RUTHFULLY YOURS

The New York Times claims that the vaccine controversy we’re all talking about raises important questions about “how to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.”

Well, here’s another question: How do we deal with the false perception that liberals are more inclined to trust science than conservatives? Also, how do we approach the media’s fondness for focusing on the unscientific views of some conservatives but ignoring the irrational — and oftentimes more consequential — beliefs of their fellow liberals?

Though outing GOP candidates as skeptics of science may confirm the secular liberal’s own sense of intellectual superiority, it usually has nothing to do with policy. However, if you walk around believing that pesticides are killing your children or that fracking will ignite your drinking water, or if you hyperventilate about the threat of the ocean’s consuming your city, you have a viewpoint that not only conflicts with science but undermines progress. So how do we approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by liberals?

Departing attorney general Eric Holder’s claim this week in a press conference that there has “been no politicization” of the Justice Department under him makes it appear as if he is living in a Potemkin-like state of denial in the main Justice building. Holder went so far as to claim that he had been forced to clean up the department he took over from the Bush administration. “You want to look at a Justice Department that’s been politicized, you look at the one I inherited,” he claimed.

When we were researching our recent book on Holder’s six-year tenure at Justice, we talked to numerous career employees who were shocked at how much further Holder had gone than any previous administration in politicizing Justice. One longtime lawyer in the Civil Rights Division told us that Holder had

“racialized and radicalized the Division to the point of corruption. They embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically. Their policy is to intimidate and threaten employees who do not agree with their politics, and even moderate Democrats have left the Department because they were treated as enemies by administration officials and their lackeys.”

“It’s also insipidly hypocritical. President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,” but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium.We are all descended from cavemen who broke the skulls of their enemies with rocks for fun or profit. But that hardly mitigates the crimes of a man who does the same thing today. I see no problem judging the behavior of the Islamic State and its apologists from the vantage point of the West’s high horse, because we’ve earned the right to sit in that saddle.”

On Tuesday, the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive” at the hands of the Islamic State.

And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds” . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” Obama said, referring to the ennobling aspects of religion as well as the tendency of people to “hijack” religions for murderous ends.

And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

Obama’s right. Terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. I have yet to meet a Christian who denies this.

But, as odd as it may sound for a guy named Goldberg to point it out, the Inquisition and the Crusades aren’t the indictments Obama thinks they are. For starters, the Crusades — despite their terrible organized cruelties — were a defensive war.

The major media, who are overwhelmingly supporters of the Democratic Party, believe that Republicans, by and large, are not as smart as Democrats. Republicans are more religious (hence less rational), and have resisted what the Democrats, the left, and the media believe is settled science on a most important subject: that the Earth is on its way to overheating, with catastrophic consequences to follow, due to high carbon dioxide emissions.

It matters not, of course, that the belief in “settled science,” new data be damned (virtually no temperature change in close to 20 years), has made the climate change camp appear in many ways to be behaving like an intolerant religious group themselves. How dare conservatives mock the God of global warming? In particular, the left likes to believe that science in general is a major dividing point between the two political parties.

Last week, 10 Senate Democrats who had persistently expressed concern over President Barack Obama’s concessionary policy to Iran over its nuclear weapons program, announced via a letter to the President that they would desist from seeking to pass new legislation to reimpose sanctions in the event of a failure in nuclear talks. Under reportedly enormous pressure from the White House, the senators said that they would await the March 24 deadline for a negotiated framework for an agreement with Tehran, despite their doubts that any such agreement would be forthcoming.

This delay is a serious mistake, because one of the few things that might induce Tehran to agree to terminating its nuclear weapons program would be the certainty of renewed tough sanctions if it didn’t. Now such pressure is absent and the chances of Iran agreeing correspondingly reduced.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/inside-the-world-of-muslim-rape-gangs-on-the-glazov-gang-2-1/

A Sky News investigation has recently confirmed that hundreds of more Muslim rape gang cases have been discovered in the UK, while British authorities continue to do nothing in fear of being called “racist” and “Islamophobic.”

A survivor of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham has recently affirmed that she still sees her abusers “driving young girls in their car.”

In response to the disturbing findings of the new Sky News investigation, Frontpage is running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation about the terrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left facilitates their barbaric crimes against helpless young girls.

In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”:

There are a few of the usual patterns here in the outrageous attacks on Hussein Aboubakr at Swarthmore College.

1. Muslim activists are given a platform to attack Muslim and ex-Muslims who link Islam to violence as bigots. This is a perverse and irrational position that is not accorded to Christianity. Liberal Christians and atheists who grew up in a Christian family are not demonized as bigots.

This whole thing is yet another reminder that “Islamophobia” is not about protecting Muslims, but about protecting Islam from any criticism even by other Muslims.

2. Muslim activists have adopted the language of social justice to protect their own privilege. And so we see Muslim students claiming to be “triggered” when Hussein Aboubakr, a political refugee who survived torture, speaks on campus.

This same cynical game was used to force out Ayaan Hirsi Ali , who actually had to live in fear much of her life, by activists claiming that she made them feel “unsafe”.

Again this Muslim privilege is not accorded to anyone else. When Muslim Students Associations bring in speakers who attack Jews in the vilest ways, there are no stories or actions taken in response. Anti-Israel students are allowed to promote terrorism, use the signage of terrorist groups without being told to stop because they are making anyone feel unsafe.

Now here’s what happened when Hussein Aboubakr spoke at Swarthmore.

The “Islamophobes” won’t have Sami Al-Arian to kick around any more. The former tenured professor from the University of South Florida has just been deported to Turkey, after more than a decade of fighting valiantly to supposedly clear his name and reputation in the United States.

Throughout his many years in America, Al-Arian showed himself to be a pious man with a deep and abiding religious faith, as evidenced by his proud membership in the Muslim Brotherhood—the font from which sprang a number of other godly organizations, like Hamas and al-Qaeda, which have done so much to educate the world vis-à-vis the theological virtues of suicide belts, collapsing skyscrapers, and mountains of smoldering infidel corpses.

Al-Arian, for his part, carved out a cozy niche as the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an organization that was established by a pack of energetic Gazans who wished to put their own sacred piety on display by detonating powerful explosives amidst crowds of unsuspecting Jews.

As the world reacts with shock and horror at the increasingly savage deeds of the Islamic State (IS)—in this case, the recent immolation of a captive—U.S. President Obama’s response has been one of nonjudgmental relativism.

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, Obama counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that Christians have been equally guilty of such atrocities:

Unless we get on our high horse and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

There is so much to be said here. First, the obvious: the wide gulf between violence and hate “justified in the name of Christ” and violence and hate “justified in the name of Muhammad” is that Christ never justified it, while Muhammad continuously did.

This is not just a theoretic point; it is the very reason that Muslims are still committing savage atrocities. Every evil act IS commits—whether beheading, crucifying, raping, enslaving, or immolating humans—has precedents in the deeds of Muhammad, that most “perfect” and “moral” man, per Koran 33:21 and 68:4 (see “The Islamic State and Islam” for parallels).

Amid all the giggling and the the Twitter hashtags, something dark is going on in France and Britain. None of these areas is a place where non-Muslims are “forbidden” to go. But they do exist. They are places where behavior that is commonplace in wider society would certainly be discouraged, sometimes intimidatingly so.

Last year in the UK, we discovered that a portion of Birmingham’s secular state schools had been taken over by Islamic fundamentalists. The results of these discoveries — which included teachings that Muslims were to distance themselves from non-Muslims, look down on then and not take them as friends — shocked the nation. It is still shaken. Yet most Muslim leaders in the UK simply denied the findings of successive government-led inquiries. Instead of tackling the outrages, they dismissed them as some “Islamophobic” plot.

It seemed we were witnessing an example of “displacement:” it is so much easier to laugh at a foreign news station than to deal with the jolting nugget of truth that may have been exaggerated. So much easier to choke on your porridge at the “idiocy” of an American than to stop your schools from being lost to extremist ideologies. And so much easier to talk of “suing” a news channel than to prevent atrocities of the kind we saw last month from happening again in your city.