RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270871/persecution-christians-and-lefts-willful-blindness-jack-kerwick

“Islamophobia” now belongs to the left’s Politically Correct catalog of unpardonable transgressions.

Christophobia, however, still hasn’t made the cut.

While no one should be mistreated because of their religion, to see that the left’s is a grossly twisted moral vision, that they are as guilty as sin itself of straining out the gnat while letting in the camel, we need only juxtapose the experience of Christians vis-à-vis persecution with that of Muslims.

It’s true indeed that there are many Muslims throughout the world that have been made to suffer. Yet this has nothing to do with any so-called “Islamophobia,” for it is other Muslims, the corrupt leaders under which they live or the adherents of rival tribes and Islamic sects, from which their suffering stems.

And as far as Muslims in the West are concerned, the only “suffering” that they can be said to experience is the discomfort or inconvenience of supposedly being viewed with suspicion by their hosts.

This is what passes for “Islamophobia” throughout the contemporary Western world.

Never, though, do we hear from either native-born leftists or indignant Islamic immigrants about Christophobia.

Never do they utter a peep about the unimaginably brutal, relentless, and horrific oppression suffered by legions of Christian men, women, and children around the planet.

Never do they say a thing about the fact that to a far greater extent than the adherents of any other religion, Christians face persecution the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the days of the early Church when Christ’s disciples were fed to lions and burned alive.

There are two reasons for the deafening silence of the international left on this issue.

First, that Christians suffer any persecution, much less persecution that exceeds in both scope and horror any sustained by the members of any other religion, is a fact that threatens to undercut the left’s narrative of Christian oppressors and non-Christian victims.

Second, the one group that’s more responsible for perpetrating the oppression of Christians is the group that the left’s narrative of choice unfailingly depicts as victims. Though Muslims are not the only purveyors of Christian persecution around the globe, in the vast majority of instances, they are the perpetrators.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270880/not-so-rotten-denmark-bruce-bawer

On July 1, the New York Times ran a long article by Ellen Barry and Martin Selsoe Sorensen headlined “In Denmark, Harsh New Laws for Immigrant ‘Ghettos.’” How harsh? Henceforth, starting at the age of one, children living in designated “ghettos” – in other words, “low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves” – have to spend at least 25 hours a week receiving instruction in Danish values, “including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language.” Parents who refuse to obey may lose their welfare payments.

Given the proven failure (over decades) of innumerable Muslim immigrants in Denmark to learn Danish, find jobs, and otherwise integrate into Danish society – not to mention the tendency of young people who’ve grown up in those “enclaves” to join gangs, commit violence, and express open hostility to native Danes and their culture – these laws sound eminently reasonable. In fact, anyone aware of the scale of the problem might well pronounce them tame and insufficient. But not the Times. Barry and Sorensen describe the new laws not as a responsible attempt to prevent the kind of social and economic collapse looming in next-door Sweden, and to preserve a free, safe, and solvent Denmark for future generations of ethnic Danes and the descendants of immigrants, but rather as a “tough” and “sinister” expression of the Danish government’s “ire.”

One law that the Times writers single out for disdain “would impose a four-year prison sentence on immigrant parents who force their children to make extended visits to their country of origin…in that way damaging their ‘schooling, language and well-being.’” Barry and Sorensen plainly find this law unspeakably severe. One wonders if they know what they’re talking about. The fact is that countless Muslim parents in Europe send their kids “back home” for years at a time – it’s called “dumping” – so that they can attend Koran schools, soak up Islamic codes of conduct, and (most important) be shielded from such abhorrent Western phenomena as individual liberty and sexual equality.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brexit-theresa-may-must-go-save/

Every day seems to produce another item in Theresa May’s continuing betrayal of her promises on Brexit and the referendum. Here are the opening paragraphs of a front-page story in yesterday’s London Times to illustrate rather than (needlessly) to prove the betrayal:

Britain has privately conceded that EU judges will be legal arbiter of disputes over payments to Brussels and the residency rights of more than three million European citizens.

In an attempt to break the deadlock in a key part of the negotiations the government has agreed to give the European Court of Justice (ECJ) the final say in the arbitration of arguments over the working of Brexit and any disputes over Britain’s £39 billion bill.

EU judges will also have the final say over a Irish border “backstop” if the trade deal between Britain and Europe leads to frontier checks.

Brexiteers said that the concession was another climbdown by Theresa May.

Is “climbdown” the right word, however? It implies a reluctance to agree and a submission to force majeure. What evidence is there that May and her cabal of advisers feel any reluctance or that they are bowing to necessity rather than making a series of deliberate choices? The language of submission seems designed to deceive their supporters in Parliament, namely the Brexiteers, and in the country, the great majority of Tories, rather than to outline a prudent route to U.K. independence. Whatever the psychological motives behind this latest concession to Brussels, however, it is unmistakably a betrayal of May’s repeated “red line” that she would take Britain “out” of the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Of course, her Chequers package for a No Brexit Deal (not to be confused with a No Deal Brexit) had already erased two of her other major red lines. If the Chequers plan ends up being the basis of a final settlement, Britain will be “out” of neither the single market nor the customs union. Yet only two days before the Chequers cabinet meeting, May had declared in the clearest terms that the country would be “out” of all three — and others too.

https://wp.tomgrossmedia.com/ CORBYN CALLED MEMBER OF TERROR GANG WHICH KILLED ESTEEMED JEWISH DOCTOR AND HIS DAUGHTER, HIS “BROTHER” [Notes by Tom Gross] The first picture above is of Dr David Applebaum with his 20-year-old daughter Nava on the eve of her wedding. Dr Applebaum, one of Israel’s most distinguished doctors, ran the A&E department at Shaare […]

http://q4j-middle-east.com

The headline for the Bizpac Review mailing for July 30th read, “Turkish President Erdogan Warns Trump…”

Before going any further, I’ve valued the American and NATO relationship with the Turks too…the Turkish Straits, the Russian bogeyman, and so forth. But, at what price?

The current dispute is over the demand that Washington issued that Ankara release American Pastor Andrew Brunson, imprisoned since 2016, who had a small church in Turkey that Turks accuse of supporting “terrorists–i.e. especially Kurds, who’ve done most of America’s fighting against ISIS and other Jihadis. They refuse to accept that they’re really just “Mountain Turks,” as Ankara renamed them after also outlawing their language and culture, and have forcibly reacted against their bloody subjugators.

Now, if this doesn’t sound familiar, think about what happened to some two million or more Christian Armenians and Assyrians, and others who, like those (Muslim) Kurds above (some 22 million just in Turkey alone, 20 to 25 % of the population), dared to suggest that they too had their own pre-Turkish (and pre-Arab) invasion identities, let alone rights and aspirations in the age of nationalism as well.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/07/politically-correct-medicine/

The Medical Board of Australia is pushing a draft code that would oblige physicians to accept and thereby endorse ‘cultural practices’ antithetical to both good medicine and civilised conduct. Female genital mutilation, payback spearings — apparently these demand ‘respect’…..

A proposed Code of Conduct, which is open for public submissions until August 3, could force doctors to accept ‘cultural beliefs and practises’ that are opposed to good medical practise, according to a group of doctors.

The Medical Board of Australia draft code of conduct that will apply to all Australian doctors requires doctors to be “culturally safe” and comply with a patients’ beliefs about gender identity and sexuality, with no provision given for a doctor to differ in their professional judgements. A doctors’ group convened by Dr Lachlan Dunjey of Perth, has expressed concern for the future of medicine in Australia in light of the changes.

“We are concerned with the possible interpretation of ‘culturally safe’, that it should not impact on good health outcomes and good medical practice”, the group has stated. “We are concerned that ‘respectful practice’ is significantly different to ‘respectful of the beliefs and cultures of others’ and that this change also could impact on good health outcomes.

“Respect for a patient does not equal respecting ‘cultural beliefs and practices’ that may be antithetical to good medical practice.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistans-deep-state-seeks-a-new-patron-1532989532

Another meaningless Pakistani election has attracted another burst of world media attention. Last week, voters gave the party of former cricket player Imran Khan a plurality in Parliament, making him the likely next prime minister. The press is full of accounts of what Mr. Khan’s victory means for the troubled country. But the real decisions in Pakistan are made by unelected military officers—and the media’s dutiful coverage of the nation’s all but ceremonial electoral process is a major propaganda victory for the permanent ruling establishment.

Pakistan matters, even if its elections don’t. It is the world’s only nuclear state with deep ties to terror groups. And its national-security elite believes it is locked in an existential competition with India, its much larger, richer and more technologically advanced southern neighbor. Yet Pakistan simply does not have the economic capacity to keep up this security competition. That has been true since the partition in 1947, and it became more pronounced when India helped East Pakistan emerge as independent Bangladesh in 1971.

Pakistan’s security disadvantage has always had a profound impact on its politics. The imbalance has driven Pakistan’s concentration of power in the hands of the military, its quest for nuclear weapons to counteract India’s edge in conventional warfare, its dependence on patrons and paymasters to bridge the resource gap, and its deepening reliance on Islam as a legitimating force.

There is little room for actual democracy under these circumstances, or so Pakistan’s rulers believe. But they have come to understand the advantages of a democratic charade. The blame for problems with public services like sewers, roads and schools—often exacerbated by the resource constraints imposed by the military’s security fixation—can be shifted onto politicians. When political parties become enmeshed in corruption scandals, the military presents itself as the clean and patriotic alternative, siding with the people against a crooked elite. The political pageantry currently being indulged by the press diverts attention from the hard fact of military rule without endangering the national-security establishment’s position at the heart of the state. Even controversies over the fairness of the election process contribute to the effectiveness of the dictatorship’s disguise.

Not that electoral competition in Pakistan is entirely without consequences. Politicians who win elections don’t gain power over the strategic direction of the state, but they do win government jobs and lucrative contracts for family and friends, along with other rewards and emoluments of office. The rival clans and ethnic groups who back Pakistan’s political parties sincerely want their side to win. Favored access to the governmental piggy bank is no small thing, and collaborating in a sham process that keeps the military in power is a small price to pay.

The most important story in Pakistan today is not the elevation of Mr. Khan, the military’s preferred candidate. It is that the U.S., Pakistan’s principal ally during both the Cold War and the war on terror, is no longer interested in subsidizing a partner it needs and trusts less and less. Pakistan’s military rulers are therefore seeking a new patron, and China is eager to fill the void. CONTINUE AT SITE