuit takes on not only the racists and bigots of Black Lives Matter but their backers all the way to the top.

On a hot night in July, five police officers were murdered at a Black Lives Matter anti-police rally.

Chief David Brown stated that, “The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter. He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

Some Black Lives Matter supporters celebrated the murders by Micah X. Johnson. Others claimed that the murdered officers had brought their deaths on themselves. A Black Lives Matter supporter brandished a sign, “Killer Cops Create Cop Killers”. Below it was the hashtag #FTP which stands for “F___ the Police.” #FTP is a hashtag often associated with the hate group’s anti-police activism.

Black Lives Matter draws its inspiration from cop-killer and domestic terrorist Assata Shakur. The recent manifesto of the Movement for Black Lives named her and other racist cop-killers as “political prisoners”. It also complained about the way that Dallas police took out Micah X. Johnson.

But the whitewashing of Black Lives Matter began before the bodies of its latest victims were even cold.

The media fussed over the impact on the hate group and a “backlash” against the “shell-shocked Black Lives Matter community in Dallas”. It wasn’t as concerned about the “shell-shocked” Dallas police officers who were targeted for death by this racist “community” of racists and left-wing radicals.

At the memorial, Obama spent more time praising Black Lives Matter than its victims. The bodies were buried and the racist agitators got back to their business of inciting the murder of more police officers backed by $130 million in left-wing cash from big bucks leftists like Soros and the Ford Foundation.

It was a weekend of coincidences: acts declared not to be terrorism that just happened to look a great deal like…terrorism.

After a bomb went off at 23rd Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan and another bomb was found four blocks away, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said: In a press conference in the aftermath, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio said, “This was an intentional act.” However, he added that he didn’t think it was terrorism, and refused to agree with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who said that the bombing was “obviously an act of terrorism.”

De Blasio’s position was entirely incoherent: what is an intentional bombing if it isn’t terrorism? Cuomo made a bit more sense as he explained that while it was obviously terrorism, “it’s not linked to international terrorism. In other words, we’ve found no ISIS connection.”

Very well. So he was leaving the door open to it being “right-wing extremists.” But was it an act of jihad? Both de Blasio and Cuomo were committed to denying that there is any jihad that has anything to do with terrorism in the first place, so they would never answer (or, given the state of the mainstream media, be asked) that question, but just to assert that the bombing was not terrorism, or international terrorism, did not entirely rule out that it may have been an act of Islamic jihadis. Yet De Blasio remained mystified: “We know it was a very serious incident, but we have a lot more work to do to be able to say what kind of motivation was behind this. Was it a political motivation? Was it a personal motivation? We do not know that yet.”

A Tumblr page entitled “I’m the NY Bomber” professed to offer a clue. It said: “You probably have all seen the news by now, the explosives detonated in New York City, that was me. I did it because I cannot stand society. I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.”

Since colleges and universities are engaged in an orgy of renaming things—buildings, programs, maybe even the institutions themselves—I’d like to offer a suggestion about an important renaming opportunity. The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, for example, really ought to rename itself “Indoctrination U.” As a recent report on The College Fix revealed, that campus of UCCS is offering to indoctrinate students about the dangers of anthropogenic climate change (formerly known as “global warming”). Only one perspective on this subject will be tolerated.

The three professors teaching the class—Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill—I include their names in case you have the misfortune of attending UCCS so that you can avoid them—announced in an email that “We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course.”

Love those scare quotes around “other side,” Comrade! “Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate,” they continue “would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course.”

Gee, and I thought it was only 97% of climate scientists were we (wrongly) said to agree with Al Gore.

I feel sorry for students trapped in those reeducation camps. I’d like to do something to help. One thing I can offer is the alternative that Profs. Laroche, Haggren, and Skahill want to deprive their students of. So, to all students at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, help is on the way. Just head over to The New Criterion and for an extremely modest consideration you can download a PDF of our recent pamphlet called The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 is Good for The Earth. (You can also get a hard copy of the pamhlet here.)

THE CLIMATE SURPRISE coverPAMPHLET—Kimball

The pamphlet is based on a conference The New Criterion hosted in March in collaboration with The CO2 Coalition, whose data those UCCS profs should study but won’t. The pamphlet includes essays by six distinguished scientists, William Happer, Craig Idso, Roy W. Spencer, Richard S. Lindzen, Patrick Moore, and Bruce M. Everett. You can also see a clip of an interview we conducted with the great Mark Steyn, who is being sued by the climate fraudster Michael Mann, here. Finally, as a teaser, here is my introduction to the pamphlet, “The Politics of Weather.” Just don’t let Profs. Laroche, Haggren, and Skahill catch reading such dangerous literature:

Are you weary of the weather wars? Are you alarmed by the extensive beachhead that “pro- gressive” culture warriors, clad in the (borrowed) raiment of science and fired by a moral fury wor- thy of an early-twentieth-century temperance campaigner, have secured in the public debate? You will be grateful, then, for Mark Twain’s 1892 novel The American Claimant, which be- gins with an advisory about “The Weather in This Book.” “No weather will be found in this book,” Twain explains. “This is an attempt to pull a book through without weather.” What a relief! For it is impossible to turn anywhere in our enlightened, environmentally conscious world without being beset by lectures about one’s “carbon footprint” and horror tales about “global warming,” “rising seas,” and imminent ecological catastrophe.

It was with this in mind that The New Criterion partnered this spring with the CO2 Coali- tion, a Washington-based think tank dedicated to combatting misinformation about the effects of CO2 and fossil fuels, on a conference to pon- der The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 Is Good for the Earth.1 We might have added “and for you, your loved ones, and the economy,” but we did not wish to appear gratuitously provocative.