RUTHFULLY YOURS

According to Feminist Internet, worrying about obesity, a health problem that plagues our society, isn’t a nice thing to do — in fact, it’s a very mean, “oppressive” thing called “concern trolling.”

A post co-authored by Melissa A. Fabello and Linda Bacon for the blog Everyday Feminism defines “concern-trolling” as “the act of a person participating ‘in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause.’”

In case that buzzword salad didn’t make any sense to you, the authors gave a few examples of the the kinds of unacceptable, “oppressive” phrases that people needed to “stop” using, including, “I’m just concerned about their health.”

Now, you might see absolutely nothing wrong with that kind of statement — especially considering that obesity has been repeatedly found responsible for a huge number of preventable deaths in the United States.

But apparently, true feminists are supposed to ignore facts if those facts have the potential to hurt someone’s feelings:

“It’s disheartening to see feminists – people who we generally trust to engage with content and have their status quo boundaries pushed – rush to quote sketchy research and throw oppressive ideologies around all in the name of, supposedly, ‘health,’” the article states.

In January 19, 2016 The Department of Homeland Security posted a notice in its official website about a report with important national security implications “DHS Report: Entry/Exit Overstay Report for FY 2015.”

The actual report “Entry and Exit Overstay Report, Fiscal Year 2015” focused only on the arrival and departure of nonimmigrant aliens (temporary visitors) though international airports and seaports but did not include aliens who were admitted at land border ports of entry.

This report noted that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have failed to depart the United States represented a very small percentage of the total number of nonimmigrant aliens who departed from the United States within the time limit imposed at the time they entered the United States- however, we must remember that we are still dealing with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who had been admitted into the United States during FY 2015 and that each and every year more such aliens enter the United States and fail to depart or otherwise violate the terms of their admission into the United States.

The DHS report noted that the number of overstays represented only a tiny proportion of the number of aliens who left the United States within the time they were granted to visit the United States, however, the number of aliens who violated the terms of their admission approached a half million and this is without including aliens who entered through land border ports of entry and/or aliens who may have otherwise failed to abide by the terms of their admission.

The administration has done virtually nothing to locate these illegal aliens.

“No, Islam Isn’t Inherently Violent, And The Math Proves It,” M. Steven Fish declared in the Daily Beast. Vox’s headline writers went one better, “This study obliterates the myth that Muslims are more violent”. Salon claimed that Richard Dawkins and Bill Mater were wrong about Islam. “Here’s how data proves it”.

The left is enamored with claiming that science proves something. It rarely however bothers looking at the actual data. That would spoil all the fun.

How did M. Steven Fish, a Berkeley political science professor, prove that Islam isn’t inherently violent? In the Washington Post’s fishwrap, Fish wrote, “Predominantly, Muslim countries average 2.4 murders per annum per 100,000 people, compared to 7.5 in non-Muslim countries.”

Fish concluded that, “More Muslims, less homicide.”

Is this really true? It’s as true as the data that Fish uses as the basis for his alternate version of reality. And this data claims that Sudan is much safer than Canada, that you’re as safe in Iraq as in America and that Egypt is one of the safest places on earth.

The Oscar nominations have brought a corrosive racial politics to the fore.
By Victor Davis Hanson — January 26, 2016

One of the stranger demands of various campus affiliates of Black Lives Matter was the call for “safe spaces.”

That is a euphemism for designated racially segregated areas.

In such zones, particular minority groups are reassured that no white students or faculty could enter — and thus by their mere presence supposedly remind them of institutionalized white bias.

Left unmentioned is the surreal college enforcement of such segregation. What will happen if a half-white student, or a Brazilian, Peruvian, or Syrian foreign student, wanders into a safe space designated for blacks? Does the Dean of Diversity — presumably dressed in a sport coat with elbow patches rather than appearing as Lester Maddox with a bat — call security to expel the miscreants for their racist assumption that there should not be private areas set off by race?

Does the dean have a handy color-coded wheel he can pull out to place next to the arm of the would-be intruder to verify whether the bounder is guilty of being white? Do courts go back to the 1940s racial zoning laws for legal precedents for sustaining racially separate safe spaces on public campuses? And in reaction, do so-called white students then mark off their own racially designated areas — perhaps permissible if called “unsafe spaces”?

The old idea of racial and ethnic healing through interaction, assimilation, integration, and intermarriage has become passé in the era of Obama. The president, after all, has given us everything from “typical white person” and Trayvon Martin as the son he never had to Rev. Wright’s venom and Eric Holder’s “my people.”

So, how are the settled science climate changers, global warmers, global coolers going to explain last weekend’s “snowmageddon” “snowcalypse” (not my words), where several more inches than normal of the white stuff temporarily buried a large section of the eastern United States? But…but…snow in January, snow in winter wasn’t supposed to happen anymore, according to the Great Minds of Science who have built a nice money-making racket on denying reality.

For instance, take Nobel Peace Prize winner (read, and try not to laugh, his climate change acceptance speech here and old male white Oscar winner (listen to his acceptance speech here and Grammy winner and former vice president and president wannabe Al Gore (D)’s past definitive climate warning gurgles. Please!

Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.”

The ongoing interpretations concerning natural-born citizenship may eventually become a moot point. With the burgeoning immigration of groups of people who have little to no devotion to American ideals but who will have children born on American soil, one can easily envision that, in the not so distant-future, an American-born individual schooled in the hatred of jihad could conceivably occupy the White House.

Already the radical Muslim Brotherhood has “built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc.” The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) aims to elect Islamists in Washington in order to institute sharia law and dismantle the American Constitution.

The Center for Security Policy’s Star Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party is part of its Civilization Jihad Reader Series (Volume 5). The Center asserts:

[T]he Muslim Brotherhood has been actively infiltrating American government and society since shortly after the Second World War. But March 2014 marked a significant step forward for the Brotherhood in America. Some of its key leadership figures joined together to establish the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the first political activist group in this country to be openly associated with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood. Formation of the USCMO was announced … [in] March 2014, just blocks from the U.S. Capitol Building. At the podium were: Ousama Jammal, Secretary General USCMO and past President of The Mosque Foundation; Naeem Baig, President, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA); Nihad Awad, National Executive Director, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Mazen Mokhtar, Executive Director, Muslim American Society (MAS); Imam Mahdi Bray, National Director, American Muslim Alliance (AMA)[.] The significance of this move is best understood in the context of what the Muslim Brotherhood itself calls ‘civilizational jihad,’ a term used in its 1991 strategic plan: An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America. As the Explanatory Memorandum states, the Brotherhood’s mission in America is ‘destroying Western civilization from within,’ preparing the way for its replacement by the rule of Islam’s supremacist code, shariah (Islamic law). Unlike more immediately violent Brotherhood off-shoots – for example, al-Qa’eda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State or HAMAS, the Brotherhood in the West has generally taken care to operate stealthily, under the radar, even to the point of sometimes denying its very presence in the United States.

In more than twelve years of writing a weekly essay on some of the most critical problems of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, I’ve never been short of subject matter and I’ve never been at a loss for words… until now. For more than two months I have tried to find a way to address the question of what must be done to prosecute the war on radical Islam, while being fully aware that a committed communist, who may also be a “closet” Muslim jihadist, serves as commander in chief of U.S. military forces. Although I have never hesitated to go “out on a limb” to propose solutions that others may see as radical or “outside the box,” I have attempted to stay as close as possible to what I hope others would judge to be at least within the realm of possibility.

Having said that, and being aware that essentially everyone else in the western world remains wedded to the notion that the long term future of western civilization depends on our ability to find a way to peacefully coexist with Islamists… both radicals and moderates… I find myself of a different opinion. In order to be persuaded otherwise, I would have to see conclusive proof that somewhere… at some time in history… Muslims have set aside their goal of total world dominion in the interest of harmony and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. That proof simply does not exist. Instead, the so-called “moderate” Muslims appear to be nothing but a silent cheering section for radical jihadists.

Reading the history of Islam, it is tempting to believe that, for periods of years since the death of Mohammed in 632 A.D., Muslims throughout the world had finally decided to live as civilized human beings when, in fact, they were merely resting, re-arming, and preparing for the next major assault on Christianity, Judaism, and the rest of western culture.
According to an April 13, 2015, report by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), during calendar year 2011, for the third year in a row, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities. Of the more than 5,700 terror incidents during that year, some 56 percent were committed by Sunnis. As such, they were responsible for 12,533 fatalities, or 70 percent of all terrorist fatalities.

The Center for Immigration Studies has determined that the federal government has becoming more and more lax in prosecuting immigration offenses over the last 5 years. Statistics compiled by the group show a 36% decline in prosecutions in that period.

Washington Examiner:

Justice Department statistics show that criminal prosecutions for crimes such as unlawful re-entry by an illegal in November totalled 4,861, down 13.2 percent over the previous month. Over the past year, that number is down 22.3 percent.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, which analyzed the data, that is a five year decline of criminal prosecutions of 36 percent.

CIS analyzed data produced by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which publishes Justice and Homeland Security Department data on immigration. TRAC said that the top criminal prosecution charge was “reentry by a deported alien.”

TRAC also produced the “detainer” report based on Homeland Security data that showed a huge drop in the administration’s effort to grab illegals in jail. It said that there were over 25,000 detainers issued in October 2015. That dropped to 7,117 in October 2015.