Timothy Cootes: Highly Educated Idiots

There on the ABC, right on schedule after the Nice massacre, was an argument for moral equivalence being presented by no less than a full-blown academic from the University of Sydney. It takes that sort of mind to grasp that the US is no different from its Islamist adversaries.

I have a strong suspicion that some of the most pointless people in this country have PhDs in the Social Sciences. Of course, I don’t really mean to say that these people are unintelligent; obviously they know a good deal about Derrida, Foucault, Butler, and the rest of the gang. It’s their moral relativism that irks me, as well as the cultivated grudges against their own societies and culture. I’m thinking of the insistence that Australia was ‘invaded’, for example, or the tendency to self-blame after each attack by our Islamist enemies. In a way, one has to admire their industriousness: every day they manage to find brand new ways of hating themselves.

When it comes, then, to questions about the upkeep of Western civilisation, the university lecturer is not the person one first thinks to consult. Once upon a time, I have heard, his thoughts and recommendations were confined to the mercifully recondite and unreadable journals of the academic Left. No longer, though. This means I have to update my earlier suspicion: if I am right (and let’s face it, I am), all these useless people will appear, at some stage of their careers, on the ABC.

For a measure of proof, I invite the reader to consider last Friday’s episode of ABC’s The Drum, which featured Peter Chen (above), a senior lecturer in politics at University of Sydney. The topic was the ongoing assault on French civil society, but Chen seemed to wonder if this was a conversation worth having at all. He argued that what happened in Nice was awful, of course, but it was hardly new: the conversion of trucks into weapons of suicide terror happens every day in other parts of the world. For Chen, shock was an invalid emotional response. It proved that Westerners only care about their own. He sneered: “Why are we shocked about this? Because it occurred in France.”

Tehran Teaches Its Children Iranian textbooks preach the virtues of dictatorship and hate. See note please

Really? This type of teaching jihad and hatred to kiddies has been going on for decades among the Palarabs….rsk

President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has a sunset clause, with almost every restriction on the mullahs’ nuclear program expiring in 15 years. So it’s worth paying attention to what the next generation of Iranians are being taught about their country’s mission in the world.

Our best look so far comes thanks to a new report from Impact-se, a Jerusalem-based institute that monitors the content of textbooks across the Middle East. A ninth-grade social-education textbook reads: “All are submissive and obedient to the Guardian-Jurist,” that is, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Regime leaders are presented as infallible, divinely inspired and beyond criticism.

A third-grade religion textbook’s section on cleanliness includes an illustration of Iranian children chasing away a filthy, mucuslike blob with a Star of David on its back. A fifth-grade text for the 2016-17 academic year shows Palestinian children attacking Israeli soldiers with rocks and slingshots. It’s accompanied by regime founder Ayatollah Khomeini’s portrait and his injunction that “Israel must be wiped out.” America is portrayed as an aggressive hegemon.

As for the types of weapons Iran may use, a 12th-grade religion textbook instructs that “Islamic learning is such that religious experts can extract from it new laws concerning . . . procurement and use of new weapons, in accordance with the new needs of society.”

Part of Mr. Obama’s bet in signing the nuclear deal is that Iranian youth will be more moderate than the religious fundamentalists who now rule the country. This curriculum suggests that’s not a bet he’s likely to win. CONTINUE AT SITE

European Terrorism Arrests Rise as Jihadist Groups Focus on Urban Attacks Over 1,000 people were arrested for terrorism-related offenses in 2015 By Julian E. Barnes

BRUSSELS—European arrests in terrorism cases were up sharply last year, as law enforcement moved to address a shift by jihadist groups to carry out mass casualty attacks on the continent, according to a new report.

The threat of terrorism in Europe remains on an upward trajectory, as jihadist terrorists have shifted to a strategy that seeks to inflict high numbers of deaths, a report by Europol, the European Union police agency, said.

“The attacks in Paris in January and November 2015 represented a clear shift in the intent and capability of jihadist terrorists to inflict mass casualties on urban populations,” the report said.

Europol estimated that terrorist attacks in Europe resulted in 151 fatalities in 2015, all but three in France. In 2014, Europol reported only four people were killed in terror attacks.

According to the report, 1,077 people were arrested for terrorism-related offenses in 2015, up from 774 in 2014. The bulk of the arrests were in France, followed by Spain and the U.K.

Jihadist terror attacks in Europe in 2015 were plotted by people who had returned from fighting in Syria, used local recruits to carry out the attacks and likely received direction from Islamic State leaders, according to the Europol report. CONTINUE AT SITE

HELLARY CLINTON: LEFTWARD HO!

Clinton to Madison: Get Me Rewrite She tells Sanders voters that she’ll revise the First Amendment.

Hillary Clinton wants to win over Bernie Sanders voters, and on Saturday she bid for them by reinforcing her promise to rewrite the First Amendment to limit political speech that she and they don’t like.

“Today, I’m announcing that in my first 30 days as President, I will propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and give the American people—all of us—the chance to reclaim our democracy,” Mrs. Clinton said in a taped speech to the Netroots Nation conference of progressives. First 30 days? Who knew the 225-year-old First Amendment was in need of such urgent revision?

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that restored the free-speech and association rights of corporations and unions. That decision was rooted, if we can use that word in polite netroots company, in the language of the First Amendment. The constitutional amendment Mrs. Clinton has in mind would have to rewrite James Madison. Dead white males may be out of progressive favor, but we suspect most Americans still trust Madison more than they do the boys at the Daily Kos. CONTINUE AT SITE

Globalists refuse to name the enemy : Victor Sharpe

ISIS is merely one of the many Islamic terrorist organizations which have declared war on Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and every faith and non-faith in the world that is non-Muslim.

ISIS is simply the flavor of the week. It exists in infamy along with Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezb’allah, the PLO, Al Qaida, ad nauseum. But behind them all lies Islam itself to which they all swear allegiance and which is the driving force behind the horrors we see perpetrated around the world today.

It has been thus since Islam’s founding in the 7th century. Barbaric Sharia law and jihad reside in the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world. For them, it is authentic and fundamental Islam. But the global elites and “progressives” led by Obama still refuse to name it as the enemy.

We must understand that increasing numbers of Muslims now reside in our own communities whose loyalty to the state is not only suspect but demonstrably closer to the ummah (the Islamic worldwide community) than to our own Constitution.

Indeed, as Newt Gingrich said in the aftermath of the Muslim terrorist attack in Nice, France: “We should, frankly, test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

We must face the real issue, which is the one spelled out for us in Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” by contrasting aggressive, expansionist, supremacist Islam with the Judeo-Christian civilization of the West as well as by the beliefs practiced throughout the rest of the non-Muslim world.

So it is not about ISIS or Hamas or Boko Haram but about the fundamental ideology and Sharia driven Islamic jihad in all of its malevolent forms.

Remember Winston Churchill himself described Islam as an ideology wrapped in a religion. This ideology manifests itself not only in unspeakable violence perpetrated daily by its followers, whether it be in France, Britain, America, Israel, India, Holland, Sweden, Germany, Russia, the Philippines – practically everywhere – but also in what can be called the stealth jihad.

How Milton Viorst is distorting Menachem Begin’s legacy: Moshe Fuksman Shal see note please

Milton Viorst, neither scholar nor serious journalist has a long and shoddy history of Israel bashing…In 1987 he wrote a screed “Sands of Sorrow” decrying American aid to Israel and its defense force. He was a vocal supporter of Walt& Mearsheiners’ libel against America’s pro Israel lobby. In a strange turn of events, among the people he criticized for support for Israel, is Abe Foxman-accusing him of suppressiong truth about Israel……rsk

In December 1948, Menachem Begin first visited the United States in an attempt to gather support for his newly established political party, Herut. In response to his arrival, various prominent figures from the Jewish intellectual elite published a joint letter in The New York Times criticizing him and his party. The members of this group, which included Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, warned the readers of the Times that Begin’s party was “closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

History has shown that their analysis fell way short of the mark. The Herut Party became a principal voice for democracy and liberty in Israeli politics. It was Herut that was one of the leading opponents of the martial law that had been imposed on Israel’s Arab population until 1966. This opposition was consistent with Begin’s principled belief in equal rights for all of the country’s citizens.

The party also played a major role in defending freedom of the press, even in cases where media outlets were on the opposite side of the political map. (For example HaOlam HaZeh, a far-left weekly magazine that David Ben-Gurion had threatened to shut down.) It is noteworthy that during the more than 40 years of complete dominance of the Zionist, and then Israeli, establishment by Mapai and its successors, Begin insisted on keeping his opposition and protests within the democratic framework and playing by the rules of the game, even though it seemed as though he would never get the chance to win an election.

Trump’s Mum Supporters As long as you don’t admit voting for him, a Donald presidency might be OK. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. See note please

Pauline Kael after Nixon’s landslide win in 1972:

‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.’”

None of us will ever cast a vote that decides a presidential race, whereas we all bear immediate social cost and risk by saying whom we’re voting for. That’s the reality of incentives. Lots of prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have good reason for not sullying their carefully cultivated brands with Donald Trump’s by saying they’ll vote for him. This is understandable. In fact, it’s a no-brainer.

Of course, how you vote and what you say about your vote can be two different things. Kennedy won the 1960 election in a landslide according to polls taken after his assassination.

So let’s say it: As long as you don’t have to pay a social price for it, a Trump presidency might not be so bad. A Trump victory would be inconceivable without his bringing a GOP Congress along. His business friends would steer him away from wild actions. Mr. Trump himself has said he has no intention of destabilizing the economy.

We might get some real reform out of a Paul Ryan-led Congress. This would be Mr. Trump’s easiest path to the victories (“we’re winning again!”) he craves, and the reason some prominent conservatives like Larry Kudlow have risked their good names by lending them to Mr. Trump.

‘It’s the Immigration Problem, Stupid’ Secure borders are synonymous with safety and that’s what Americans want in 2016 by Michael W. Cutler

“Making America Safe Again” was the focus of the first day of the Republican National Convention. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/immigration-problem-stupid/

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressed the convention and unequivocally linked immigration to that vital goal, especially where the threat of terrorism is concerned.

Kent Terry — brother of Brian Terry, a Border Patrol agent who was killed on duty by illegal aliens — also spoke at the convention, as did two mothers and one father of children were slain by illegal aliens, saying that victims of criminal aliens needs to be addressed.

This means that there are about 10 percent as many ICE agent protecting the entire United States of America as there are cops protecting “The Big Apple.”

Early in his quest for the presidency, Donald Trump ignited a firestorm when he made the need for securing America’s borders a key issue for his candidacy, promising the build a wall to separate the United States from Mexico and getting the Mexican government to pay for that wall.

Many politicians were aghast at Trump’s candor. They had come to depend on the campaign contributions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations and deep-pocketed contributors that have been feeding at the super-lucrative trough of immigration, seeing in that massive influx of foreign workers (both illegal and legal with work visas such as the H-1B visa) a way of greatly reducing labor costs by importing a cheap labor force that would drive down wages and even supplant American workers with far more compliant foreign workers.

Yup, She’s Crooked: Fred Barnes

Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States. Aaron Burr was corrupt, but his treason didn’t occur until after his presidential possibilities had dried up. Ulysses Grant was a great man whose administration was riddled with corruption, but he wasn’t personally involved. Warren Harding wasn’t a great man, but he wasn’t party to the corruption in his administration either. Hillary Clinton stands alone.

Her corruption has many dimensions. It encompasses her personal, professional, and political life. There are lots of overlaps. Her use of a private email server engulfs all three aspects. With Clinton, one never has to exaggerate. Her malfeasance speaks for itself, loudly. She lies to get out of trouble and fool the press and voters. But she also lies gratuitously—when it’s not required to avoid trouble. Face to face with the parents of CIA commandos who were killed in Benghazi while protecting Ambassador Chris Stevens, Clinton lied. She said an anti-Islam video had prompted the fatal attack, which she knew wasn’t true, when she could have simply expressed her condolences. Clinton has a masochistic relationship with the media. She spurns them. They protect her.

Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking. The Gowdy-Comey exchange went like this:

Gowdy: Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Not true?

Comey: Right.

The Fire Spreads Three cops dead in Baton Rouge, and the analogies to the 1960s deepen. Heather Mac Donald

Perhaps it will turn out that the latest assassination of police officers, this time in Baton Rouge, is unrelated to the hatred fomented by the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps the gunmen were members of militia groups aggrieved by federal overreach, say. But the overwhelming odds are that this most recent assault on law and order, taking the lives of three officers and wounding at least three more, is the direct outcome of the political and media frenzy that followed the police shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, less than two weeks ago. That frenzy further amplified the dangerously false narrative that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today.

President Barack Obama bears direct responsibility for the lethal spread of that narrative. In a speech from Poland just hours before five officers were assassinated in Dallas on July 7, Obama misled the nation about policing and race, charging officers nationwide with preying on blacks because of the color of their skin. Obama rolled out a litany of junk statistics to prove that the criminal justice system is racist. Blacks were arrested at twice the rate of whites, he complained, and get sentences almost 10 percent longer than whites for the same crime. Missing from Obama’s address was any mention of the massive racial differences in criminal offending and criminal records that fully account for arrest rates and sentence lengths. (Blacks, for example, commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at about 11 to 12 times the rate of whites alone.) Instead, Obama chalked up the disparities to “biases, some conscious and unconscious that have to be rooted out . . . across our criminal justice system.”

Then five Dallas officers were gunned down out of race hatred and cop hatred. Did Obama shelve his incendiary rhetoric and express his unqualified support for law enforcement? No, he doubled down, insulting law enforcement yet again even as it was grieving for its fallen comrades. In a memorial service for the Dallas officers, Obama rebuked all of America for its “bigotry,” but paid special attention to alleged police bigotry:

When African-Americans from all walks of life, from different communities across the country, voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment, when study after study shows that whites and people of color experience the criminal justice system differently. So that if you’re black, you’re more likely to be pulled over or searched or arrested; more likely to get longer sentences; more likely to get the death penalty for the same crime. When mothers and fathers raised their kids right, and have the talk about how to respond if stopped by a police officer—yes, sir; no, sir—but still fear that something terrible may happen when their child walks out the door; still fear that kids being stupid and not quite doing things right might end in tragedy.

When all this takes place, more than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.

The irresponsible zealotry of this rebuke was stunning. Obama was fully on notice that the hatred of cops was reaching homicidal levels. And yet his commitment to prosecuting his crusade against phantom police racism trumped considerations of prudence and safety, on the one hand, and decent respect for the fallen, on the other. Of course, Obama also uttered the mandatory praise for officers who “do an incredibly hard and dangerous job fairly and professionally,” and he warned against “paint[ing] all police as biased, or bigoted.” This was self-indulgent hypocrisy. A passing denunciation of stereotyping hardly compensates for the insane accusation that black parents rightly fear that any time “their child walks out the door,” that child could be killed by a cop.