RUTHFULLY YOURS

Pamphlets being issued in Germany to Muslim male refugees that they are not to grope or fondle European women reveal the rank stupidity, ignorance, and sheer indifference of European leaders as they continue down a suicidal trajectory.

Of course these men were going to engage in rape jihad, since sexual abuse is ingrained in their religion and culture. As psychologist Nicolai Sennels explains, “Mohammed, the prime example for Muslims, married Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine. Besides, according to the Quran (4:24), Muslims are allowed to have sex with female slaves[.]” In addition, “uncovered women are in many Muslim cultures seen as a kind of prostitute, and if a man is aroused by such a female, then – partly due to the corrupted logic of responsibility within Muslim psychology – the female is blamed for being raped (and will therefore often face execution).”

In 2010, Andrew C. McCarthy, in his book entitled The Grand Jihad, described rape by Muslim immigrants as the “unspoken epidemic of Western Europe.” Six years later, it continues to expand and sweep across the continent. Ingrid Carlqvist documents how Sweden is now the rape capital of the West, and when “Michael Hess, a local politician from [the] Sweden Democrat Party, tried to warn his nation that ‘it is deeply rooted in Islam’s culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings’ he was charged with ‘denigration of ethnic groups'” – a crime in Sweden.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro did his administration proud on Monday. His boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, couldn’t have done a better job of twisting reality to suit fantasy.

At the annual Institute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv, Shapiro delivered an address worthy of note in its content and timing.

Earlier that morning, a pregnant woman from Tekoa, a settlement in the Judean Hills, was stabbed and seriously injured by a Palestinian teenager in the local grocery store. The previous evening, a mother of six (four biological children and two adopted ones), was stabbed to death in front of her 17-year-old daughter at their home in the settlement of Otniel.

Dafna Meir’s struggles with the Palestinian assailant, and her daughter’s screams for help, caused the terrorist to flee, but not before he managed to slaughter his victim. (At the time of Shapiro’s address, Israeli security forces were still hunting for the killer; a 16-year-old Palestinian was later apprehended and was being interrogated over the attack.)

Will Banning Muslim Migration Ruin the Anti-ISIS Coalition?We don’t need to become ISIS to fight ISIS.

The most common attack on proposals to end Muslim migration to the United States is that this policy would somehow interfere with the coalition to fight ISIS.

Lindsey Graham asked, “How do you go to any of these countries and build a coalition when your policy is simply because you’re a Muslim you can’t come to America?” “This policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS,” Jeb Bush objected.

The White House agreed, “We have an over-60-country coalition fighting with a substantial number of Muslim-majority fighters who are absolutely essential to succeeding in that effort.”

But there are two things wrong with this argument.

First, no Muslim country or faction is fighting ISIS because they like us. They’re not doing us any favors. They’re protecting themselves from the Islamic State.

The insistence of ISIS that it is the supreme authority over all Muslims has even led it into battles with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No one fighting ISIS is doing it because of our immigration policy. Jeb Bush referenced the Kurds. The Kurds want their own homeland. Those who want to come to America don’t want to fight ISIS. Those who want to fight ISIS aren’t looking to move to Dearborn or Jersey City.

Second, Muslim countries in the anti-ISIS coalition have much harsher immigration policies for Christians than anything that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz have proposed for Muslims.

When Obama gave his speech, the first Muslim country he mentioned in the coalition was Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia bans all religions except Islam. No churches are allowed in Saudi Arabia. Christmas parties are targeted with police raids. Converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Non-Muslims are entirely banned from some Saudi cities and the legal system discriminates against them.

Saudi Arabia also engages in blatant racial discrimination and denies basic civil rights to women. And yet there are no problems with having Saudi Arabia in the anti-ISIS coalition. Certainly the Saudis don’t worry that we’ll drop out of the coalition because they ban Christianity.

In a wide-ranging conversation on the threat posed by political correctness and the “culture of comfort” to the wellbeing of American universities, Lawrence Summers discusses his opposition to the faculty movement pressing for divestment from the Jewish state, along with his fight to return ROTC to campus. (Interview by Bill Kristol; video, 22 minutes.)

CH. 1: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ON CAMPUS Larry Summers reflects on political correctness and its consequences for our universities.

CH. 2: UNIVERSITIES AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH Summers explains why universities must be devoted to the pursuit of truth, even when uncomfortable.

CH. 3: ISRAEL BOYCOTTS AND ROTC Summers discusses several significant controversies from his tenure as president of Harvard.

CH. 4: THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION How might technological developments impact higher education? Summers and Kristol discuss.

To the man-in-the-street, who, I’m sorry to say,Is a keen observer of life,The word intellectual suggests right away A man who’s untrue to his wife.

W. H. Auden could well have carried his lampoon further by pointing out that any intellectual these days is most likely to be untrue to his country, his compatriots, and their culture. It seems to come naturally to some characters to condemn what they are expected to praise, and praise what they are expected to condemn. Accordingly, the assumption takes root that Western societies are unjust at many a level, and that they do things much better somewhere else.

One approved model used to be the Soviet Union, then it was Maoist China or Castro’s Cuba, and there are even socialists now who look to the Venezuela of Hugo Chávez. A small but
vociferous number of academics and littérateurs repeatedly put across some inner vision that possesses them, falsifying reality in the manner ofartists.

The primary explanation of this phenomenon is snobbery. The works of a Gore Vidal, a Norman Mailer, a Harold Pinter, an Edward Said, and alltheir kind are exercises in superiority. To hold opinions about national politics and purposes contrary to those of everyone else seems like flattering evidence of being cleverer than the masses who can’t think
things out for themselves and don’t know they are being hoodwinked. In this mindset, doing harm is progressive and unpopularity is proof of courage.

A particular subsection of intellectuals comprises Jews who are engaged in a very old battle to define their identity. Scattered in many countries and living among Christians or Muslims, they were nonetheless always a nation, with a faith and languages and customs of their own. The obvious strategies for survival were to avoid drawing attention to themselves, to stay apart, to do whatever was asked by the powers that be, and finally to flee if persecution was threatening martyrdom.

Move over, vegetarian; the “climatarian” is now taking the smug seat at the dinner table.

This new term is a convergence of two political crusades: climate change and the food movement. It landed on the New York Times list of the top new food words for 2015. Here’s how the Grey Lady defined the term:

climatarian (n.) A diet whose primary goal is to reverse climate change. This includes eating locally produced food (to reduce energy spent in transportation), choosing pork and poultry instead of beef and lamb (to limit gas emissions), and using every part of ingredients (apple cores, cheese rinds, etc.) to limit food waste.

Climate activists are ratcheting up their attempt to blame global warming on food production and consumption, targeting the meat industry in particular. As the public tunes out stale climate-change rhetoric, climatarians hope to turn attention away from your SUV and onto your dinner plate.

They have plenty of help to make their case. A dire report released last November by Chatham House at the Royal Institute of International Affairs claims that the livestock sector is responsible for emitting about 15 percent of greenhouse gases, which “is equivalent to tailpipe emissions from all the world’s vehicles.” The United Nations pegs the figure even higher, at about 25 percent. They want us to think that if we cut out meat, we’d dramatically reduce emissions.

A specious report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization last year warned that processed and red meat are carcinogenic. The group’s goal is to foment public fear about America’s favorite protein, despite a dearth of scientific evidence to back it up

In its latest act of illicit intervention in Israeli public life, the foreign (mainly U.S.)-funded “New Israel Fund” (where their ‘New Israel” means Palestine) has filled the Israeli press and the country’s billboards with a McCarthyist anti-democratic vilification poster that essentially endorses all who seek to deny freedom of speech in Israel to non-leftists.

It is the NIF’s response to the campaign by the student Zionist movement Im Tirtzu against ‘Shtulim’ (plants) in Israel, meaning foreign-funded anti-Israel subversives. In the NIF ad, it shows Yitzhak Rabin with the slogan “THEY already took care of that plant,” meaning “THEY” collectively murdered Rabin. By THEY the NIF does not mean Yigal Amir and his brother. It means all Israeli critics of the left.

For decades, the mantra of Israel’s anti-democratic left has been that Rabin’s death was caused by the exercise of freedom of speech by non-leftists in Israel, especially when they criticized Rabin and called him names. Their conclusion is that criticism of the left by non-leftists is a clear and present danger that produces murder and so must be suppressed. Just how they know that assassin Yigal Amir’s behavior was not caused by his attending law school has never been explained. In any case, the catechism of the left, which includes most journalists, is that the Rabin murder was caused by “incitement.” Curiously, they are not reminding people what Rabin really thought of leftist NGO B’tselem!

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/01/19/islamophobia-is-how-islamic-law-comes-to-america-on-the-glazov-gang-2/

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog The Point at Frontpagemag.com.

His guest was Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know. The discussion focused on: “Islamophobia” is How Islamic Law Comes to America, unveiling how the accusation of “racism” is installing Sharia on our shores.

Don’t miss it!

Hear about the scholarly paper allegedly debunking the fact that there has been no pause in rising temperatures? Well it’s rubbish — and that verdict doesn’t come from climate sceptics but statisticians who really do believe the planet is overheating

It’s always undignified to get hit by ‘friendly fire’. That’s what’s happened to a group of Stanford University statistical experts and their late-2015 peer-reviewed paper “Debunking the climate hiatus” in the prestigious journal Climate Change.

Two statistician bloggers, Radford Neal and Grant Foster, have torn the paper apart, even though both agree – for other reasons – that the 15+ years pause or hiatus in warming is a statistical illusion. So, warmists, it’s no use making ad-hominem attacks on these bloggers because they’re on your side.

statisticianI am unqualified to comment on the statistical arguments, having barely passed Stats 101 at ANU in 1972, the era of the slide rule. So my point is about prima facie and uncorrected crud making its way into a prestigious peer-reviewed climate journal, which may now have to publish some soul-destroying corrections. And if that essay made it into “the science”, what other junk has also been elevated to scientific holy writ?

Critic Radford Neal (right) is Professor, Dept. of Statistics and Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto. He not only looks to me like a good statistician, but his papers have earned 22,600 citations, including 8,600 in the past half-decade. He sets out the status of the “Debunk” authors:

(Bala) Rajaratnam is an Assistant Professor of Statistics and of Environmental Earth System Science. (Joseph) Romano is a Professor of Statistics and of Economics. (Noah) Diffenbaugh is an Associate Professor of Earth System Science. (Michael) Tsiang is a PhD student. Climatic Change appears to be a reputable refereed journal, which is published by Springer, and which is cited in the latest IPCC report. The paper was touted in popular accounts as showing that the whole hiatus thing was mistaken — for instance, by Stanford University itself.

If Barack Obama is right, there is no Islamic terror wave today, just a few “incidents.”

Likewise, progressive politicians in Germany, Britain, Sweden and other parts of Europe say much the same thing: no need to worry — only isolated incidents.

The European progressives have been saying for years that reports of Muslim immigrants carrying out sexual assaults on non-Muslims, committing hate crimes against Jews, planning terror assaults on newspapers, cartoonists and authors are the products of “Islamophobia” — an unreasoning fear of Muslims.

The facts say that Obama and the European progressives are wrong. Indeed, the facts show that Obama and many European leaders — and leaders of public opinion such as newspaper editors and television directors — have been trying to hide the sad truth, by claiming that people who see the truth are suffering from a “phobia.”

The Soviet Union tried a similar tactic. For years, anyone who criticized Soviet policy was classified as a mental case, shipped off to a well-guarded mental asylum.

The recent New Year’s Eve rapes and assaults this year in in Cologne and other German towns by gangs of Muslim men were hidden by German politicians some of whom even tried to blame the women for bringing it on themselves.

In Britain, local authorities conspired for years to hide a wave of hundreds even thousands — of sexual abuse crimes committed by Muslim immigrants.

In France, police and media conspired to hide the rising tide of Muslim hate crimes against Jews, burying the stories or classifying them as property offenses. French newspapers began to take the terror a bit more seriously when the terrorists attacked a French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, a year ago.