RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/british-labour-party-anti-semitism-scotland-yard-investigation/

It’s the logical consequence of scandals that have rocked Labour since Jeremy Corbyn became leader three years ago.

The last time that I wrote about Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour leader, was in August 2018, after the decision by the party not to adopt in full the definition of anti-Semitism as enunciated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. On Friday, the Metropolitan Police Service of Greater London announced that Scotland Yard had opened a criminal investigation into alleged anti-Semitic hate crime in the Labour party. The investigation is the logical consequence of the accumulation of anti-Semitism scandals that have rocked the party since Corbyn became leader in the summer of 2015.

The leaked dossier, police sources say, contains over 80 pages of alleged anti-Semitic statements, including Holocaust denial. Among the messages that are alleged to have been written or spoken by Labour-party members are “We shall rid the Jews who are cancer on us all” and “Zionist extremist MP who hates civilised people about to get a good kicking.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The climate within Labour is now so hostile that at a party conference in September a Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, required special police protection from violent anti-Semitic Labour members. In a different incident, a Jewish woman was kicked in the face outside a pro-Corbyn event in North London, where she demonstrated against the party’s handling of anti-Semitism charges. John Mann, another Labour MP who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, charged that he was trolled by Corbyn supporters who said his grandson’s falling ill was “karma” for the elder’s criticizing the Labour leader and standing up to anti-Semitism.

Corbyn, meanwhile, is paying lip service to the need to address anti-Jewish hatred. “Driving antisemitism out of the party for good, and rebuilding that trust, are our priorities,“ he wrote in the Guardian in August 2018. In the same article, however, he lamented “the killing of many unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza,” encouraging the very conflation — between British Jewry and the policies of the Israeli government — that is at the heart of many of Labour’s anti-Semitism scandals. Once you understand that mindset, you understand why anti-Semitism in the Labour party has been nurtured and is now endemic at every level within the institution.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/norways-mosques-are-multiplying-and-taxpayers-foot-the-bill/

Founded in 2001, Oslo-based Human Rights Service (HRS) has been instrumental in supplying useful and illuminating research about the scale, nature, and social and economic impact of immigration into Norway. Its recommendations have resulted in important policy changes, its website is very widely read by Norwegians who are skeptical about Islam, and the latest book by its information officer, Hege Storhaug (just out in English as Islam: Europe Invaded, America Warned), was a massive bestseller.

In the U.S., a think tank like HRS would be funded by corporate donors and philanthropists, but, in accordance with Scandinavian practice, it gets its money — which, given how much it accomplishes, doesn’t really come to all that big a sum — from the national government. Pretty much every year brings another fight over how much, if anything, HRS should get from the public till, with almost everyone on the left (and not a few on the right) complaining that its work contributes to negative images of Muslims. This year, the proposed national budget for 2019 left untouched the generous handouts to such far-left PC enforcers as the “Anti-Racist Center,” but cut by a half minute kroner ($60,000) the annual subsidy to HRS. The planned cut drew so much attention that a couple of leading members of the Progress Party (FrP) — which voters put into power largely so that it could implement the kind of reforms that HRS has called for — were actually roused to action and saw to it that the budget line was left untouched.

Meanwhile, the Norwegian state budget doles out far larger sums to other, far more dubious recipients — and HRS, as it happens, has been instrumental in digging out and publicizing the numbers. I’m referring to the huge annual payouts to mosques, which for some reason almost all of the members of the Norwegian parliament think they have the obligation to fund.

In recent weeks, coincidentally, even as HRS was fighting to hang onto its own minuscule government appropriation, it was publishing bombshell reports on the stunning increase in the number of mosques in Norway — and on the corresponding rise in the amount of taxpayer funds transferred to their coffers. Norway, let it be remembered, has a tiny population of 5.25 million people — almost identical to that of Chicago — but at present it has 219 mosques, which represents a 65% upsurge since only eight years ago. This year, the mosques received a total of 187 million kroner ($22,359,347) from the government.

How does the government decide how much to give each mosque? I didn’t know the answer until the other day. It is rooted in the fact that, until January of last year, the Church of Norway (DNK) was the nation’s official state church. It used to be the case that unless your parents opted out of it, you were automatically registered as a member at birth. Naturally, the government covered the Church’s expenses, and each congregation’s annual endowment was based on its membership statistics. In Norway, as elsewhere in Western Europe, church attendance has radically declined over the past few years, but in Norway the amount of cash infused into those churches has remained relatively constant, meaning that the sum per worshiper has increased dramatically. In order to be fair, by its own lights, the Norwegian parliament supports mosques at the same rate per registered member as the DNK. Since official mosque membership has skyrocketed even as church attendance has dived (one in eight residents of Oslo now belong to a mosque), the amount of taxpayer money handed over to these houses of worship has, according to an FrP official, “escalated at an alarming tempo.” CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/trouble_in_nigeria_emmustem_be_trumps_fault.html

The leftists continue to demonstrate a severe Trump Derangement Syndrome. How else do you explain a manic obsession in finding connections between everything terrible that happens in the world and President Trump, or seeing a malicious intent in his every single action and word? Planet is heating up – Trump’s to blame (no, it “doesn’t matter” for the leftists that we are reducing carbon emissions.) Trump nominates a new Supreme Court Judge – let’s oppose him with “whatever means necessary”. Trump smiled at Putin at some formal gathering — Putin’s puppet, obviously (no, it “doesn’t matter” that the Trump Administration is constantly introducing anti-Russian sanctions.)

Now, in the end of October, the Nigerian Army killed 45 and wounded nearly 100 protesters from the radical Shia group called Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) when they started throwing rocks at the soldiers. The leftist reaction? You guessed it – it was Trump’s fault. “Nigerian Army Uses Trump’s Words to Justify Fatal Shooting of Rock-Throwing Protesters,” runs the New York Times. “Nigerian Army defends killing protesters by quoting Trump. Trump’s caravan rhetoric affecting the whole world,” asserts CBS. That’s right, the whole world.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13263/un-migration-human-right

It cannot be stressed enough that this agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.

The UN has no interest in admitting that its agreement promotes migration as a human right; until recently, there has been little debate about it. More debate might risk jeopardizing the entire project.

UN member states are not only supposed to open their borders for the migrants of the world, but should also help them pick and choose their future country by providing them with comprehensive information about each country they may wish to settle in.

The United Nations, in a non-binding agreement that almost all UN member states will sign at a ceremony in Morocco in early December, is making migration a human right.

The finalized text of the agreement, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, although officially non-binding, “puts migration firmly on the global agenda. It will be a point of reference for years to come and induce real change on the ground…” according to Jürg Lauber, the representative of Switzerland to the UN — who led the work on the agreement together with the representative of Mexico.

One immediate irony, of course, is that few countries have entry requirements as restrictive as Switzerland’s. If one wishes to stay more than three months, not only is a “residence permit” required, but, “In an effort to limit immigration from non-EU/EFTA countries, Swiss authorities impose strict annual limitations on the number of residence and work permits granted to foreigners.”

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/11/australia/

Sir Harry Gibbs’ advice was succinct: ‘…a state is entitled to prevent the immigration of persons whose culture is such that they are unlikely readily to integrate…’ That counsel was ignored and, once again, Allah’s will has been inflicted on a society whose misguided generosity opened the gates.

At least one person has been killed and another two injured after a Muslim terrorist went on a stabbing frenzy in Bourke Street, Melbourne, on Friday afternoon. The past four successful terrorist attacks on Australia’s soil have all been carried out by Muslim terrorists, some of whom had successfully applied for refugee status before the Australian authorities. For instance, Islamic State’s most influential recruiter in Australia, Muhammad Ali Baryalei, is a Muslim refugee that the government allowed to stay in the country.

Australia has a population of approximately 24 million and around 500,000 of its people are Muslims. The number of Muslims has risen dramatically over the last thirty years. Over 300,000 of them use Arabic at home. Needless to say, most Muslims are not terrorists but, unfortunately, all terrorists consider themselves to be faithful Muslims. While security measures are not specifically directed against the broader Muslim community, terrorists are, of course, drawn exclusively from this specific religious group.

The problem is that we simply do not know who to trust amongst a religious group that largely despises our democracy, culture and laws, and that do not even accept the principle of religious tolerance and separation of powers.

Although jihadists are not drawn exclusively from the first-generation Muslim immigrants, a large Muslim immigration to Australia invariably provides a larger recruiting ground for terrorists and other Islamist militants. Both the influx of asylum seekers from dysfunctional majority-Muslim countries and the constant influx of Muslim immigrants to Australia naturally exacerbate the threat of Islamic terrorism on our soil.