Poor Paris. Less than three weeks ago, the scene of carnage; this week, the venue for saving the planet. Because of security after the Isil atrocities, the City of Light was spared a planned climate change march, but London had one on Sunday, attended by what the ever-Green BBC optimistically described as “tens of thousands”. One of the march’s leaders, the fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood, said: “Global warming is at a tipping point. If we go past it we can’t stop it. We are there right now.”
In this view, Dame Vivienne accords with the Prince of Wales, who predicted in Rio de Janeiro in March 2009, that there were “less than 100 months to act” to prevent “catastrophic climate change”. In other words, it’s all over by July 2017.
The Hijab is not a choice. It’s something Muslim men enforce on women. While Obama has done a great deal to force employers to accommodate Hijabs even where inappropriate, he has done nothing to protect Muslim girls from being abused for not wearing a Hijab. Just as he has done nothing about honor killings or any of the real civil rights issues facing Muslim women in America.
This story is another reminder of the reality that goes on, mostly out of public view, while the administration and its media allies blather on about Islamophobia.
An assistant professor at the University of Missouri was arrested after allegedly pulling a young girl out of school for not wearing a Muslim headscarf according to the Columbia Tribune.
Youssif Z. Omar, 53, noticed his 14-year-old relative was not wearing the traditional hijab as he drove by Hickman High School in Columbia on Tuesday.
While the western world expressed its solidarity with France following the November 13, 2015 Paris terror attack by Islamic State local affiliates, few expressed similar sympathy and support for what Israelis have had to endure from Palestinian-Islamist terror in recent weeks, and for almost a century. It began with the anti-Jewish Palestinian-Arab terrorist riots of the 1920’s, and continued with the Arab Revolt (1936-1939), which was typified by terror attacks of Palestinian-Arabs against Palestinian-Jews (the Yeshuv, the Jews of Palestine were commonly called Palestinians). Following Israel’s war of independence in 1948, and Israel’s absorption of over a million refugees from Europe’s Holocaust and the Arab world, terror resumed in the 1950’s by Palestinian-Fedayeen from Gaza trained by Nasser’s Egypt.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), founded in 1964, began its terror attacks against the Jewish state from Jordan first, then from Lebanon and Tunisia, with a platform that sought to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with a “secular, democratic Palestinian state.” The Oslo Accords of 1993 committed the Palestinians to forgo terrorism and incitement. Lasting less than a year, Palestinian terror resumed using the latest terrorist weapon introduced by the Palestinians to the world: suicide-bombers. In September, 2000, Yasser Arafat launched the Second Intifada, which was far more violent than the first. Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian Authority president and PLO chairman, like Arafat, never stopped the incitement and the resulting terror against Israeli-Jews. In October, 2015, yet a new weapon in the Palestinian terror arsenal was introduced…knifing and car ramming.
Infantile college kids all over the country are protesting human-right violations like Halloween costumes and free speech, the honoring of Woodrow Wilson and the placidity of students studying in libraries. A few years ago, an early member of the new wave of student disobedience gave me a look inside the protesters’ scattered brains.
In February 2009, President Obama had just taken his oath of office, and I was a freshman at NYU. On the evening of February 18, a group of about 60 NYU students, and a few students from other schools, assembled in the NYU student-center cafeteria. They said that they were a group called Take Back NYU, and that they were occupying our cafeteria until a grab-bag of eleven non-sequitur demands were met.
Their first, courageous demand was that none of them be punished. Their second was that “all employees whose jobs were disrupted during the course of the occupation” receive “full compensation.”
Third, they demanded that NYU’s budget and endowment be made public. Fourth, that “student workers” and teaching assistants be allowed to bargain collectively. Fifth, “a fair labor contract for all NYU employees at home and abroad.” Sixth, they demanded “a Socially Responsible Finance Committee that will immediately investigate war profiteers and lifting of the Coke ban.” (NYU had recently overturned a silly “All University Senate” decision to ban Coke from our vending machines and cafeterias; rumors about abusive labor practices by the Coca-Cola Company turned out to be lies. But I’m not sure which war profiteers they had in mind.)
A month before the Yale Halloween meltdown, I had a bizarre and illuminating experience at an elite private high school on the West Coast. I’ll call it Centerville High. I gave a version of a talk that you can see here, on Coddle U. vs. Strengthen U. (In an amazing coincidence, I first gave that talk at Yale a few weeks earlier). The entire student body — around 450 students, from grades 9-12 — were in the auditorium. There was plenty of laughter at all the right spots, and a lot of applause at the end, so I thought the talk was well received.
But then the discussion began, and it was the most unremittingly hostile questioning I’ve ever had. I don’t mind when people ask hard or critical questions, but I was surprised that I had misread the audience so thoroughly. My talk had little to do with gender, but the second question was “So you think rape is OK?” Like most of the questions, it was backed up by a sea of finger snaps — the sort you can hear in the infamous Yale video, where a student screams at Prof. Christakis to “be quiet” and tells him that he is “disgusting.” I had never heard the snapping before. When it happens in a large auditorium it is disconcerting. It makes you feel that you are facing an angry and unified mob — a feeling I have never had in 25 years of teaching and public speaking.
After the first dozen questions I noticed that not a single questioner was male. I began to search the sea of hands asking to be called on and I did find one boy, who asked a question that indicated that he too was critical of my talk. But other than him, the 200 or so boys in the audience sat silently.
Islamist terrorism is not a consequence of the West’s failure to accommodate ‘cultural differences’. As Christian and Yazidi women raped by captors who simultaneously recite the Koran can attest, the problem is Islam itself
The continual attempts of the Islamic State (IS) to systematically annihilate the non-Islamic world have striking similarities. Texts such as the Koran and Hadith boast close to two hundred verses advocating jihad, and lay out specific guidelines for waging this “holy war”. Beheadings and suicide bombings are commonplace, and Westerners are primed by the media to see these atrocities as the defining features of Islamic radicalism. However, a recent development in the IS terror trend that remains distinct is the newly reinstated practice of sex slavery.
Regardless of the constant professing of IS that they act in the name of Allah and the Islamic faith, there is a strong tendency of Western left-wing ideologues to deny the religiosity of the agenda. Such vehement refusal to criticise the religion itself continues to be as baffling as it is frustrating—augmented by the paranoia of the Left that any criticism of Islam amounts to bigotry. More to the point, the lofty attitude of these self-deprecating Westerners does nothing to support the cause of the “unbelievers” enslaved and violated by IS.
Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion proclaimed: “History did not spoil us with power, wealth, nor with broad territories or an enormous community: however, it did grant us uncommon intellectual and moral virtue, and thus it is both a privilege and an obligation to be a light unto the nations.”
These are hollow words from Ben Gurion who ordered the June 20, 1948, attack on the Irgun ship Altalena where sixteen Zionist patriots were killed and scores of other injured. But that’s another story for another time .
The self-righteous notion that it is Israel’s “privilege and obligation to be a light unto the nations” inspired Israel’s early stifling socialism and a pathetic and decidedly immoral policy of self-criticism, appeasement, and abrogation of its religious and historic patrimony.It also contributed to Israel’s blindness to Islamic jihad. For it was easy to reason that the “enlightened” people who had been persecuted for their own religion could not possibly impugn another religion.
Nonetheless, while refusing to blame Islam for the unrelenting vitriol and hatred of Arab/Moslem nations, Israelis blandly accepted descriptions of patriotic and observant settlers as “ultra-orthodox messianic fanatics.”
In spite of the fact that Israel has been the frontline of Islam’s thirst for a world caliphate, Israel’s pundits, like those in the West, avoid blaming, even naming, Islam.
As Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, the essential text in the study of Islamic hatred of Jews, commented:
“This is reflected in the present inability, political, journalistic, and scholarly alike, to recognize the importance of the factor of religion in the current affairs of the Muslim world…If our political, journalistic, and scholarly ‘elites’ ever arrive at this understanding, perhaps they will grasp the accompanying vocabulary of the Muslim combatants and their spokespersons, in the context of the jihad against Israel. ‘Resistance’ means a genocidal jihad, whose ‘justice’ amounts to the violent restoration and forcible maintenance of dhimmitude for those surviving Jews (and Christians) in a vanquished Israel.”
Thousands of Israeli Arabs marched in Umm al-Fahm on Saturday in solidarity with the Islamic Movement’s Northern Branch. They rallied against the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet’s decision to ban its activities. This was also a show of support for the branch’s leader, Raed Salah, who was convicted of incitement to violence and is about to enter prison. The protesters observed a minute of silence at the start of the rally, in memory of the “shuhada” (martyrs) whose untimely deaths occurred as they were carrying out ramming and stabbing attacks. This moment of silence was their way of showing how ungrateful they are toward the state. It was also a means for undercutting the delicate coexistence between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens.
The burden of proof for Anthropogenic Climate Change falls on alarmists. Climate Change (CC) has been ongoing for millions of years – long before humans existed on this planet.
Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin, and not anthropogenic.
There is no reason to believe that these natural causes have suddenly stopped; for example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and (internal) atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. (Note that these natural factors cannot be modeled precisely.)
Let’s call this the “Null Hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof is on alarmists to demonstrate that the Null Hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data; alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for Anthropogenic CC (ACC)
– by detailed comparison of empirical data with GH models.
I am not aware of such proofs, only of anecdotal info – although I admit that ACC is plausible; after all, CO2 is a GH gas, and its level has been rising, mainly because of burning of fossil fuels.
However, ACC appears to be much smaller than predicted by GH models; there is even believed to be a period of no warming [“hiatus”] during the past 19 years – in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels [1].
The single most important benchmark underpinning this week’s talks in Paris on climate change—two degrees Celsius—has guided climate-treaty discussions for decades, but scientists are at odds on the relevance of that target.
Many researchers have argued that a rise in the planet’s average global air temperature of two degrees or more above preindustrial levels would usher in catastrophic climate change. But many others, while convinced the planet is warming, say two degrees is a somewhat arbitrary threshold based on tenuous research, and therefore an impractical spur to policy action.
“It emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific analysis,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London. “It’s not a sensible, rational target because the models give you a range of possibilities, not a single answer.”
Policy makers tend to assume the two-degree target expresses a solid scientific view, but it doesn’t. The exhaustive reports published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are considered to be the most comprehensive analysis of the science of global warming. Yet the two-degree limit isn’t mentioned in a single IPCC report.
