RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

In presidential elections, traditionally it’s the economy, stupid. But if there’s one thing that trumps the economy, it’s whether you live or die. And as events play out in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota (not to mention Iran, Syria, Libya, etc., etc.), it seems more than ever that for 2016—it’s the jihad, stupid.

There’s little question the Obama administration has done an horrendous job dealing with Islamic terrorism. The rise of ISIS is significantly on the president’s hands, not just because he inanely called the mega-terrorists a JV team, but because his failure to keep sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq gave the Islamic State the opportunity to grow and thrive.

The success of the Islamic State has given rise to a worldwide epidemic of so-called “lone wolves” who aren’t really alone, but local players (sometimes banded together) who take their inspiration from ISIS. They don’t care whether the Islamic State is controlling Mosul or even Raqqa. They care about jihad. And there seem to be more of them every day, in all corners of the world.

As I write this, five men have been taken into custody near the Verrazano Bridge. Are they jihadists? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Meanwhile, after Saturday’s IED explosion on 23rd Street and the near tragedy at a Marine charity run in Seaside Park, New Jersey, more pipe bombs have been found near the train station in Elizabeth, New Jersey. (Are there pipe bombs everywhere now?)

By all rights Hillary Clinton, an obvious principal in the development of this ongoing disaster, should have no chance at the presidency in a rational world. But an extraordinarily biased and morally narcissistic media, unable to face their own inadequacies or change a narrative seemingly set in stone, apparently will do anything to see her elected.

Coming soon is an electoral showdown the likes of which we have never seen—and it will largely be over how our country handles the jihad. Do we want to live like this for the rest of our lives? Do we want ongoing terror attacks, large and small, to be the new normal for us, our children and our children’s children?

The time has come to take a serious look at Donald Trump’s “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants. So far it is the only proposal that would have much of effect on the status quo. I haven’t seen a single other suggestion of much relevance, especially since there is little appetite for a full-scale war in the Middle East. You can “see something, say something” until you’re blue in the face, but there’s no way everything can be caught.

Unfortunately, “extreme vetting” is, as we are constantly reminded by that same media, a form of discrimination against Muslims. The problem is, allowing a free flow of immigration, or anything close, is discrimination against everyone else.

I could fill the rest of this page and a half-dozen more with all the nationalities and religions that are not waging jihad. There is only one that is.

Until that ends, they must be stopped. We simply have no other choice. Otherwise we will be like Europe before we know it—and the European situation has become almost untenable. We may already be untenable ourselves. The sad events in St. Cloud attest to the great resistance their Somali community has to assimilating. We cannot have more of this. We must shut it down before it overwhelms us. CONTINUE AT SITE

Early Monday morning, a device found near the Elizabeth, New Jersey Amtrak train station blew up while a robot was trying disable it.

The device in Elizabeth, a city south of Newark, had been left in a backpack placed in a trash can near a train station and a bar, Mayor Christian Bollwage told reporters.

As many as five potential explosive devices tumbled out of the backpack when it was emptied, Bollwage said. After cordoning off the area, a bomb squad used a robot to cut a wire to try to disable the device, but inadvertently set off an explosion, he said.

FBI Bomb Squad is on scene and continuing the investigation at the train station in Midtown Elizabeth. pic.twitter.com/qvmzsgisjC

— Chris Bollwage (@MayorBollwage) September 19, 2016

“I can imagine that if all five of them went off at the same time, that the loss of life could have been enormous if there was an event going on,” Bollwage said.

There was a suspicious package with multiple improvised explosive devices this evening at the Elizabeth Train Station in NJ. #Elizabeth

— FBI Newark (@FBINewark) September 19, 2016

“In the course of rendering one of the devices safe, it detonated. There are no injuries & law enforcement personnel are at the scene processing evidence,” according to a tweet from FBI Newark account.

The device was detonated in a controlled setting, Bollwage said. The sound of the explosion reverberated loudly as heard on video filmed by local media.

“The robots that went in to disarm it, cut a wire and it exploded. I know there are other devices, I don’t know what they’re made up of but they’re going to have to be removed,” Bollwage said.

Authorities are not certain if the bomb was placed at the New Jersey location or if it was discarded to elude investigators. Law enforcement are working to disable the other devices found in the backpack.

The New Jersey backpack was found in the garbage by two men who were looking through the garbage. They reported the backpack to police when they “saw wires and pipes” coming from the pack.

Train service has been suspended in the immediate area. Amtrak released a statement:

A University of Chicago letter welcoming freshmen with the warning they would arrive at a campus committed to “freedom of inquiry and expression” prompted a national debate on restoring free speech on campuses. The most interesting lesson is why it will be so hard for other universities to follow Chicago’s lead.

The letter rejected today’s higher-education fads: “We do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.” Rigorous but civilized debate “may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”

A few university heads tried to defend their safe spaces and trigger warnings. The president of Wesleyan dismissed the Chicago letter as a publicity stunt. Northwestern’s president wrote that his students need “spaces where members of each [racial or other identity] group feel safe.”

But now that liberal administrators and professors are increasingly becoming targets of political correctness, many would like to restore free speech. Brown University was widely mocked last year for setting up a safe space for students “with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies.” This year Brown’s president, Christina Paxson, declared in her convocation address: “Suppressing ideas at a university is akin to turning off the power at a factory.”

Liberal professors are terrified they will be set upon for an inadvertent offense, as happened last year at Yale when a professor was forced out for suggesting students could pick their own Halloween costumes without instructions from the administration. Recent surveys find most university students resent having to censor themselves out of fear of offending someone else’s beliefs.

Yet restoring free speech is easier said than done. Along with the letter, the incoming Chicago students got a book titled “Academic Freedom and the Modern University.” It recounts in detail the history of freewheeling debate at Chicago since its founding in the 1890s.

One factor that sets Chicago apart from other campuses is that it can rely only on serious academics for its reputation. President Robert Hutchins abolished the football team in 1939—despite many Big 10 championships—in order to focus on the life of the mind. Hutchins justified having communists speak on campus by arguing the way to rebut objectionable ideas “lies through open discussion rather than through prohibition.” CONTINUE AT SITE