Displaying posts published in

April 2018

“Everyone Was Afraid to Be Branded as a Racist” Interview with Mona Walter by Natalia Osten-Sacken

“If I speak about Islam, they interpret it as hating Muslims. But I do not hate Muslims. I believe that this ideology is dangerous for all mankind. The Muslim community will also suffer under the Sharia.” — Mona Walter, Swedish activist from Mogadishu, Somalia.
“Jesus said we should love our enemies, but not that we should be stupid.” — Mona Walter.
“I always say to my Christian friends, ‘What do you think, what will happen to you if Islam becomes dominant here?'” — Mona Walter.

Mona Walter, age 45, is a Swedish activist from Mogadishu, Somalia. In the early 1990s, she fled as a refugee to Sweden. There, she abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity. The act resulted in criticism and death threats. The mainstream media consider her a person working for religious freedom. Other organizations accuse her of fueling anti-Islamic movements.

Natalia Osten-Sacken: I have heard your statements stigmatizing Islam as an intolerant and hateful culture. If it is so, why did you not notice it in Somalia?

Mona Walter: In my country, we had our own African culture. People did not deal with religion so much. There was no Sharia, we had our own secular law. We came here as young, secular people. It is worth mentioning, that we belonged to the Sufi Sunni faction.

When I came from Somalia to Sweden, I experienced a huge clash of cultures, because Islam here is more extreme and fanatical than in my country. What is very important – we were Islamized after 1991, here in Sweden. In these closed areas, immigrant ghettos are deprived of democracy.

Turkey: Is Erdogan’s “Magic Spell” Beginning to Pale? by Pinar Tremblay

Research conducted in March by 50 teachers from the Imam Hatip schools revealed that students are moving away from Islam.

“[Mosques] no longer serve people, but rather serve as a source of income for certain people.” – Young imam, later fired.

Another cause of upset on the part of many religious Muslims is the content of the Diyanet-prepared Friday sermons, which frequently advocates violent jihad.

What is clearly on the rise, however, is great disappointment in the Erdogan government’s version of Islam, especially when accompanied by corrupt politics and a deteriorating justice system.

For decades, prominent Islamist figures would rarely criticize Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and when they did, it would be directed at his policies, rather than his personality. That trust seems beginning to change.

On March 26, for instance, Temel Karamollaoglu, the head of the tiny but increasingly influential Saadet (Felicity) party, railed against Erdogan and the members of the public “under his spell.” Karamollaoglu’s repeated reference to Erdogan as having performed “magic” on the Turkish people is significant. Accusing the leader of the ruling Islamist party of violating Islam, which bans sorcery and witchcraft, goes against the grain of the prevailing culture of unconditional loyalty and obedience. In fact, the 76-year-old Karamollaoglu has been a devoted follower of the political Islamic ideology of dawa (religious outreach) and a former supporter of both Erdogan and his Justice and Development (AKP) Party. Today, outspoken in his opposition, he says that his movement is the only one “that can stop the polarization in Turkey because we can sit down and speak with everyone, accepting our differences. Ours can be a platform of social democrats, nationalists, Kurdish voters and those who previously supported the AKP but are now disillusioned.”

Palestinians: New Twist on an Old Lie by Bassam Tawil *****

Zomlot informed his Jewish audience, in English, what he would never dare say in Arabic — that the Palestinians will one day recognize the Jewish connection to Jerusalem.

If Zomlot made such a statement in his native Arabic language, he would be denounced as a traitor — if he were very lucky. If he were less lucky, he would end up in a hospital or morgue.

Zomlot knows that he can always deny (in Arabic) what he said in English.

Denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and the existence of the Jewish Temple has always been a central component of the Palestinian narrative and ideology.

Palestinians, like members of all societies, disagree on many things. Nevertheless, when it comes to the historical connection between Jews and Jerusalem, Palestinians manage to unite in lies: Palestinian political leaders, academics and religious leaders have long promoted the false narrative that Jerusalem was, and remains, an Arab and Islamic city.

We are currently witnessing a new twist on this old lie.

It seems that some Palestinians are now trying to deceive the world into believing that they do, indeed, recognize the Jewish people’s historic connection to Jerusalem.

The problem is that Palestinian officials tell their people one thing in Arabic and the rest of the world another thing in English.

New AP History Text Categorizes Trump Supporters as Racist, Questions President’s Mental Fitness “His not-very-hidden racism connected with a significant number of primary voters.” Sara Dogan

It is sadly common for conservative presidents and political leaders to be portrayed in a less-than-flattering light in the left-leaning textbooks used in public school and college classrooms, but a new volume on American history gives a new spin on the term “rush to judgment.” Less than a year-and-a-half after taking office as America’s sitting president, Donald Trump is already being maligned in the pages of an upcoming high school history text which insinuates that he and his supporters are driven by racism and that he is mentally unfit to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.

Textbooks rarely receive a high profile before their publication, but the new history text “By the People: A History of the United States” written by New York University Professor James W. Fraser and set to be published by the Pearson Education publishing company has already proved controversial for its radical left-leaning and insulting narrative on Donald Trump’s election as president. The book’s one-sided nature was exposed not by an educator but by high school student Tarra Snyder, a junior and AP History student at Rosemount High School in Minnesota, who was provided with Fraser’s book as a sample text that might be used for class instruction next year. Snyder was so incensed by the work’s slanted portrayal of history that she shared images of the book with Indianapolis radio show host Alex Clark, who tweeted images of the text along with commentary that quickly went viral:
Alex On-Air
✔ @yoalexrapz

“In case you didn’t think there was an effort going on in public schools to indoctrinate kids with an anti-conservative agenda, a friend of mine took pictures and highlighted parts of this AP US History book.”

The book’s concluding section titled “The Angry Election of 2016” puts NYU Professor Fraser’s hatred and disdain for President Trump on full display. “Most thought that Trump was too extreme a candidate to win the nomination, but his extremism, his anti-establishment rhetoric, and, some said, his not-very-hidden racism connected with a significant number of primary voters,” Fraser writes.

A Murder in the Mountains In the West, honor killing isn’t alien anymore. Bruce Bawer

After living for many years in Oslo, I’ve been based for the last few years in Notodden, a town of about 12,000 people that is located in the mountains about two hours’ drive due west from the Norwegian capital. Notodden, Norway’s ninetieth largest municipality, used to be most famous as the headquarters of the energy firm Norsk Hydro; it’s now best known for its annual blues festival, which is held every August and which in recent years has featured a “blues school” run by Steven van Zandt. This year it will feature Bonnie Raitt.

Blues is big in this town. So are antique American cars. In short, this isn’t exactly a hub of European anti-Americanism. The locals tend to be down-to-earth, unpretentious, hard-working. Many of them take much the same jaundiced view of Oslo that middle Americans take of Washington, New York, and Hollywood. Living here is not all that different, I suspect, from living in the mountains of Kentucky or Tennessee.

So it’s a measure of the rapidity with which things have changed in Europe that even here in Notodden, there are women in hijab all over the place. The other day I was on a local bus, and the majority of passengers were women in hijab. There was a little girl in a pram – she was in hijab, too.

On another recent day I was alone on the bus with the driver, a Bulgarian immigrant who knows that I’m American and with whom I exchange pleasantries from time to time. He took advantage of the fact that we were alone to say to me: “Why does everybody criticize Trump so much? I don’t think he’s so bad.” After I volunteered that I think Trump is actually pretty darn terrific, he was quick to agree.

—–

The other day I found in my mailbox a copy of Phyllis Chesler’s new book A Family Conspiracy. It’s a collection of ninety-nine of her articles about honor killing. The earliest of these articles dates back to 2004, a time when many people in the West were just starting to hear about this most alien-sounding of cultural practices. It is a depressing topic to read about and to write about. But it’s vital to know about, because for those of us in the West, alas, it’s no longer alien. Phyllis – a feminist heroine who has been a friend and idol of mine ever since I met her many years ago at a women’s rights conference in Rome – knows more about honor killing, and has read and written about it more extensively and effectively, than anyone else I can think of. Her new book is a perfect introduction to the subject, rich in insight and packed with harrowing accounts of these monstrous crimes. Some of them took place in Iraq, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Israel, Finland, Britain; others happened in North America – in such cities as Toronto, St. Louis, Dallas, Buffalo, Chicago, Jersey City, Ottawa, and New York.

One of the grim lessons of this book, indeed, is that wherever you live, an honor killing has occurred somewhere not too far afield. Some girl in hijab whom you might have passed one day on the sidewalk or in a grocery store may well have gone home that very day only to be thrown to the floor by her brother and held down by her mother while her father opened her throat with a knife. All in punishment, of course, for a violation of some tenet of sharia – for example, stepping outside the family home without parental permission, or without a male escort, or without having her hair properly covered. Such are the offenses that can instantly unite the members of a Muslim family in a tidy and barbaric intrigue to eradicate their daughter, their sister, their mother.

Such brutal offenses happen in the West with increasing frequency. And yet for most Americans, the topic continues to feel unutterably alien.

—–

On April 10, Aftenposten reported that a woman in her late thirties had been found dead the day before in her apartment here in Notodden. The woman was originally from somewhere in North Africa, and had lived in Notodden with her child since December of 2016. She had been attended Norwegian language classes. Her body had been discovered because her child (apparently a very small child) had been heard crying in a corridor of the apartment building.

The next day brought more news. The dead woman’s ex-husband had been arrested and charged with her murder. An acquaintance of the dead woman described her as “a wonderful person and a very good mother” who had lived in fear of her ex. She had, in fact, moved to Notodden with her child from somewhere in northern Norway – where her husband still lived – in order to escape him. He had made threats, of which officials in Notodden had been aware.

On April 17, the murder victim was identified as Houda Lamsaouri, a 38-year-old Moroccan citizen. A neighbor told the regional newspaper TA that she had been eager to learn Norwegian, find a job, and start a new life. “She was a quiet, kind person who was also smart,” the neighbor said. Also, she was a “very sweet mother” who “just wanted a peaceful life.” The same TA article described her ex-husband as a 53-year-old Syrian whom she had charged with violence back when they were living together up in Harstad, about 1000 miles north of Notodden. More recently, the couple had been involved in a legal dispute over the custody of their child – a dispute that was settled last month when full custody was awarded to the now-deceased mother.

“Becoming too ‘Westernized,’ wanting to choose one’s own spouse, refusing to marry a first cousin, daring to have infidel friends or allegedly engaging in sex outside of marriage – all are killing offenses,” writes Phyllis Chesler in her introduction to A Family Conspiracy. As far as I can see, nobody in the Norwegian press has yet used the term “honor killing” (in Norwegian, æresdrap) to describe the murder of Houda Lamsaouri. But at present it certainly seems likely that she was the victim of an honor killing. Indeed, she appears to have done pretty much everything a Muslim woman can do to merit cold-blooded slaughter under sharia law: she left her husband, took her child with her, lived alone without a male guardian or chaperone, attended language classes (probably in the company of infidels), and aspired to an independent life and career in a free, secular country.

And her ex-husband, by all indications, killed her for it. And it happened right here, in the obscure town I live in, in a little white building that I have passed a thousand times.

Share
About Bruce Bawer

Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and “The Victims’ Revolution.” His novel “The Alhambra” has just been published.
Read More

Sponsored Links
Trending on The Web
Play this Game for 1 Minute and see why everyone is addictedDelta Wars
Napoli v Udinese Betting Tips: Latest odds, team news, preview and predic…Goal

The McCabe-Stockman Lesson: In Politics, Clean Up Your Own Nest First By John Fund

One of the hardest things to learn in politics is that just because you agree with someone and he is on “your team,” that doesn’t mean you can trust him, accept what he says at face value, or know for certain what’s in his heart.

Good character is often independent of ideology. Just as we must guard against temptation in our own lives, so too must we guard against blindly believing apparent allies. The fact that someone is being hunted down by your opponents doesn’t necessarily mean he’s worth defending.

Take two examples from this month, one from the left and one from the right.

The Justice Department’s inspector general (appointed by Barack Obama) has referred former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe for potential prosecution after establishing that he lied over and over to investigators about leaking to the media. James Comey, who was McCabe’s boss at the FBI, says he is certain that McCabe isn’t telling the truth about having kept him apprised of the press leak. But Comey himself cast doubt on the inspector general in an interview last week on NPR:

Even if the process was sound, and I’ve no doubt it was sound given the nature of the people involved in the inspector general’s office, there’s corrosive doubt about whether it’s a political fix to get Andy McCabe somehow.

By all evidence, McCabe is a staunch Democrat whose wife received $750,000 for her 2015 Virginia state-senate campaign from a top Hillary Clinton ally. (She lost the race.) Despite the conflict of interest, he declined to recuse himself from the FBI’s probe of Hillary’s emails until one week before the 2016 election. Liberal activists are setting up a legal defense fund for McCabe. Because he is seen as a Trump “resister,” he must be defended.

But blind loyalty on the left is matched by some on the right. This month, former GOP representative Steve Stockman of Texas was convicted on 23 felony charges. Stockman, a certified public accountant, used the prestige of his office to solicit $1.25 million from a pair of conservative donors for his campaign and various charities. But he wound up spending the loot on everything from hot-air-balloon rides and flights to Africa to an alcohol-rehab program for an aide and to a trip to Disneyland. He spent $24,000 to give his relatives “heirloom quality advent books.” All this was funneled through a web of 17 sham businesses and shell bank accounts in four states and the Virgin Islands.

Trump is Guilty of Obstructing . . . the Bureaucracy! By Angelo Codevilla

The charge that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia to steal the 2016 election was never serious. The Democratic National Committee’s civil suit in that regard makes the unseriousness transparent. “Obstruction of justice” is the charge Democrats want to use to remove him from office. And in fact, Trump’s campaign, his election, and presidency, have done a lot of obstruction. He has thwarted longstanding bureaucratic policies and has fired bureaucrats. Whether that has obstructed justice or favored it depends on the meaning of “justice.”

The following explains the “justice” that the Democratic Party and its ruling class retinue correctly accuse Donald Trump of obstructing. Their justice, however, is contrary to the one embodied in the U.S. Constitution; never mind Plato’s classic sense of justice on which America’s founders relied. This classical notion of justice begins with guarding that which rightly belongs to each, and is founded on a political order that reflects the proper order of souls.

America’s Founders, having revolted against a legitimate government that was justly reputed to be perhaps mankind’s most liberal, had to explain to themselves, to their contemporaries, and to posterity why what they were doing was just. All them had read and revered William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. But all the procedures described therein, of which the Americans approved, had been based on the idea that the sovereign power of the permanent state flows legitimately from the existence of the kingdom, which the king embodies. The easy part was to argue that King George III had forfeited that power by abusing it, and hence the regime’s legitimacy. The more significant challenge was to show that there is no such thing as a sovereign power that exists independent of the people.

James Wilson, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, taken part in the constitutional convention of 1787, and served on the first U.S. Supreme Court, made this argument most fully in 1790 at the dedication of America’s first law school, to an audience of the founders, from Washington on down.

Rep. Nunes unloads on Comey, the FBI, the endless Investigation of Pres. Trump By Peter Barry Chowka

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee went on the record yesterday on the latest issues surrounding the endless investigation of President Donald J. Trump and his associates. These comments from the chair of the House committee that conducted its own investigation of alleged Russian collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (and concluded there was no collusion) came at the start of what promises to be another week packed with news about the ongoing efforts by opponents of President Trump, inside and outside of the government, to take him down.

From Fox News:

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA) TELLS SUNDAY MORNING FUTURES WITH MARIA BARTIROMO “…THERE WAS NO INTELLIGENCE” IN REACTION TO THE FBI’S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN

In an interview presented Sunday morning on FOX News Channel’s Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, discussed the intelligence behind the FBI’s decision to investigate the Trump campaign, former FBI Director James Comey’s memos that were recently released, and the Inspector General’s criminal referral against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Highlights are below.

Video (11 minutes):

Chipping Away at the Second Amendment By Eileen F. Toplansky

In 1993, Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman of the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership published a document titled “Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny,” which highlights the similarities between the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 and the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. Dedicated to the “tens of millions of victims of Nazi ‘gun control,” the book maintains that “the Nazi Weapons Law is the blueprint for ‘gun control’ in America.” The following is a synopsis of their points:

Access to ammunition and reloading components (bullets, gun powder, brass, and especially primers) will be controlled.
Police-issued ammunition and reloading components acquisition permits will be required..
A Firearms Owner Identity card issued by the federal government will be required. (In fact, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey already have such cards.)

Copper, copper alloys, brass, and steel bullets are now classified as armor-piercing “cop-killer bullets” and so prohibited, and these restrictions will be justified based on health or environmental grounds.
Bans on ammunition sales may be imposed. In fact, temporary bans occurred throughout the early 1990s in Los Angeles and Chicago.
Access to firearms will be taxed, and the penalties for evading this tax will be severe.
Those who do not renew their permits will have to surrender their firearms to the government or sell them at distress prices to those who can still afford the permits.
The term “sporting purpose” will be redefined to slash the right to own whole classes of firearms. Thus, the right to own firearms will depend on a bureaucrat’s whim. Certain military features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors will be removed.

Is this hyperbolic fear-mongering, or are these type of restrictions being implemented?

The Democratically controlled New Jersey Assembly under Governor Phil Murphy has passed the following measures to tighten already stringent gun laws. Murphy asserts that “he supports these measures as “a public health matter” and wants legislation to encourage the sale of so-called “smart guns” which use technology to restrict who can fire them.”

Turning Point USA’s Candace Owens Smacks Down Black Lives Matter “Victim mentality is not cool!” By Debra Heine

Conservative writer and commentator Candace Owens earned some celebrity cheers and jeers Saturday after she posted a must-see video of herself smacking down a group of Black Lives Matter protesters who were trying to disrupt a Turning Point USA event at UCLA Wednesday night.

Owens, the communications director for TPUSA and frequent guest on Fox News, was having none of it, and let the protesters know in no uncertain terms what she thought about their “victim mentality.”

“It’s embarrassing!” she exclaimed.

“There is an ideological civil war happening,” Owens told the audience. “Black people that are focused on their past and shouting about slavery, and black people that are focused on their futures.”

“I can guarantee you, what you’re seeing happening is victim mentality versus victor mentality!

“I love that!” TPUSA co-host Charlie Kirk interjected.

Owens continued, saying that there was “no doubt” in her mind that the conservative blacks in the audience would be better off in twenty years than the BLM protesters because they don’t have BLM’s victim mentality.

“Victim mentality is not cool!” she declared. “I don’t know why people like being oppressed! It’s the weirdest thing I’ve ever heard. ‘I love oppression, we’re oppressed, 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow!’ — which by the way, none of you guys lived through. Your grandparents did and it’s embarrassing that you utilize their history — you utilize their history, and you come in here with more emotion then they ever had when they were living through it!”

“It’s embarrassing!” she repeated. “You’re not living through anything right now! You’re overly privileged Americans!”

Among those praising her were rapper Kanye West and actress Roseanne Barr. Detractors included rapper Azealia Banks and actor Don Cheadle.

“Avengers” actor Cheadle chastised Owens over her sarcastic jab at the Black Lives Matter protesters.

Owens immediately challenged Cheadle to a debate. CONTINUE AT SITE