Friday, 30 September 2016
South London: Stockwell Green mosque under investigation after 'promoting killing of Muslim Ahmadis sect'
clear

From the London Evening Standard

A London mosque is being investigated by the charities watchdog following allegations it promoted the killing of Muslims from a minority sect.

The Charity Commission announced the inquiry into Stockwell Green mosque today after reports that leaflets were found suggesting Ahmadis who did not convert to mainstream Islam within three days should face “capital punishment” — the death penalty.

Mosque leaders previously denied the leaflets were found at the premises.

The commission first visited the mosque — also known as Aalami Majlise Tahaffuze Khatme Nubuwwat, a registered charity — in May and launched the statutory inquiry this month. It will probe suspicions of poor governance, financial management and trustees “carrying out activities outside the charity’s stated objects”.

The probe comes after the killing of Ahmadi shopkeeper Asad Shah in Glasgow last March in a sectarian attack

clear
Posted on 09/30/2016 2:58 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Friday, 30 September 2016
Female chess players forced to wear hijab as governing body awards world championship to Iran
clear

From the Telegraph

The world's top female chess players have reacted with horror after being told they must compete at next year's world championship wearing a hijab.

Within hours of Iran being revealed as its host country, the prestigious event was plunged into crisis as it emerged players taking part face arrest if they don't cover up. In response, Grandmasters lined up to say they would boycott the 64-player knock-out and accused the game's scandal-hit governing body Fide of failing to stand up for women’s rights.

Nazi Paikidze, the US women's champion, also raised concerns about players' safety in the Islamic republic.She said: "It is absolutely unacceptable to host one of the most important women's tournaments in a venue where, to this day, women are forced to cover up with a hijab.I understand and respect cultural differences. But, failing to comply can lead to imprisonment and women's rights are being severely restricted in general..."

Former Pan American champion Carla Heredia, from Ecuador, added: "No institution, no government, nor a Women's World Chess Championship should force women to wear or to take out a hijab..."

Nigel Short, the British former world title contender, said: "There are people from all sorts of backgrounds going to this, there will be atheists, Christians, all sorts of people. If you are deeply Christian why would you want to wear a symbol of Islamic oppression of women?" What a good point.

The U.S. Department of State has issued a warning about travelling to Iran saying citizens risk being unjustly imprisoned or kidnapped because of their nationality.

Fide held a smaller Grand Prix event in Iran earlier this year where female players were required to wear the hijab. The Telegraph understands several players were left angry about having to use the scarf.

Fide's Commission for Women's Chess, meanwhile, called on participants to respect “cultural differences” and accept the regulations.

Susan Polgar, the Hungarian-born American Grandmaster and chair of Fide's Commission for Women's Chess, responded by defending the federation and saying women should respect "cultural differences".

She said: "I have travelled to nearly 60 countries. When I visited different places with different cultures, I like to show my respect by dressing up in their traditional style of clothing. No one asked me to do it. I just do it out of respect. I personally would have no issues with wearing a head scarf (hijab) as long as it is the same to all players. I believe the organisers provided beautiful choices for past participants of Women's Grand Prix."

So lets see if I have this right. A European or person of European descent who plaits her hair into dreadlocks or wears a sombrero to a Mexican themed party is guilty of 'cultural appropriation' and deserves abuse, but to wear a 'beautiful' hijab is respecting a culture. On yer bike!

clear
Posted on 09/30/2016 2:45 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Rapper Releases ISIS-Linked Video Demanding Decapitation of Nigel Farage
clear

And Tommy Robinson. He's none too keen on the Queen either, or Sir Winston Churchill. From Breitbart.

A music video uploaded to YouTube early on Thursday calls for the decapitation of former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage. The video features Islamic State propaganda as well as Black Panthers and Nation of Islam imagery, and was created by a failed grime/rap artist called “Zebadiah”

The star of the video, Prophet Zebadiah Abu-Obadiah (real name Robert Bealer) – who attracted a miserable 30 votes when he stood for election in South Thanet in 2015 – can be heard rapping with lines such as “Chat shit, get Rigby’d”, a reference to the British soldier Lee Rigby who was brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in London in 2013. The song’s lyrics include: “Farage, off with his head. Tommy Robinson, off with his head” as Zebadiah stares hypnotically into the camera.

He adds in the lyrics: “Let’s make this clear I want their heads on spears,” before going to repeat, tens of times: “Kill ’em, Kill ’em, Kill ’em…”

Later in the clip, Mr. Abu-Obadiah says: “Churchill, off with his head… they’re not legends they’re genocidal c*nts who robbed everyone and left innocent people for dead”.

He adds: “It’s no different from your Queen the thievin’ wh*re who should return the loot of the Koh-i-Noor”.

The video also includes an edited version of a speech by former Nation of Islam activist and New Black Panther party member Khalid Abdul Muhammed.

The quote included in the YouTube video is: “I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy… I say god dammit we kill them all.”

But Mr. Bealer’s shock humour was still not edgy enough to include the full quote, which includes “we kill the faggots, we kill the lesbians” too.

The clip goes on to demand the “shut down [of] the military manufacturing center by killing the white woman”.

Then who is going to do all the work? He might have to get his hands dirty - the horror.

clear
Posted on 09/29/2016 11:02 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Neither Candidate Shone in the Debate, but Trump Has More Room to Grow
clear

by Conrad Black

Great Debate was, as all America except CNN knows, an anti-climax. No commentator's view is worth more than the opinion of anyone else who listened to the debate, but I think it was a tactical marginal victory for Clinton, a draw in its impact on the election, and a strategic victory for Trump. Neither candidate was impressive, and for those steeped in the debates of Lincoln and Douglas, or the Compromise of 1850, or even for those who remember the Nixon–Kennedy debates, it was a clumsy forensic performance. Hillary Clinton was mechanical, and while exuding experience, was smug and unconvincing. Donald Trump was far too preoccupied with himself and addressed the questions in the over-simplified and self-centered way that his followers often appreciate, but most consider immodest and shallow.

Mrs. Clinton stayed on message better and gave marginally more relevant and persuasive answers and hence emerges as a tactical victor by a narrow margin. On the other hand, if Mrs. Clinton achieved her bare objective, Mr. Trump achieved his by not appearing the goon or ignoramus he has been portrayed as by most of the media and his opponents in both parties. Nothing he said will rattle around like some of his foolish remarks earlier in the campaign. Despite the absurdly fierce efforts of Mrs. Clinton and CNN to pretend that the birther issue (which was always an asinine red herring Trump should never have touched) was a racist attack on Barack Obama, Mr. Trump said nothing to fuel his stigmatization as a menace to world peace and sanity in government. He was also generally moderate and not over-assertive in what he said, and the temperament issue, on which, as he remarked, the Clinton campaign has spent $200 million, was a bust. Nothing from this debate will be remembered next week, although the moderator was obviously pro-Clinton and the house was packed with Clinton supporters. So, in its consequences, the debate was about a draw.

My view that it was a strategic victory for Trump is based on the facts that he did not lose badly or say anything intemperate or damaging, and on the unmasking of the fraud of Mrs. Clinton's unconquerable superiority on the issues, as well as on his retention in reserve of his most destructive allegations against her. These include in particular the Benghazi debacle, the apology to the world's Muslims, and the Clinton Foundation quagmire. The Clinton campaign shot its bolt with a moderator who even the rabidly anti-Trump CNN acknowledged was obviously pro-Clinton. He mistakenly backed up Clinton's assertion that stop-and-frisk, the practice of police checking passers-by for concealed weapons, which is credited with reducing the urban crime rate but is unpopular with liberals on civil rights grounds, was definitively judged to be unconstitutional. He also seemed to support (mistakenly) her assertion that Trump, like her, had favored the Iraq War. This is fodder for the next round, when there may not be such a biased session chairman or such a Clinton hallelujah chorus of an audience.

I believe that my opinion published here in July, that Donald Trump had conducted an "unpresidentially" flamboyant campaign to round up the Archie Bunker vote, and that he would henceforth be much less controversial as he tried to convince enough of the moderate majority that he is a reasonable and unfrightening man who deserves a chance to end the cycle of misgovernment that has afflicted the country for 20 years, has been proved accurate. Having filled out his ranks with the tens of millions of people whom Mrs. Clinton infamously described as "deplorables," most of whom are unexceptionable, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, admittedly seasoned with a significant number of men who wear battle fatigues at home, own firearms, drink a lot of beer, and like going to shooting ranges and paint-ball parks on the week-ends, Mr. Trump has gained steadily in the polls and was effectively even with Mrs. Clinton going into Monday night's debate.

There isn't reliable post-debate polling available as I write this, and I suspect that polling models under-represent the millions of former non-voters whom Donald Trump attracted into the primary selection process anyway. In similar fashion, I suspect that Mr. Trump used the first debate to test the waters and de-demonize himself, even if his excessive recourse to the perpendicular pronoun would have reminded many viewers of self-preoccupied youthful sports stars like the young John McEnroe or the Williams sisters, graduates of the Leo Durocher school of anti-nice guys. I suspect that we have seen all Mrs. Clinton has to show but that, in the next debate, Donald Trump will surprise her with a much steadier attack on her most vulnerable points, and a generally more fluent performance himself.

As it was, neither candidate was reassuring about their grasp of the fineries of English verbal composition. For an experienced campaigner and two-term U.S. senator, Hillary Clinton distressed anyone who takes the language seriously, by her syntactical jumbles and malapropisms. She struck the nadir with me when she condemned some alleged remarks of her opponent in support of a bad policy as "praiseworthy" rather than, as she intended, "laudatory." This sort of mistake would lose a high-school debating contest. Mr. Trump did a bit better when he assured listeners that he had not been speaking "braggadociously," a commendable improvisation that at least is comprehensible and is not the opposite of what he intended, even though it is not, in fact, a word. ("Boastfully" would have done it, or even "self-servingly.")

We can't have everything, but one wonders what elegant speakers and debaters who sought this office in living memory would have thought of it. Franklin D. Roosevelt once got the better of H. L. Mencken at a White House Correspondents' Dinner; Ronald Reagan hammered Bobby Kennedy in a debate over the Genovese affair, and John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, and even Bill Clinton, were always pretty nimble. The flight from literacy is not the least of the country's worries, but these candidates have more urgent issues to discuss, and neither is in any position to affect a superiority over the other. As has often been remarked, neither would be imaginable as president if it were not for the identity and credentials of the opponent.

In this sense, both candidates short-changed themselves by not being more effective, but Donald Trump has more room to grow. Hillary Clinton was as we have known her these 25 years. The Clinton campaign is asking for a fifth term for the Clinton-Obama fusion (two scorpions in the same bottle, pretending for transient reasons to be amicable), and an eighth term for the Bush-Clinton-Obama co-regency. It is a sign of its intellectual impoverishment that Hillary was unable to produce any new ideas. Her claim to extensive experience was well rebuffed by Trump's reply that it was "bad experience," the experience of failure. This exchange passed by without much notice, but it is a very dangerous impeachment of the entire Clinton campaign. Why does she want to be president, except because the office is there, the Mount Everest of American politics?

Once again, the Republican nominee left viewers in no doubt that he would shake up government and do a lot of things differently. Despite verbal awkwardness, Trump stands for change and Clinton for continuity where two-thirds of Americans think the country is "going in the wrong direction." Mrs. Clinton is an adequate advocate of her cause, and Donald Trump is far from the ideal personification of change. But at least he represents probably the greatest possibility of change an American election has ever portended, except for Roosevelt's replacement of Hoover in 1933. George H. W. Bush's statement last week that he would vote for the return of the Clintons to the White House, they who got to the White House the first time only because of his mismanagement of the Republican Party, allowing the lunatic billionaire Ross Perot to fragment the vote, was a sad, sour end to his distinguished career. It was also, in its way, a confession of the bankruptcy of the whole post-Reagan era.

If he wins, Donald Trump will have a mandate for radical changes to the tax system, health care, and law enforcement, and to end the appeasement of Iran, as well as to close up the southern border and renegotiate several trade deals. He might even slightly replicate General Andrew Jackson's dismissal of the whole top of the federal civil service (the "spoils system") in 1829, and his revocation of the charter of the Bank of the United States (a not overly positive precedent).

Donald Trump should get better; Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be any more impressive in the next six weeks than she was on Monday night.

clear
Posted on 09/29/2016 9:24 AM by Conrad Black
clear
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Dewsbury, Yorkshire: Rape and sexual grooming gang jailed for total of 50 years
clear

From the Huddersfield Daily Examiner

A judge jailed four men for a total of 50 years for offences involving the sexual exploitation of one or more schoolgirls in Dewsbury.

All four were convicted of trafficking a 13-year-old girl with three of them found guilty of raping her. Two of the defendants were sentenced for further offences involving another 15-year-old girl.

Ismail Haji, 39, a taxi driver, of Rotary Close, Batley, was found guilty by the jury of raping and trafficking the 13-year-old, meeting a child following sexual grooming, sexual activity with the younger girl, meeting the 15-year-old girl following sexual grooming, two charges of raping her and also trafficking her. He was jailed for a total of 19 years.

Mohammed Chothia, 39, of Hirstlands Road, Batley, was found guilty by the jury of meeting both girls following sexual grooming, trafficking both girls and taking an indecent video of the youngest. He was jailed for a total of 13 years.

Ibrahim Kola, 36, a factory worker, of School Crescent, Dewsbury Moor, nicknamed Ibby, was convicted of raping and trafficking the 13-year-old girl and was jailed for 10 years.

Imran Haji, 36, a shop assistant of The Parade, Manor Way, Staincliffe, was also found guilty of raping and trafficking the 13-year-old girl and was jailed for eight years.

Ibrahim Kola, Ismail Haji, Mohammed Chothia, Imran Haji

The jury heard during the trial that the two girls first met Mohammed Chothia, known as Saj, and Ismail Haji, known as Ishy, at a park in Wakefield early in September 2014. Haji, a taxi driver, drove them to Xscape in Castleford where they went bowling and then to the cinema, “treats” which the girls enjoyed, David Gordon prosecuting told the court. . . Mr Gordon said the men lied about their ages, used flattery and plied the girls with alcohol.

....the 15-year-old said she was raped by Ismail Haji after he said he wanted to talk to her in the bedroom because it would be quieter but once there he pushed her on to the bed and raped her. She had been a virgin until then.

Jailing the quartet Judge Mushtaq Khokhar said he was satisfied Chothia had subsequently “loaned” the same schoolgirl out for sexual purposes a few weeks later when she was then raped by the other two men Ibrahim Kola and Haji’s brother Imran. He had also asked the 13-year-old to introduce him to her friends no doubt with the hope of “bringing in yet another girl into this ring to be abused.”

He said harsh sentences had been passed as a deterrent.

clear
Posted on 09/28/2016 1:56 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
'Only open if you are an expert in the Quran' - bomb scare sparked after suspect package left at SS Peter and St Paul's Church, in The Green, Chingford
clear

Chingford is the nicer area to the north of Islamic Leyton and Walthamstow within the London Borough of Waltham Forest. It was a hoax, although whether perpetrated by Islamics, anti-church campaigners or just silly people we will probably never know as the police are not investigating as no offence was committed. From the Waltham Forest Guardian

A BOMB scare was sparked after a package marked 'only open if you are expert in the Quran' was left in a church. 

olice were called to SS Peter and St Paul's Church, in The Green, Chingford, at 9.10pm last night. The medium sized package was marked: 'Please do not read unless you are an expert on the Quran. Very seriously dangerous. Please.' The Metropolitan Police were called and found the package, left on the doorstep of the church, to be a bible wrapped inside a white tea towel.  

The package was found at a Zumba class held at the church every week.

Reverend Andy Trennier, in charge of the parish, told the Guardian Series: "It was a pretty distressing prank. There was a moment when we didn't know what it was which was pretty worrying, but it comes with the territory of being an urban church. . . Things like this aren't going to make a difference to us. The best way to make the church safe is to keep it open and free."

Police say they are not investigating as no offence was committed.

The comments get to the reason this is a relevant news item. Had a hoax prank been played on a mosque it would have been a serious matter indeed. 

ChingfordMan11:09am Tue 27 Sep 16 The police say 'No offence was committed' ?!
Can the police then confirm that it's ok for me to leave a suspect package marked 'Dangerous' in a mosque? Would be interested to hear their views on this...!

Miles D'i Stuam Replying ChingfordMan11:17am Tue 27 Sep 16 Well said! You'd be charged with a 'hate crime' - and it appears that that particular offence only applies to 'phobes and whites.

Eraser of Love 12:22pm Tue 27 Sep 16

A Suspect Package Found at a Christian Church :
'A harmless Hoax'. 'No Offence Committed'. Nothing to see here.Please Move Along quickly and go about your Daily Business. You Will be Reported for subversive behaviour.

Work Hard. Be Productive. Be Happy.
End of State Communication .

A Suspect Package found at a Mosque :
A Malicious Hate Crime. Be Vigilant. Report all unusual activity to your Regional THX 1138 Race Hate crime Center, formerly known as Police Stations before the 23rd of June 2016. Do Your Duty. Report All thought Crime .

Work Hard. Be Productive . Be Happy.
End Of State Communication.

kevster1004:37pm Tue 27 Sep 16 Can the Guardian do something useful with this incident and ask of the police to explain publically why this suspect bomb package with danger written all over it does not constitute a crime. Have they found out who the perpetrator is ? Seems not, so how do the police know this is not racially motivated and God help them if the perpetrator strikes again

clear
Posted on 09/28/2016 1:13 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Huma Abedin's Father Appears in 1971 Interview Explaining his Views on Sharia
clear

He was a hardliner. Adam Kredo writes in the Washington Free Beacon:

Syed Abedin, the father of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma, outlined his view of Sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile” during a wide-ranging video interview that shines newfound light on the reclusive thinker’s world views, according to footage exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Abedin, a Muslim scholar who was tied to the Saudi Arabian government until his death in 1993, has remained somewhat of a mystery as the media turns its eye to his daughter Huma, a top Clinton campaign aide who recently announced her separation from husband Anthony Weiner following his multiple sex scandals.

Syed Abedin explained his views on the Muslim world and spread of Islam during a 1971 interview titled The World of Islam, which was first broadcast on Western Michigan University television.

Pic2

Abedin said that Arab states must police the upholding of Sharia, or Islamic law, and explained why the majority of Muslims view Israel and the Western world in primarily “hostile” terms.

The video provides a window into the Abedin family’s ideology, which has been marred by accusations it is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abedin, who was then a professor in the university’s college of general studies, said that Western intervention in the Arab world has sparked a backlash among many faithful Muslims.

“The response to the West has been of two kinds,” Abedin said. “By and large the response has taken more of a hostile form.”

“The first impulse of the average Muslim in the Islamic world is that this kind of borrowing [culturally] would be somehow an alien factor into our social fabric and thereby destroying the integrity of our ethos … the integrity of our culture,” he added.

In a separate discussion on the state’s role in a person’s life, Abedin said it is necessary to police the application of Sharia law.

“The state has to take over” as Muslim countries evolve, he argued. “The state is stepping in in many countries … where the state is now overseeing that human relationships are carried on on the basis of Islam. The state also under Islam has a right to interfere in some of these rights given to the individual by the Sharia.”

unnamed

“Suspicion” runs rampant in the Muslim world, Abedin said, citing it as a reason why Western governing values have not been quickly adopted in the region.

“In the contemporary Islamic world, religious leadership is of very crucial significance because any change that will be abiding, that will make any positive contribution to the development of Muslim life, must come from that source, and that is one reason why ideologies like socialism or communism that have been introduced into the Muslim world have never really taken root,” Abedin said. “They have always been considered as foreign importations. … It’s a kind of suspicion.”

Abedin also discussed the clash between modernity and the Islamic world.

“When you talk of an Islamic state … does it have to have a caliph?” he asked. “What does it mean? What is the Islamic concept of good in the present day world?”

Any cultural change, Abedin concluded, will have to be validated by the tenets of Islam.

“The main dynamics of life in the Islamic world are still supplied by Islam,” he said. “Any institution, as I said before, any concept, any idea, in order to be accepted and become a viable thing in the Islamic world has to come through … Islam.”

Abedin’s views on religion have become a central topic among those who have questioned Clinton’s choice to elevate Human Abedin into such a prominent role.

The Abedins helped create the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a publication accused of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and of promoting a hardline Islamic ideology.

Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor of the journal for 12 years and also played a role in its offshoot, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, a think-tank established in Saudi Arabia by an accused financier of the al Qaeda terror group, according to the Jerusalem Post.

clear
Posted on 09/28/2016 7:33 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
September II
clear

Crambe maritima, or sea cabbage as it was called when I was young, or sea kale as it is called by top chefs who have recently rediscovered it. My understanding was that it fell out of favour because it needed a lot of cooking to make it edible, and a lot of chewing to get it down, but if you were poor and it was growing free on the beach you persevered.

But according to The Independent the Victorians loved it, harvested it to near extinction hence it had to be protected during the 20th century. There are commercial growers cultivating it now, chefs and foodies hunting for recipies and some places where foraging is permitted in small quantities.

This clump is in an area of Special Scientific Interest (vegetated shingle) at Landguard Point in Suffolk, and thus protected. Not that I fancied a side portion. 

clear
Posted on 09/27/2016 2:16 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
No Winner Yet
clear

by Lorna Salzman

I watched the presidential debate on Sept. 26th even though I have managed to avoid reading the daily pap fed us about this quite boring campaign.

Who “won”? That’s the wrong question to ask. There were no winners. Each side scored some points and got stymied on others. It goes without saying that Trump was his usual uncivil  blustering overbearing self, and that Clinton was her usual poised, informed and qualified self.

If viewers and voters use the criteria of who was the more QUALIFIED person to lead our country, in terms of experience, knowledge and policy, clearly  Clinton was the winner. But unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that, despite the pundits’ and the public’s efforts to promote Clinton as the most qualified, that is not how voters vote. They vote from their gut, not their brain. They don’t pull out a checklist of issues and problems facing this country and then measure each candidate on how they would resolve them and then add up the numbers and vote accordingly. The public doesn’t vote that way…nor do any of you most likely. What voters want is a “real person”, someone who acts and reacts to events and pressures just like anyone would. In this kind of competition, it isn’t the smartest person who wins. It is the person who convinces you that he/she is not honest but AUTHENTIC.

In this debate and using this measure, Trump came out on top. Yes, of course he interrupted, was rude, dismissive, contemptuous, overbearing, obstructive, mendacious and made no attempt to convince you otherwise. And Clinton was the model of a very modern politician, one who could handle her responsibilities with confidence. In terms of expectations, both fulfilled them. But here’s the political reality. Clinton will obviously maintain her grip on enrolled Democrats, typical liberals (not the left), probably many independents, and some rational Republicans. But out there in middle America, and putting aside people who already dislike her and don’t necessarily like Trump, there are millions of ordinary folk who, if they are not ideologically suspicious of government to begin with, are innately more likely to support someone WHO IS LIKE THEM.

This is not to say that they have bought into the phony Republican populist, anti-elitist argument. These are people who rarely read the fine print in their newspapers, get their news from TV or friends or the internet, and who have zero interest in policy issues. For them Clinton’s decided superiority on issues and her knowledge of how Washington functions and her experience don’t count because they haven’t even followed enough of the news to make a judgement.

What these people saw last night was a very cool, skilled woman in complete command of herself and the issues…..and a man who was a big snarling sarcastic loudmouth, showing a range of emotions. Clinton exhibited a strange continual small smile, no anger, the perfect civil, unfazed debater in control of everything….and no emotions whatsoever, not a sign of anger, puzzlement, disturbance. One cool cookie vs. one big angry rude ignoramus. Of course you and the liberals and Democrats award her the prize for, presumably, looking good in the face of an irresponsible mendacious blowhard. But Trump got the prize from ordinary folks who weren’t looking for the perfect Washingtonian.

You’ve watched and read the moral outrage against Trump, his lies, his insolence, his defiance of all rules of engagement. There are now stacks of Outrage on the internet and in all the newspapers. all of them based on reality. Is moral outrage going to win the election? Hardly. Because there is a reason for all this outrage: the history of the Democratic Party. Note this, please: all of this tongue-lashing against Trump is monopolizing the media and the public space. But why? Not only because Trump is a bad joke but because attacking Trump is ALMOST ALL THE DEMOCRATS CAN DO. If you don’t have a record of accomplishment that you can be proud of, and if you have some really disastrous policies and actions you’d prefer to forget (Iraq, Syria, NAFTA, TPP, Wall St. worship, Benghazi, Obama’s bedding down with the Muslim Brotherhood), then focus on your opponent’s mistakes, temperament, lack of experience and mendacity.

And that is why Clinton is having a hard time: not only because she is not well liked but because she represents a party that has, by any measure, fallen short, to put it mildly, in all the areas of concern to citizens such as universal health care, income inequality, foreign trade, globalization, loss of jobs and the flight of corporations to foreign countries, etc. And try as they may to blame the Republicans for it, the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for the sorry state of our economy, infrastructure, health care and energy systems.

This is why cursing Trump is not a winning strategy, and why an honest look at the Democratic Party’s failures and refusals will end up hurting Clinton. Voters may not be that bright but they are not going to be swayed by moral outrage at Trump. What might have swayed them is water over the dam, the failure of the Democrats to adopt and fulfill a progressive agenda like the one we might have had if Nader or Sanders had been elected. Having Wall St. and the liberal pundits and elites on your side (all of whose jobs and reputations are tied to the Democrats of course) isn’t enough.

 

clear
Posted on 09/27/2016 12:37 PM by Lorna Salzman
clear
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
Montreal Muslim school president was ‘devastated’ by feminist’s criticisms, slander trial hears
clear

From the National Post of Canada

MONTREAL — Quebec’s long-running debate over secularism and the place of religious minorities moved into the courtroom Monday as a slander trial opened against an outspoken critic of Islamic fundamentalism.

A crowd of supporters, including two who arrived from France, filled the room to hear the case against Djemila Benhabib, who is being sued by a private Muslim school after she likened its teaching to the instruction received in terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Benhabib told 98.5 FM host Benoît Dutrizac that she was shocked by what she found on the school’s website.

Koranic verses being taught to children were “extremely violent” and “misogynistic,” she told Dutrizac in a recording played in the court. She said the school offers students “an indoctrination worthy of a military camp in Afghanistan or Pakistan.” The school, she said, “is creating fundamentalist activists who in a few years will be demanding accommodations and all sorts of bizarre things … We are an extremely long way from citizenship, from the values that belong to our society.” 

(She) also denounced as “sexual apartheid” the school’s policy of imposing the Islamic headscarf as part of girls’ uniforms beginning in fifth grade. The school’s model, she said, is another society “where women walk behind men with their heads down, where children are obliged to recite Qur’anic verses and where men are probably going to commit honour crimes against their sisters.”

A second interview three weeks later came after Dutrizac said he had been the victim of a harassment campaign from Muslims complaining about the first interview. Benhabib did not back down, saying the school was “spreading a message of hatred.”

Ahmed Khebir, president of the board of the Muslim School of Montreal, told the court that when he listened to Benhabib’s first interview on the Internet, he couldn’t believe his ears. “I was devastated, appalled, horrified, insulted and worried,” he said in response to questioning from the school’s lawyer, Julius Grey. “How was it possible that someone who had never set foot inside our school could make such damaging and insulting statements?”

In the aftermath of the broadcast, he went to the school and found it in a state of panic, he said. Older students were worried the publicity would affect their chances of being accepted into college, he said, noting that many graduates have removed reference to the Muslim school from their CVs. Security was increased at the school out of fear “some crazy person” would take Benhabib’s comments literally and attack the school, he said. Enrolment fluctuates but there are more than 200 students in the school, from kindergarten through high school. Khebir blamed a recent drop in enrolment in the high school on Benhabib’s comments.

The school is seeking $95,000 in damages, but Benhabib’s supporters said outside the court that the real objective is to silence a critic.

Marc-André Nadon, Benhabib’s lawyer, said the defence will be that nothing she said was incorrect. “Freedom of expression is sufficiently broad and important to allow people to hold opinion and criticisms on subjects such as religion,” he said.

The trial before Quebec Superior Court Justice Carole Hallée is expected to last five days.

clear
Posted on 09/27/2016 3:11 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Monday, 26 September 2016
Street preacher who branded the Queen of England a terrorist guilty
clear

From the Birmingham Mail

A Birmingham street preacher who branded the Queen of England ‘a terrorist’ has been found guilty of using religious and racially insulting words and behaviour.

Krissoni Henderson, Of Brook Street, Hockley, was found guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court of two counts of using threatening words or behaviour, in the city centre on July 4.

The court heard Henderson branded a Muslim woman a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute’ for wearing tight jeans . . . The 31-year-old also threatened to follow the victim home and ‘blow her up.’

Body cam footage shown in court of the moment Henderson was arrested at his home on July 5, shows him calling police officers ‘dirty filthy atheists’ and ‘dirty devil worshipers.’ 

Henderson also called the victim‘Satan’ and a ‘non believer,’ according to the prosecution.

Henderson denied the charges and even suggested that he had been ‘seduced’ by Ms Alneaimi "I am a peaceful man and I live a peaceful life. I had to stop being a preacher because I was always being convicted. I am muscular and handsome, (the victim) could have been trying to seduce me. I believe I was targeted that day because I was wearing a robe.”

Henderson will be sentenced on Tuesday, September 27th

clear
Posted on 09/26/2016 4:38 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Monday, 26 September 2016
Orlando Jihadi 911 Call Transcript
clear
See here. He demanded the US stop bombing ISIS. Still no word on what happened to his wife who seems to have disappeared after being released. The father, though, is alive and well and living in Florida - a proud Clinton supporter.
clear
Posted on 09/26/2016 12:22 PM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Monday, 26 September 2016
Leaked FBI Data Reveal 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in One Year
clear

Brandon Darby writes at Breitbart:

Leaked documents with sensitive FBI data exclusively obtained by Breitbart Texas reveal that 7,712 terrorist encounters occurred within the United States in one year and that many of those encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border. The incidents are characterized as “Known or Suspected Terrorist Encounters.” Some of the encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border at ports-of-entry and some occurred in between, indicating that persons known or reasonably suspected of being terrorists attempted to sneak into the U.S. across the border. In all, the encounters occurred in higher numbers in border states.

Some of the documents pertain to the entire U.S., while others focus specifically on the state of Arizona. The documents are labeled, “UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE” and contain data from the FBI-administered Terrorist Screening Center, the organization maintaining the Terrorist Screening Database, also known as the “Terror Watch List.”

The leaked FBI data are contained in a fusion center’s educational materials, specifically the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center’s (ACTIC) “Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) Encounters Briefing” covering from July 20 2015 through July 20 2016. The leaked documents are composed of 10 individual pages, but Breitbart Texas chose to release only nine of them due to page 10 containing contact information for ACTIC.

Page Two of the documents contains a map of the entire U.S. with the numbers of encounters per state. The states with the highest encounters are all border states. Texas, California, and Arizona–all states with a shared border with Mexico–rank high in encounters.

Page Three shows a map of where the encounters occurred in the state of Arizona. The majority from this map occurred in Phoenix, a major destination point for people who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border. The map also shows that encounters occurred at ports-of-entry, likely from persons either walking up and asking for asylum or from Sinaloa cartel attempts to smuggle them into the U.S. in vehicles. Most significantly, the map shows that many of the encounters occurred near the border outside of ports-of-entry, indicating that persons were attempting to sneak into the U.S.

Page Six shows a pie chart indicating that the majority of encounters in Arizona were with Islamic known or suspected terrorists, both Sunni and Shi’a. Eighty-nine encounters were Sunni, 56 were Shi’a, 70 were “Other International Terrorist Groups or Affiliates,” and only 52 were with “Domestic Terrorism.” ..

See the leaked report here.

clear
Posted on 09/26/2016 7:53 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Sunday, 25 September 2016
This Is Feminist Justice - TFF Episode 44
clear
clear
Posted on 09/25/2016 11:45 AM by David Solway
clear
Sunday, 25 September 2016
World Over - US Migration, Terror & Foreign Policies Walid Pharis with Raymond Arroyo
clear

clear
Posted on 09/25/2016 10:57 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Jordan writer in blasphemy case, Nahid Hattar, killed for sharing cartoon on facebook
clear

And you thought Donald Trump got in bad trouble for a retweet. BBC:

A Jordanian writer charged with offending Islam after allegedly sharing a satirical cartoon on his Facebook page has been killed.

Nahid Hattar was hit by three bullets outside the court in the capital Amman where he was standing trial.

Police have arrested the suspected shooter, Riad Abdullah. Jordanian media said he was local imam who had been upset by the cartoon.

But security sources told the Jordan Times he was a known extremist.

A witness told the Associate Press news agency that Mr Abdullah had a long beard and was wearing a long robe, common among conservative Muslims.

Nahid Hattar was detained in August for 15 days on charges of insulting God after he published a cartoon depicting a bearded man lying in bed with two women and smoking, asking God to bring him a drink.

Mr Hattar was born a Christian, but considered himself an atheist. He was attacked on social media for being anti-Islam.

He said he had not meant to cause offence and wanted to expose radical Islamists' view of heaven.

Authorities said he had broken the law by sharing the cartoon.

Mr Hattar's supporters say they hold the government responsible for his death.

"The prime minister was the first one who incited against Nahid when he ordered his arrest and put him on trial for sharing the cartoon, and that ignited the public against him and led to his killing," the writer's cousin, Saad Hattar said.

The government has publicly condemned the killing.

A spokesperson told Petra news agency: "The government will strike with an iron hand all those who exploit this crime to broadcast speeches of hatred to our community."

Here is the cartoon which cost him his life.

clear
Posted on 09/25/2016 10:20 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Washington State Mall Murder Suspect a Turkish Immigrant
clear

(CNN)

The lone suspect in the fatal shooting of five people in a Washington state mall has been charged with five counts of first degree murder, according to Skagit County jail records.

Arcan Cetin, 20, was taken into custody Saturday night after a nearly 24-hour manhunt, authorities said.
Four women and one man died in the shooting Friday night at a Macy's store at the Cascade Mall in Burlington, just north of Seattle.
The victims' identities have not been released.
Authorities arrested Cetin as he walked down the street near his home in Oak Harbor, Washington.
When officers confronted him, he did not run, said Lt. Mike Hawley of the Island County Sheriff's Office. Instead, he froze and complied, Hawley said. Cetin was not armed at the time of his arrest.
"He said nothing," Hawley said. "Just kind of zombie-like."
Cetin is scheduled to make a court appearance Monday.
clear
Posted on 09/25/2016 8:25 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Saturday, 24 September 2016
Gulf War Veterans March
clear

To London for the March of Gulf War Veterans to the Cenotaph to lay a wreath and raise awareness of the conditions. As readers will know Gulf War Syndrome, or Gulf War Illness affected US, British and Commonwealth servicemen, although the French Army was not affected, but some Czech soldiers were, which must be a worthy avenue of research. 

British veterans generally do not receive the respect for their service which we see their counterparts receive in the US and Australia and some of these men have suffered in various areas of life, and continue to do so.

The march started at Hyde Park Corner but I met them in Lower Regent Street.

We stopped by the Crimea War memorial;

another conflict where the returning servicemen found themselves suffering in later life, as  Rudyard Kipling described in his poem The Last of the Light Brigade

Across Trafalgar Square and the statue of Admiral Lord Nelson looking down. 

Into Whitehall, past Horseguards (acknowledging the Guardsmen on duty) and the Women's Memorial, stopping at Downing Street and into the middle of the road to the Cenotaph.

Dave Fender laid a wreath and we observed two minutes silence.

Dave then made a brief speech. He thanked us all for attending. Numbers were down for this march due to the illness of veterans who intended to come, and who had come previously. They are not getting any younger or fitter. He spoke of his own experience; that when his regiment was deployed to the Gulf he signed on for a further three years as he didn't want to let his friends down. While at Camp Blackadder the call went out for driver volunteers. This was to work with the War Grave Commisson and was the most traumatic task he had ever undertaken.

25 years on the veterans are still struggling down a hard road. He has has two strokes and only last month yet another seizure from which his son-in-law had to resuscitate him followed by a stay in hospital. Illness affects their families and they know of several families whose children have health problems which they believe are a result of their father's service. They lost 47 British personel across all three services in the Gulf, but many more have died since, of illnesses men of their age would not anticipate. But they will soldier on. It isn't compensation that they are asking for, nice as that would be, but proper medical care and research.

Journalists from Rex Features and xxx also covered the event from Whitehall, here and xxx (and when I remember his agency, I'll find the link)

Three very considerate police officers then escorted us back to the pavement and we made our way for refreshments. 

War isn't pretty. Even in peacetime there are more deaths and injuries in the armed forces than the general public realises. But there was something about the conditions in the Gulf War that was particualrly detrimental to the personel who fought there, and in the UK at least, they don't get as much support as they deserve. 

 

Photographs E Weatherwax London September 2016

clear
Posted on 09/24/2016 10:33 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Saturday, 24 September 2016
Deplorable Elites
clear

by Conrad Black

While I have consistently dissented in this column and elsewhere from extreme versions of the anti-Trump barrage across the American and international media, he was not my first choice for the Republican nomination, and I have tried not to close the door prematurely on the election. The antics of the Democrats and their noisiest sympathizers in the last ten days have made any effort to retain a glimmer of hope that Mrs. Clinton might survive as election-worthy all the way to November 8 very challenging. Her reference to half of Donald Trump's supporters as "deplorable" is now old news, but the analysis of the implications of the assertion has been threadbare in the almost unanimously anti-Trump media. Mrs. Clinton regretted that she had so described half of his supporters: her retraction was on her arithmetic, not her characterization of tens of millions of Americans.

This is a familiar pattern, in media treatment of the clumsy assertions or asides of candidates, and in Mrs. Clinton's response to her own errors. In 2008, Barack Obama was inspired by a campaign trip to Pennsylvania to disparage those who in their ignorance and redundancy were sustained by religiosity and a love of firearms. The media almost uniformly failed to remark that this was a bit rich coming from someone who sat for 20 years in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, listening to his assertions that AIDS was a white conspiracy and then that the terrorist attacks of September 2001 were not an unjust chastisement of the United States; or that firearms had little to do with unemployment.

In 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney mentioned in what he took to be a closed meeting that the Democrats were bidding for the votes of all 47 percent of the American electorate that receive some form of state benefit, leaving only the slightest margin for a Republican victory. (In fact, he had a won election after the first debate and then managed to blow it, and not because of this utterance.) The media view of Romney was that he had insulted half the people and pitched to racist and class-antagonist impulses. He was not hated by the media as a threat as Trump is, since the latter has succeeded despite them and denounced their biases, to the approval of very many voters.

The most severe strictures the vast hallelujah chorus of the Clinton media echo chamber could muster were that "deplorables" was a poor choice of words, and a minor gaffe, not at all comparable to Mitt Romney's heinous mass slur about the 47 percent. (Democrats should have been more grateful to have so feckless and defeatist an opponent as Romney.)

The media are so stung by the billions of dollars' worth of free exposure they have given the Republican candidate -- on the false assumption that the public would be as repulsed by Trump as the lumpenliberal and highbrow-conservative media are -- that they have taken, especially on CNN, to announcing for hours that they will be covering a Trump speech, to build their audience, and then cutting out of the speech after three or four minutes. As Mr. Lincoln said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time."

It is clear that there is no Democratic campaign except Trump-fear, and waiting for Trump blunders and relying on the media claque to tear him apart before the whole country. For several weeks, there have been no Trump blunders; they were useful for rousing the Archie Bunker vote, which increased Republican primary turnouts by 60 percent, with the added benefit of inflating Democratic overconfidence. There have been Clinton blunders and unseemly media efforts to minimize or ignore them, and ever greater recourse to the argument that neither is a good candidate but that Mrs. Clinton is reliable and capable and a reassuring personification of continuity, while Trump is nightmarishly unacceptable for reasons too well known to mention.

But there are no such reasons, now that he is taking care to be explicit, and to speak moderately and in syntactically correct sentences. It is the reverse of the old fable about the king having no clothes. The Republican candidate is fully clothed: He is not naked to his enemies and is not committing indiscretions. And with each week, Mrs. Clinton appears more firmly anchored in the quagmire of all the mistakes with which she has been complicit, these 20 years, while her opponent has been operating his business, albeit not without some controversy.

It is not possible that there is no element of accumulated public resentment of Clinton-Obama presumption, in the narrowing, now about even, polls. There was a foregone conclusion that it would be a Democratic landslide, even by a group of distinguished Democratic historians with whom I appeared on the Fareed Zakaria CNN program on the eve of the Republican convention, who reproached the Republicans for not deserting their hopeless candidate as that party had Barry Goldwater in 1964. I suggested, to blank stares and stammered responses of incredulity, that this election was not so one-sided as they thought and that the Republicans could not be blamed for not doing all they could to ensure the eradication of their party by the Democrats. (In 1964, Goldwater trailed Lyndon Johnson in the total vote by almost 23 percent.) As the Democrats' overconfidence melts, their desperation is becoming palpable.

The New York Times attacks Trump every day, last week stooping to a complaint that he had availed himself of some tax reductions as a developer, without mentioning that the New York Times Company had done the same to the extent of almost $30 million. Bret Stephens wrote in the Wall Street Journal on September 13 that Trump's expressed desire to reintroduce the civil tort of defamation was a threat to freedom of expression. The right of free expression is not the right to defame and neither the authors of the Constitution nor any other civilized country in the world would hold that it is. The frenzied animosity to Trump among the ruling political and media harpies is essentially a frightened attachment to the cocoon of the Bush-Clinton-Obama incumbency, where the power elite is immovable and the most senior positions are passed around a few families for decades on end. In such a culture, propped up by a docile media, a threat to the right to defame is a horrifying assault on civil liberties.

It is a related symptom of the problem that the continuing indulgence of President Obama's rewriting of history in a way entirely satisfactory to America's enemies is generally overlooked by the media. There was practically no dissent at his censure of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt over their "autocratic" direction of the Western Allied war effort, "brandies in hand," in World War II. They snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and were the two greatest democratic leaders in the world in the last 150 years, since Lincoln. Obama even dissembled about sending back to the British the bust of Churchill that had been in the Oval Office.

Obama apologized for Truman's use of the atomic bomb, which saved the Allies a million casualties, and Japan probably 2 million casualties. And he apologized for President Eisenhower's role in removing Mohamed Mossadegh as leader of Iran. (Mossadegh was a lunatic who almost bankrupted the country. It was Carter's complicity in the removal of the Shah that was disgraceful.) These disparagements are not greatly less outrageous than Joseph R. McCarthy's infamous claims that Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and General George C. Marshall, all among the nation's most distinguished leaders, in peace and war, were Communist dupes.

Two weeks ago, the president spoke in Laos and condemned the dropping of 2 million tons of bombs by the United States on Laos during the Vietnam War, more, as he said, than were dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II. The media failed signally to put this assertion into context: Under the Laos neutrality agreement negotiated by the Kennedy administration in 1962, the country was turned into the Ho Chi Minh Trail -- a superhighway for the invasion of South Vietnam by the North. Richard Nixon said at the time that the Laos agreement was just "Communism on the installment plan." Ninety-eight percent of American bombing was on the Trail, and there was no significant damage to the Lao civil population; the Lao government did not seriously object to the bombing, as it was the only restraint on the Communist Pathet Lao movement and its North Vietnamese backers.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama are not interchangeable, but she identified entirely with and was the chief executor of his foreign policy for four years, and is glued to him like a limpet now. It is all part of the practice, clearer each day, that there is no defense for, and comparatively little serious media criticism of, this long, cliquish incumbency that has produced disasters in every policy area for 20 years. With Mrs. Clinton, from Whitewater and the White House travel office, through Benghazi, the squalor of the Clinton Foundation's pay-to-play casino and the e-mail debacle, it is always deny, prevaricate, "short-circuit" (i.e. lie), and then say it's old news -- "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

There was something in the "deplorables" comment that went beyond the familiar hauteur of left and right and profoundly rankled. What Mrs. Clinton was deploring was the ingratitude to the ruling elite of these bumptious unwashed, the updated dismissal of the gun-toting, churchgoing (Republican) rabble that so irritated Obama eight years ago. This wasn't just good-natured criticism of the wrongheaded supporters of an opponent, or FDR's cunning assault on nonexistent culprits as "money-changers," "economic royalists," "warmongers." etc. This was Empress Hillary emptying the contents of her chamber pot out the palace window onto the heads of those described in the phrase "We the people." The entire complacent incumbent Washington leadership are inviting the same people to give them a bloodless trip to the electoral guillotine. More-unexpected events have overtaken office-holders and office-seekers less deserving of such a fate.

First published in National Review Online.

— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom and Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full.

clear
Posted on 09/24/2016 8:47 AM by Conrad Black
clear
Friday, 23 September 2016
Debating Hillary
clear

by G. Murphy Donovan

“Time spent arguing is, oddly enough, almost never wasted.”  - Christopher Hitchens

The impending presidential debates are likely to be the best attended in the history of American politics. The viewing and listening audience will set a standard for political discussions past and future. At this point, the draw is Donald Trump. Love him or hate him, Trump is a candidate who packs a house and elevates the ratings.

Whether or not the Trump “draw” translates into votes remains to be seen. Ironically, Trump’s negatives may be the new positive. Those so-called “undecideds,” might be a closet demographic, folks who do not support Trump publicly, but on Election Day will push the button for change anyway.

At this point in the campaign, both candidates represent real choice. Hillary is the establishment, the ancien regime, more of the same if you will. Trump is the parvenu, the rhetorical bomb thrower. The Donald represents change, anxiety, and uncertainty too.

Here Trump has a decided advantage. Call it the enthusiasm gap. Emotion and energy are the important components of any political campaign. Specific issues are, for the most part, window dressing. Most candidates see politics as the art of saying and playing, not doing.

Issues are merely emotional outreach, the hot buttons of cynical voter manipulation. If you can talk-the-talk well enough, you might never have to walk-the-walk.

The great weaknesses of democracy are tenure, inertia, and complacency.

Few candidates feel compelled to deliver on campaign promises anyway, especially reform. American campaigning and governance have now morphed into perpetual spin, a cynical PR ritual. Nonetheless, most aspirants are still expected to make politically correct noises to get nominated, reelected – or elected.

Trump has proven to be the singular exception to this and almost every other bit of conventional wisdom, a quality of uniqueness that is now both an asset and a liability

Prospects are diminished, in any case, for any candidate who fails to touch the emotional G Spot of the electorate. Relative likeability and some sensitivity to the mood and needs of the masses is money in the bank.

With Barack Obama the touchstone was melanin. With Hillary the emotional G Spot is sex, gender, and the usual piñata politics. Hillary Clinton is figuratively flying on her genitals and literally sitting on Obama’s entitlement coattails.

Romney was correct about one thing in the last election; America is now two classes, a decreasing number of makers carrying a growing burden of takers. Alas, establishment Romney couldn’t get away with that kind of Mormon candor wearing a Republican frock.

With Trump, truth is an offensive weapon. Change is his forte. Thus, remaking America is at once a noble objective for the “deplorables” and a subversive threat to the usual suspects. Oddly enough, critics right and left seem to be fueling the Trump phenomenon with brickbats.

Indeed, you could argue today that Donald Trump has trashed every possible stuffed shirt, touched every third rail, and roasted every sacred cow on the political green. Indeed, Trump’s critics are in danger of exhausting all stocks of metaphor and invective.

From the beginning, Trump has been riding towards the Oval Office on a tsunami of righteous indignation. The “system” is thought to be rigged or broken and public sentiment says, “throw the bums out.”

The debates are one last hurdle. As media events, these spectacles are front-loaded for Hillary.

The moderators are a rainbow coalition from the American left. There’s nothing “moderate” about Trump’s inquisitors. Lester Holt (NBC) speaks for the black vote. Martha Raddatz (ABC) represents the feminist vote, and of course Anderson Cooper (CNN) represents homosexuals and the socially ambiguous. None of these demographics are sympathetic, or even neutral, about Trump. Chris Wallace (FOX) is supposed to be the red bone, a token at best. These debate panels are rigged and Trump needs to make that clear to the national audience at every debate.

Trump has few sympathizers midst the chattering classes. He can expect a barrage of hostile and/or loaded questions. He would be wise to stay with the tactic that served him so well to date.

Offense!

When confronted with leading or hostile questions, Trump needs to confront media spinners as he has done in the past. If he has done nothing else in this campaign, Trump has exposed American journalists as partisan shills. Trashing pundits is a no-lose hedge. The press is about as popular as herpes.

If Trump doesn’t like the question, he might ignore it and introduce a question of his own. Becoming Hillary’s interrogator permits all those questions not likely to be asked by a biased press panel.

Mrs. Clinton avoids press conferences for good reasons. She doesn’t like questions, accountability, or candor -- and she gets rattled or hostile on defense.

Topics likely to keep Clinton in a defensive crouch include: her tolerance of husband Bill’s abuse of women from the statehouse to the White House; the Obamacare fiasco; Veterans’ care incompetence; serial foreign policy failures; the Benghazi betrayal and cover up; the private server and email controversy; subsequent FBI corruption; DNC primary fixing; and Clinton Foundation fraud just to name a few areas where the media will try to give Hillary a pass.

Trump is uniquely qualified to grill Mrs. Clinton. She has a policy and program record to defend. He does not. Trump is only liable for hearsay or those now infamous lip slips. Clinton, in contrast, has real skeletons that have been out of her closet for over a decade.

Trump does not have a horrid family and policy record to defend. In contrast, Hillary’s private and public behavior is literally indefensible. She is especially vulnerable as the putative “feminist.” Recall how Mrs. Clinton demonized Bill’s female victims and conquests. A Bill Clinton “score” was characterized as a “bimbo eruption.”

Mrs. Clinton’s achievement deficits are relevant in every sense of the word. Her personal peccadillos, integrity, judgment, temperament, and character should be the core issues of the debates.

Hillary’s contempt for common men and women is now, in her own words, a matter of public record. Less well known are the sentiments of those who have witnessed Clintonian behavior out of the public eye. The few Secret Service testimonials available are unanimous about Hillary Clinton.

She is arrogant, patronizing, condescending, abusive, vulgar, often hysterical, and frequently rude, especially to military and police details. The people sworn to protect the presidential family are usually reticent to discuss their wards. Hillary is the one notable exception.

Secret Service agents consider the Hillary detail to be punishment. She’s that bad.   

If there are any institutions that do not look forward to another Clinton regime, it’s the military, the Secret Service, and cops at large. Apparently, Hillary abhors uniforms.

Mrs. Clinton apparently suffers from some kind of multiple personality disorder too, smiling and cackling in public and then morphing into an abusive shrew off camera. There may be a medical explanation for Hillary’s mood swings, but those closest to her believe that the ailment is personality.

Pathology or illness is always fair game, but for any politician, its character, or lack of it, that matters most.

G. Murphy Donovan writes about the politics of national security.

clear
Posted on 09/23/2016 8:39 AM by G. Murphy Donovan
clear
Friday, 23 September 2016
Australia: Muslim MP Anne Aly, Predictably, Gets All Het Up About Immigration Poll That Showed Many Aussies Want Ban on Muslim Immigration
clear

As reported by Fergus Hunter for the Islamophile "Sydney Morning Herald".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/this-is-not-the-australia-i-know-first-muslim-woman-mp-hits-back-at-immigration-poll-20160922-grm6w3.html

"This Is Not The Australia I Know: First Muslim Woman MP Hits Back At Immigration Poll".

"The first Muslim woman elected to Federal Parliament, Anne Aly, has declared that a poll showing that half of respondents want to ban Muslim immigration doesn't reflect the true feelings and reality of mainstream Australia.

'However, Dr Aly, the Labor member for the WA seat of Cowan and a counter-radicalisation expert (that is, a Muslim who has made a career out of claiming to be able to get young Muslims to stop Going Jihad - CM), said a degree of xenophobia towards minorities does exist, fed by hateful rhetoric, and needs to be confronted by political leaders and regular people.

It isn't 'xenophobia towards minorities'. It is a perfectly rational fear, based upon observable facts, of being murdered in the street - or in shops, or in church, or on the train or in the bus or at the theatre or at work - by allahu-akbaring Mohammedan assassins.  And... hateful rhetoric?   Ms Aly is hoping that we Aussie infidels will never take a peek at a good clear translation of the Quran - with accompanying standard annotations - or of the Sira or life of Mohammed, or some of the Hadiths, all now right there online in Muslim-approved English versions made by Muslims.  But lots of us have done just that, and more are doing and will be doing it, and when they do, they are mostly taken aback by the hatred - toward us, us non-believers - that pours off the pages like heat from an opened oven.  Then there are those intrepid Aussies who have started poking around amongst the reams and reams of material on view at MEMRI, where one can watch bog-standard Islamic preachers and pundits and 'scholars' and political figures in action, whipping up the hate and the madhattery.  Their antics and their screechings make the most strident of non-Muslim demagogues look quiet and refined.

But in any case, by 'xenophobia towards minorities... fed by hateful rhetoric', what Ms Aly really means is "the dirty Kuffar are finding out what the Ummah intends to do to them, and they don't like it, and are trying to warn other kuffar, and some of the other kuffar are listening to them, and becoming alarmed". - CM

'The poll, released this week, found 49 percent of people favoured a ban on Muslims moving to Australia, previously considered an idea espoused only by outsider politicians like One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

'The survey found 60 percent of Coalition voters, 40 percent of Labor voters and 34 percent of Greens voters agreed with the proposition and the most common concern expressed was that Muslim people were not integrating, followed by fears of terrorism.

Both are fears based upon observable facts; facts that, if one examines the Islamic texts, turn out to be directly related to central teachings of Islam. - CM

"We've got a society that is one of the world's most cohesive multicultural and multi-faith societies", Dr Aly told Fairfax Media.  "What this poll does show is that the cohesiveness is quite fragile.  We need to keep working on it."

In this sort of context the code-word "cohesive" seems to mean something like "Islamo-accommodating" or "Islamo-appeasing".  "Cohesiveness" = Islamo-accommodation, Islamo-appeasement.  Ms Aly has just discovered that fewer Aussies have been fooled, and conditioned into proto-dhimmitude, than she and other Muslims thought.  It's a nasty shock to her, I'll bet.  Her reflexive response is to step up the Islamopuffery, to try to squelch the unpleassant signs of resistance against Islamisation. - CM

'She said that every Australian had a moral duty to call out "false imagery" of Australia that was advanced by One Nation and anti-immigration voices.

Most Islamosavvy Australians aren't against all immigration as such; we are against Muslim immigration, and we are opposed to any further appeasement and accommodation of Islam.   But what Ms Aly is trying to suggest is that we have a moral duty to submit to Islamisation. - CM

'Senator Hanson advocated a Muslim ban in her first speech to the Parliament since being re-elected.

Somebody has to be the one to say it.  Now it's been said - as it was said, earlier, by the sensible Sonia Kruger, TV personality - it has to be talked about. - CM

'Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen also called for restrictions on migration from countries with high levels of Muslim extremism.

Yes. A perfectly sensible proposal. I myself would go so far as to not admit anyone holding a passport issued by an OIC-member country that was majority-Islamic, unless they could be shown to be a bona fide member of a non-Islamic minority group.  For example: persons established as Christians, Sikhs and Hindus from Pakistan could be admitted as immigrants, tourists, or students, but not anyone else.  Similarly, Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus from Malaysia.  One may note that in many Muslim countries there are ID cards that show the person's religious affiliation. - CM

'According to Dr Aly, who arrived in the country as a two-year-old from Egypt, Muslims can also succumb to a divided view of the country, despite it not squaring with their own experience.

Shall we ask Ms Aly about the meaning of Dar Al Harb and Dar al Islam? - CM

"It's very easy for the average Muslim Australian to say, "Oh, wow, everyone around me hates me".

Really?  And no Muslim in Australia has ever been taught, in the home and in the mosque, to reject and hate the kuffar society around them, filled with those who are declared by the Quran to be "the worst of beasts"??   I wonder how much of Muslim claims that "nobody loves me, everybody hates me" can be put down to the phenomenon that psychologists call "projection".  - CM

"But that's not my personal experience in Australia, and I know it's not the experience of other Muslims in Australia".

Yes, because a lot of Aussies are still dangerously misinformed or uninformed about Islam; as witness the 40 percent of people polled who were not opposed to Muslim immigration, and the additional 11 percent who had not yet made up their minds. - CM

"People say everyone hates them, but then you ask them what their neighbours are like, and they say, 'Oh, I love my neighbours".

Hmm.  But would they still 'love' that cheerful, friendly Aussie neighbour if they found out that he or she was an enthusiastic supporter of Israel? - CM

"I think every parliamentarian and particularly the Prime Minister, has a moral obligation to speak up and say, "This is not Australia", and really lead the debate on who and what we are."

Well, Ms Aly, bottom line is, a lot of people in Australia - the majority of whom have taken the trouble to do some homework on what it is exactly that Islam teaches, and how that jibes with what Muslims have historically done in the course of the past 1400 years - don't want an Islamised Australia. Because there is not one Islamic country, anywhere in the world, that we would want to resemble in any way, shape or form.  And the only way to be sure of not having an Islamised Australia, in the long term, is to prevent the Muslim Fifth Column from expanding; and the first step toward that, is to stop Muslim immigration.  A second step would be to shut down all sharia-pushing and/ or jihad-promoting mosques and prevent more mosques from being built, and the third is to take Ayaan Hirsi Ali's advice, given years ago to a number of western countries, and shut down all madrasas or Islam-based schools, and require all children from Muslim families to attend state schools. - CM

'She suggested the Essential poll's question were too negative, and could have skewed the results.

Is she demanding that they should have been worded in such a way as to push people toward a 'positive' answer? - CM

"They did not ask, "Do you like your Muslim neighbours?  Do you agree to have Muslims that contribute to Australia", she said.  "They were all negatively worded".

I'm through with trying to sift out the dangerous Muslims from the non-dangerous; because so often, the most dangerous ones have initially, to many, seemed non-dangerous... until they Went Jihad, and people got killed.  I'm through with playing 'Muslim Roulette'.  Superficially or seemingly 'nice' Muslim neighbours don't erase the jihad doctrine of Islam.  Precautionary principle.  Got Muslims? - Got Jihad.  The only way to be quite, quite sure of having less Jihad, is to have fewer Muslims.  And we can make a start on that, by stopping Muslim immigration. - CM

'The former Curtin University professor, who has previously been invited by US President Barack Obama to speak at the White House, acknowledged waves of migrants to Austraila do historically attract some hate, especially at times of economic turmoil.

No.  Those of us who have investigated Islam do not fear the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, because the economy is not doing as well as might be desired. We fear Islam - we fear and distrust the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob - because of its 1400 year history of mass murder, mass enslavement, rape and plunder.  We see the ruin that it has wrought and is still wreaking and we wish to establish some boundaries, quickly.  We distrust Muslims because we don't want to be stabbed in the back, or run over, or blown up, or shot down, like the peopel in the Bataclan theatre.  And we distrust people like you, Ms Aly, because we have begun to learn about the many and varied types of deception that Islam has consciously and malevolently deployed throughout its history. - CM

"We can't keep falling into this pattern every time there is a new "other" that we can blame for everything", she said.

Hmm.  I am reminded of that part of her book "Infidel" in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali recalls how, during her childhood, when she lived in 100 percent Muslim Saudi Arabia, the Muslims around her routinely blamed Al Yahood, the Jews, for every single thing, great or small, that went wrong in their daily lives.  It strikes me that Ms Aly herself is in part "projecting" onto non-Muslim Aussies the Muslim tendency to "blame the Infidel" or to "blame the Jew" for anything and everything that goes wrong.  Who is "the other" for Muslims, Ms Aly? Is it not the filthy kuffar, the unbelievers? - CM

"We've been doing it for 200 years. (Really?  Evidence, please. - CM)  Grow up, Australia. Let's take our place on the world stage as a mature nation".

'Maturity', it seems, in Ms Aly's mind = Islamo-appeasement, or Islamo-compliance.  To resist Islam, to criticise it, to question it and reject it, is 'immature'...?  - CM

'She said it was hard to understand why people could hate minorities (really? - the Muslim Egyptians seem to find it very easy to hate and oppress and abuse the Coptic Christian indigenous minority, and the Muslim Turks, back in the day, had no difficulty hating and mass murdering the Armenian and Assyrian Christians - CM), but that the "root of the grievance" (by which she seems to mean, that they are not being told enough soothing lies about Islam, and are therefore refusing to acquiesce in the expansion of Islam in Australia - CM) needs to be addressed, and that voices like Senator Hanson and Mr Christensen couldn't hide from their role in fuelling xenophobia.

They are not 'fuelling xenophobia'. In this particular case they are trying to warn their fellow citizens about a real and present danger.  About an ideology and an organisation with an appalling track record of mass murder on the grand scale.  And Ms Aly, being a card-carrying member of that organisation, wants to silence them and anyone else who is trying to raise the alarm; wants to stifle or drown out the warning; wants to make it possible for Islam, for the Ummah, to continue to expand in numbers, and in power, within Australia. - CM

'During the election campaign, as the candidate for Cowan, Dr Aly was subjected to a campaign by Liberal figures that sought to paint her as soft on terrorism because of her government-funded deradicalisation work.

If the Muslims she claims to have 'deradicalised' remain Muslim they remain dangerous. - CM

 

clear
Posted on 09/23/2016 3:48 AM by Christina McIntosh
clear
Friday, 23 September 2016
Man who murdered Glasgow shopkeeper for 'disrespecting Islam' calls for beheadings in prison YouTube video
clear

I don't usually post from the Independent, but this time they have the most accessible report on this.

A man who murdered a Glasgow shopkeeper for “disrespecting Islam” has released messages from prison calling on supporters to behead other “insulters”.

Tanveer Ahmed, 32, admitted stabbing Asad Shah to death in his shop because he felt his victim was “disrespecting the prophet Mohamed” with his beliefs as an Ahmadi Muslim. Now, he is encouraging others to do the same in extremist audio messages that appear to have been recorded and released after he was jailed for life.

In Ahmed’s most recent speech, uploaded to YouTube earlier this month, he celebrates sending Mr Shah “to hell with the help of Allah, the prophet, angels and saints”. “I have the honour of sending him to the hell forever,” he says in Urdu, giving the date as 7 September.

The message then calls on listeners to repeat a chant vowing to “offer their lives and souls”, ending: “There’s only one punishment for insulters: cut off their heads, cut off their heads, cut off their heads.”

It was one of five messages, uploaded to the same YouTube account in May, June, August and most recently on 7 September. They are believed to have been recorded on a mobile phone, possibly during a call made by Ahmed from Barlinnie Prison.

A spokesman for the Scottish Prison Service said he could not comment on individual cases. “We work closely with Police Scotland to detect and prevent crime,” he added. “We make overt recordings of phone calls made in prison.”

Police Scotland have also launched an investigation into Ahmed’s audio messages, which could constitute hate speech or incitement.

The videos have generated fresh alarm in the UK’s Ahmadi Muslim community, following a Facebook page praising the murder of Mr Shah and leaflets calling for Ahmadis to convert or be killed distributed in London.

Ahmed was unrepentant in court, releasing a statement through a lawyer accusing Mr Shah of “disrespecting the messenger of Islam, the prophet Mohamed”, adding: “If I had not done this others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world.”

But he was given leave to appeal his minimum sentence on Thursday, with judges at a hearing in Edinburgh ruling that the murderer’s lawyers can make a case for the term to be reduced.

clear
Posted on 09/23/2016 2:59 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 22 September 2016
Australia: Poll Shows 49 Percent of Aussies Want To End Muslim Immigration; Islamophiles Have Conniptions
clear

The people who did the poll were so nonplussed by what they discovered that they ran it a second time because they thought they must have done something wrong; but when they ran it the second time they got exactly the same results.  It seems that despite the neverending and indeed ever-accelerating Islamopuffery that has been and is being poured out by so many of our secular and even our religious leaders, a significant number of Aussies prefer to believe their lyin' eyes and ears, and are making up their own minds about Islam and the Ummah, or Allah Gang, the Mohammedan Mob.

Our Islamophile ABC is, predictably, horrified.  Here is "Shalailah Medhora" reporting for TripleJ, the ABC's outlet aimed at the younger set.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/half-of-australia-wants-muslim-ban/7865630 

"Half of Australian Wants Muslim Ban".

"Look around your classroom, or workplace.

'Chances are that half of the people there support a blanket ban on Muslim migration to Australia.  You might even be one of them.

Yes. I am.  Because I'm sick and tired of playing the deadly game of "Muslim roulette" that has claimed so many, many Infidel lives, world-wide, already, from the 1990s onward. - CM

'New polling out today [21 September] found that 49 percent of people support a ban on Muslims coming to Australia, compared to 40 percent who oppose a ban.  (The remaining 11 percent weren't sure either way).

That 11 percent is where the Resistance to Islamisation msut focus its efforts. And it is also where, of course, those emitting the relentless blast of Islamopuffery will now also be seeking to disinform and confuse.  - CM

'Young people aged 18-24 were the most likely to oppose a ban on Muslim immigration.

They are the ones who have been propagandised most completely by the Muslims and Islamophiles who have infiltrated academia, media and the arts, since the 1970s. They are also the ones with the smallest amount of "lived experience"; the ones least likely to have spent any time reading the Islamic texts, or reading old books, or watching really old movies, where a non-sanitised assessment of Islam is more likely to be found. - CM

'Fifty-eight percent of young people opposed a ban, compared with 28 percent who supported it.  

Hm. That means that 14 percent were undecided.  The resistance had better figure out, fast, how to reach that 14 percent.  And the 28 percent who oppose Muslim immigration is significant, because it means that on nearly a third of our young Aussies the very obvious campaign to make Islam 'cool' and hip and fashionable and to make criticism or rejection of Islam the cardinal sin, has ... failed to stick. - CM

'Respondents of the 1000 person survey, undertaken by polling company Essential, were most concerned about Muslims not integrating to the Australian way of life, or failing to share Australian values.  Just over one in four who support a ban were also worried about terrorism.

That is very interesting.  It shows that many of those who are wary of Islam are awake-up to the "stealth" or "civilisational jihad", to "sharia creep", to what the French call "entrisme".  They know that everything we are, everything we love, is at stake. - CM

'Things get even more interesting when you look at how the people who support a ban vote.

'Coalition voters - that is, people who identify themselves as voters of the Liberal or National parties - are most likely to support a ban on Muslim migration.  But 40 percent of Labor votes, and 34 percent of Green voters, also support a ban.

Yay for good old Aussie rock-bottom commonsense.   Perhaps some Greens and Labors have become aware of Islamic misogyny and homophobia, and don't like it... - CM

'The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has long argued that Australia's diversity is one of the country's biggest strengths.

These days, it seems, you are not 'diverse' unless and until you have a large and aggressive colony of Mohammedans ensconced in your midst.  No matter how many people of different ethnicities and languages you have, no matter whether you already have Christians of every stripe, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics, wiccans, animists, Confucians, Taoists, you are still not "diverse", you don't have 'real' 'diversity' until and unless you have lots and lots of Muslims and more coming in every day...?? - CM

'Earlier this week, he told a United Nations Summit on immigration that "diversity is an investment against marginalisation and extremism".

Really?  Jihad is not 'caused' by anything kuffars do or do not do to Muslims. The casus belli is that we are Infidels. That's all it takes, Mr Turnbull. And if we let Muslims inside our gates, some of them will set to work to kill us, to terrorise us, to try to force us to Submit. - CM

"It helps our community unite, rather than be divided".

Read surah 48.29 of the Quran, PM Turnbull.  Ask yourself how we kuffar can possibly 'unite' with a 'community', the Ummah, the Empire of Islam, that believes itself to be entitled to lay down the (sharia) law to everyone else on earth, and that divides the whole world into two halves - into the dar al Islam, or region of Submission, where Muslims dominate, and into the dar al Harb, or Region of War, which is where we non-Muslims are, and which must be warred against, one way or another, by Muslims, until it ceases to exist, and all the world is Dar al Islam and kuffar are near-slave dhimmis, or converted to Islam, or...dead.  Ask yourself how we can 'unite' with people whose cult teaches them that we are "the worst of beasts", that inculcates a virulent antisemitism, that regards Christians (because of their adoration of Christ) as committing 'shirk', a crime more heinous than murder, and that teaches its adherents never to befriend or ally with non-Muslims, except feigningly and temporarily, under certain circumstances, and only for Muslim advantage. - CM

'Peter Lewis from Essential Poll said the results were surprising.

'I was worried it was what we call a 'rogue poll'.  So we repeated and got the exact same result.'

'The poll results come shortly after One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, called for a ban on Muslims entering Australia during her first speech to Parliament.

"We are in danger of being swamped by Muslims, who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own".

The 'swamped' bit is pretty clear, in light of recent events in Germany; there is a threat, because there are not a few nicely-dhimmified Useful Idiots in our own country who would cheerfully open the floodgates, if they got the chance.  The statement about the incompatible (indeed, aggressive and hostile) culture and ideology is also true, in spades.  Many people far better educated than Ms Hanson would say exactly the same. - CM

'Pauline Hanson - who first entered politics in 1996, raising concerns about Asia [non-Islamic - CM] migration - is joined in the Senate by three other One Nation senators.

Gotta love the Aussie voter, flying a 'trial balloon' and sending a bit of a message to the major parties that there is an urgent issue that they are not adequately addressing. - CM

'Nationally, One Nation received about 4 percent of the vote in the recent federal election.  In Queensland, where the One Nation vote was the highest, 9 percent of voters backed Senator Hanson and her party.

'Shadow multicultural minister Tony Burke told Hack he's not convinced that the poll is an accurate reflection of modern Australia.

'I have some reservations about the numbers collected in this poll. There was a slightly larger poll conducted a few months earlier - the federal election."

"There was not a big vote for One Nation.  Ninety-five percent of Australians saw them on the ballot paper and voted for someone else.  In fact, they got fewer votes than they received in 2001, when zero One Nation senators were elected," he said.

"The politics of division has always been around (yep, mate: in the case of Islam, it's been around for 1400 years and counting - Dar al Islam vs Dar al Harb, and you ought to look up the significance of "al wala wa al bara", too - CM), but it never ends up prevailing."

'What does a ban actually achieve?'

Ever heard the proverb, "When in hole, stop digging?"  Or "a stitch in time saves nine"? Or that there is such a thing as nipping something in the bud? - CM

"Hass Dellal, the head of the Australian Multicultural Foundation, told Hack that Senator Hanson's speech was heavy on rhetoric, but did not offer any solution to voters' genuinely held concerns.

Really? Not letting in any more Muslims, and preventing any more madrasas and Muslim military-command-and-control centres, aka 'mosques', sounds like a pretty good plan, to me. - CM

"If there are fears, we need to address them", he said.  "What does a ban actually achieve?"

Lots. It prevents the Ummah from increasing in numbers quite so fast, and therefore limits its actual and perceived power. - CM

'Hass points out that one-third of Muslims were born in Australia.  They make up just a fraction of the population - about 2 percent.

They were a much, much smaller percentage, around 20 years ago.  There are now suburbs where they dominate, both in numbers and in political clout; suburbs from which they have quite deliberately, by varous means, including threats of violence and actual violence, driven out the non-Muslim inhabitants.  Paul Sheehan in an article written in 2006 described that process, as it was reported to him, by people who had directly experienced it.  And with Muslims "only" at two percent, they are causing a whole hell of a lot of trouble; witness the necessity of creating the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad, and the sheer amount of time and money that is already being spent on trying to keep tabs on all those Muslims who might be about to Go Jihad. - CM

"Diversity is here to stay".

Translation: "Islamisation Must Not Be Stopped". - CM

"We as a nation have a great record and a great history of managing diversity", Hass said.

Until we greatly increased the number and percentage of Muslims. - CM

"Stop Cuddling up to Hanson"

'Nick McKim, the Greens spokesperson on immigration, said the Coalition and Labor should stop "cuddling up" to Senator Hanson.

'They refuse to call her out and call her words out for what they are, which is racist".

Really?  Was Somali ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist when she told assorted western governments that they should not permit Muslims to set up 'faith-based' schools, centred on Islam, for children of Muslim families, and that if they did, they would come to regret it (which they have)? - CM

"The Australian character is one of welcoming visitors and strangers to our shores, and I have no doubt that is how the majority of Australians feel", Senator McKim said.

Senator McKim needs to read ex-Muslim Sam Solomon's book "Al Hijra" and think again.  The people of Yathrib, now Medina, welcomed Mohammed and his 'persecuted' band of Companions, back in the day; and as a result, many of them wound up dead. - CM

'The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils said Senator Hanson's first speech to Parliament was "ill-informed, hurtful and divisive".

How Muslims always do go on and on about things being hurtful and divisive; whilst heir own lot, the world over, historically and right now, exhibit a gleeful cruelty whenever they have sufficient power to do as they please to non-Muslim persons. - CM

'But spokesperson Kesyar Trad offered to counter any misinformation about his religion in person.

'Misinformation'.  The actual contents of the Islamic trilogy, along with Islamic history (if read in non-whitewashed sources) are so damning that no amount of flowery nothings, denials, accusations, sophistries and other nonsense-and-lies spun by the likes of a disgraceful individual such as Keysar Trad can erase them from the mind of any sensible non-Muslim person. - CM

"I stretch my hand with love and goodwill, offering to spend as much time as necessary with Ms Hanson to answer her questions about Islam", he said.

To tell her soothing lies about Islam, you mean, Mr Trad.  And as for stretching out a hand; Ms Hanson would be well advised not to take it, and, indeed, to refuse your invitation. Because a British MP named Stephen Timms once took the hand of a sweetly-smiling Muslimah... and as he did so, with her other hand, still smiling, she brought out a knife from her bag and shoved it into his stomach. - CM

'The Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, said demonising Islam could help fuel extremism.

Nonsense, Mr Shorten. You believe that, for example, a publicly-stated factual description of Islam - such as Churchill gave, back in the day, when he called it "the religion of blood and war" - is the cause of Jihad??  What if, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali once did on Dutch TV, I were to call Mohammed a 'pervert' because of his having marital relations with little nine-year-old Aisha? Is that 'demonising Islam'?  Should I refrain from speaking publicly about Mohammed's approval of the the murder of apostates, and of 'blasphemers' such as Asma bint Marwan, because if I do, it will... get me or other people killed by... Muslim assassins enforcing the sharia ban on the criticism of Islam? - - CM

"We would be playing into the hands of the crazies, of the fundamentalists, of those who hate the Australian way of life, by somehow saying that that religion - Islam - is incompatible with Western liberal democracy", he said.

But it is.  Any belief system that includes Death for Apostasy - and very frequently applies and has applied this rule, in modern times - is incompatible with Western liberal democracy. Any belief system that authorises the murder of cartoonists for drawing pictures ot the founder, is incompatible with western liberal democracy.  Islam suppresses freedom of speech.  Are you cool with that, Mr Shorten?  Do you think Theo Van Gogh should not have made the movei 'Submission' with Ayaan Hirsi Ali? do you think Ms Ali should not have written her books.. or apostasised from Islam?   Do you think the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists deserved to be killed, because they made the mohammedans upset? -  CM

'There are millions of Muslims right across the world who live in western societies, who contribute to our quality and standard of living (who by their presence, their numbers, and the disruptive activities engaged in by far too many from amongst their number, are causing an unprecedented and vastly expensive homeland-security headache to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and have made life for everyone else much more dangerous, expensive and unpleasant than it would have been, if they or their forebears had never been allowed inside the gates in the first place - CM) and you give in to the crazies, the fundamentalists, if all you do is accept their arguments and repeat them ourselves."

Mr Shorten: read Conor Cruise O'Brien, "The Lesson of Algeria: Islam is Indivisible".  There is not some sort of not-really-Islamic outer fringe of 'crazies' and then a 'real Islam' that is okay. There is just Islam, and it is deadly. - CM

'There has been a surge in popularity of far-right (sic - Islamosceptical and patriotic - CM) politicians around the world.  From Brexit - where Britons voted to leave the European Union - to Donald Trump's call to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the United States (wait a minute; why does this sentence not mention his much more centrally important and relevant call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration - CM), politicians have been capitalising on voters' fears of immigrants.

Not of immigrants in general, but of Muslim immigrants.  That's what the poll was about. And not all fear arises from ignorance or unreason. Some fears are rational, based on knowledge, on the recognition and comprehension of a real threat.  Fear of Islam is rational and fact-based. - CM

'Because Muslims come from all different nationalities and walks of life, the argument against them has become a cultural one.

It is a cultural one. It is about ideas. - CM

'Aurelien Mondon from the University of Bath told Hack, this week: 

"Instead of talking about racism and race, they talk about culture.

Because it is about culture, you twit.  We're not objecting to Christians from Syria, we're objecting to Muslims from Syria. Would a Muslim girl from Syria have ever in a million years stepped up to become a Wine Queen in Germany? But a Christian girl from Syria has done just that. - CM

"They say, "we're not racist, we're saying cultures are so important that they should be protected, and they're so great we should keep them apart".  It's the same process of exclusion, but it's not race, it's cultural", Aurelien said.

Well, what do you think would have happened to European Enlightenment culture, if the Muslims had won at Vienna in 1683, mate?  Would Sir Isaac Newton or Johann Sebastian Bach even have been born, let alone done what they did?  Mr Aurelien, I really don't like FGM, polygyny, wife-beating, child and/ or forced 'marriage, slavery, death for apostasy, and death for 'blasphemy'... all of which are and have been integral parts of Islam.  Does that make me a racist, in your eyes?

The reliably Islamophile "Sydney Morning Herald" is, of course, also shocked and disgusted that so many Aussies have the inexplicable temerity to not want more, and more, and more Muslims in Australia.  Here's the SMH report, from Mark Kenny and Michael Koziol.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/half-of-all-australians-want-to-ban-muslim-immigration-poll-20160920-grkufa.html

"Half of All Australians Want to Ban Muslim Immigration: Poll".

"US President Barack Obama has hit back strongly at rising anti-immigration sentiment across America, Europe and Australia, as a new poll found that half of all Australians want to ban Muslim immigration.

It is not, for the most part, anti-immigration sentiment; it is, as in Australia, a growing awareness that Muslim immigrants, or rather, colonists, or invaders, are not, generally speaking a good thing, for countries into which they insert themselves; a growing uneasy awareness that the importation of large and inassimilable Muslim colonies has made life for non-Muslims (whether indigenous or immigrant) in the host societies - right across Europe, and also the USA, Canada, and Australia - much more expensive, unpleasant, and increasingly physically dangerous.   - CM

'Declaring rich countries must do more not less, and that refugees are victims rather than causes of violence (really? but in Australia a particularly ghastly murder was perpetrated by a "Rohingya" Muslim "refugee", upon a fellow "Rohingya" Muslim; is the murderer not the cause of the violence he committed?  Has Obama forgotten those attacks in Germany that were carried out by Muslim persons who claimed to be 'refugees'?  has he forgotten the Somali Muslim - who would have gained entry to Denmark by claiming to be a 'refugee'- who attempted, with an axe, to murder Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for having committed the heinous crime of drawing the 'Mohammed-turban-bomb' cartoon?  Has he forgotten the Brothers Tsarnaev, and the lives they took, and the many lives that they ruined, with their pressure-cooker bomb at the Boston Marathon?  The Tsarnaevs claimed to be "refugees", and were believed, and taken in, by America; and then they attempted to mass-murder American Infidels... - CM), Mr Obama said that governments proposing to build walls and close doors inevitably imprisoned their own citizens, while ensuring they would be harshly judged by history.

So, by analogy, our houses should not have walls, or doors, or security bars and screens, or locks.  Gardens and farms should not have fences.   Question: would Mr Obama like to lead by example? Dismiss his security staff, take all the locks off the White House, and remove the perimeter fence?  And let it be known that he is going to have "open house"; if you want to walk in, use the bathroom and laundry, and take whatever you want out of the fridge, you can do it. - CM

"This crisis is a test of our common humanity - whether we give in to suspicion and fear and build walls, or whether we see ourselves in another", he said.

Seeing "ourselves" in "another" is precisely what Islam teaches Muslims not to do, if that "other" is not a Muslim. - CM

'It came as an Essential Research poll released on Wednesday found that 49 percent of Australians support a ban on Muslim immigration, including 60 percent of Coalition voters (the aspect of Australian politics that is somewhat similar to the Tories in Britain or the Republicans in the USA - CM), 40 percent of Labor voters, and 34 percent of Greens voters (Labor and the Greens are the Aussie equivalent, very broadly speaking, of "Labor" in the UK and the Democrat constituency in the US - CM).

An observation: these results should be a great encouragement to the resistance within Australia as it continues to attempt to inform, and to spread the alarm amongst the great Infidel public.  Although in places such as social media one encounters many persons on the 'Green' and "Labor' camp who are zealous Defenders of Islam, it appears that there is nevertheless within that same camp a significant minority who have not abandoned their commonsense nor lost their instinct of self-preservation.  This is an encouragement to persevere, and not to assume, before one begins, that a person affiliated with, say, Labor or the Greens, is ipso facto unpersuadable.  Because one in three Greens and four out of ten Laborites are, in fact, already having misgivings about Muslims and Islam. - CM

'The most common reasons for wanting a ban were fears about terrorism, and a belief that Muslim migrants do not integrate into society nor share Australian values.

The fears are fact-based, and justifiable. The "belief" is true, not false; it is itself a recognition of facts. - CM

'The poll was first conducted in early August, and then repeated to ensure it was not a rogue.

"It's too big a number to say that it's an unrepresentative rump that should be shunned from polite society. (So...if you fear being murdered by allahu-akbaring jihadis, if you have read up on the core teachings of Islam and on the ways in which sharia wreaks and has wreaked havoc on countless human lives down through the centuries and today, and dare to suggest that Muslims should not be allowed into the country, you should be "shunned"???  Does this person even realize how totally he has internalised an equivalent of the Islamic blasphemy law? - CM) Essential pollster Peter Lewis told Fairfax Media.

'In a strident call for more decisive action to help the world's 65 million asylum seekers and internally displaced persons (it would be interesting to know how many of those 65 million are Muslims; if Muslims form the majority, then why should non-Muslim countries be forced to take them all in? - CM), the US President used his opening address to an invitation-only summit on refugees in New York to pour scorn on the moral abandon (sic - CM) propelling right-wing (sic - CM) populists such as US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, former UK Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage, and others in Europe, and Australian senator Pauline Hanson.

"It is a test of our international system, where all nations ought to share in our collective responsibilities, because the vast majority of refugees are hosted by just 10 countries, who are bearing a very heavy burden - among them Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia.  Countries that often have fewer resources than many of those who are doing little or nothing", he said.

Dear President Obama: the total population of Australia is 24 million.  We obviously cannot take in all 65 million third-world "refugees" and displaced people, most of whom are Muslims, fleeing the chaos and misery and poverty that Islam produces... but bringing it with them, to reproduce it, sooner or later, wherever they go.  I would rather that Australia took in every last one of the threatened-with-genocide Christians, and Yazidis, of Iraq and Syria, than that we took in even one more Muslim, whether immigrant or "refugee", from anywhere.  Neither should any one of the small and historically non-Islamic countries of Europe be forced to take in Muslims, who are not only culturally-incompatible but aggressive and resentful, and infinitely disruptive.  As for the others that you mention? - Ethiopia should not be required to receive or host Muslim "refugees", and would be best served by being assisted to turf them out - into irretrievably Islamically-blighted Somalia and North Sudan - and then assisted to keep them out.  The Maronite Christians of Lebanon would be best served by receiving assistance and encouragement to throw out all the Muslims - Shiite and Sunni - into Iraq, whilst receiving assistance to resettle Syrian and Iraqi Christians.  As for Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan ... the Camp of the Free owes them absolutely nothing, and not one Muslim from Iran, Turkey or Pakistan, nor from any other part of the dar al Islam, should be admitted into any part of what Muslims call the dar al Harb, the Region of War.  End of story.  As for the idea that "rich countries" should "do more".. indeed they should.  Time to demand that the rich Muslims take care of the poor Muslims.  There are more than enough petrodollars in the Gulf and elsewhere to ensure a lifelong supply of food, clothing and other necessaries for every Muslim 'refugee' in the world.  Why should Infidels be forced to foot the bill?   - CM

'The Essential poll, with a typical sample size of more than 1000, came a week after Senator Hanson's incendiary (sic - CM) first speech in the Senate, in whcih she proposed that Australia halt Muslim immigration and stop building mosques and Islamic schools.

There is nothing "incendiary" about any one of those three proposals. Any person who has read ex-Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo's "Islam in Britain" and "Faith, Power and Territory", or ex-Muslim Sam Solomon's "Al Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration", and "The Mosque Exposed", will have independently reached the conclusion that stopping Muslim immigration and stopping the proliferation of mosques and madrasas, are steps that will have to be taken, if the camp of the Free wishes to survive at all.  Furthermore, it was another ex-Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who many years ago - nearly ten years ago, or more - told the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, the USA and Australia, that they should not permit Muslim 'faith' schools; that these schools were not the same kind of thing as schools run by Jews, or Catholics, or Anglicans, or Lutherans; that they were dangerous, and that countries which permitted them to be built would come to regret it.  Ms Hanson's proposal re Islamic schools is no different from the advice given by Ms Ali. - CM

'The poll found a high level of support for the One Nation firebrand (sic: why not just write "the outspoken One Nation senator"? terms like "firebrand" are meant to skew our perception and our attitudes - CM), with two-thirds of voters agreeing she talks about issues other politicians are afraid of tackling, and 48 percent endorsing a national debate about Muslim immigration.

'Mr Lewis said that the results showed mainstream political parties needed to re-engage with "outsider politics" as disenfranchised voters flocked to the fringes.

49 percent of the total vote is not "the fringes".  What happens if there are another couple of mass murder attacks such as Nice, or the Bataclan, or Orlando, in Europe, or the UK, or Canada, or the USA, or even.. Australia, and you re-do the poll, and discover that the percentage of Coalition voters who don't want any more Ummah has gone from 60 to 70 percent, and the percentages of Labor and Green voters who have decided that Islam is dangerous, and Australia would be better off without it, have moved from 40 percent to 60 percent and from 34 percent to 52 percent?  It could happen.  And if it does, then the politicians will have to face the fact that a very large number of all kinds of voters don't. want. any. more. Islam. -    CM

"If you look at the movements in the States, in Britain, the economic disenfranchisement drives a set of conversation about culture and difference, that manifest at the moment in these sorts of positions."

Really? Are infidel Aussies, Yanks, Brits, Europeans only worried about Islam, and Muslims, because they're having trouble finding a job or paying off the mortgage?  Seriously??  Mate, as the jihad attacks, small and large-scale, pile up, all over the world, and the death and injury toll keeps mounting, and the denials that it all has anything at all to do with Islam grow more and more farcical, people are getting more and more worried about being stabbed from behind in a shopping centre, or in a park, or in a backpackers' hostel, by an allahu-akbaring Mohammedan, or run over in the street by a car or truck driven by an allahu-akbaring Mohammedan, or shot dead in a bar or a nightclub or at a Christmas party or at a rock concert, by an allahu-akbaring mohammedan or mohammedans, or blown up on a bus or a train or a plane or in the street (Boston marathon, anyone?) by allahu-akbaring mohammedans.  That's the long and the short of it. We're coming to see the obvious - got Muslims? Got Jihad.  And more and more of us are therefore deciding that we'd prefer not to increase the number of Muslims in our midst, so as to reduce the number of persons likely to murderously, or mass-murderously, Go Jihad. - CM

'If the poll is an accurate reflection of Australian voters, it highlights a significant hardening in anti-Muslim sentiment.

It seems that the Sydney Morning Herald wants us to think that fearing Muslms, or distrusting Muslims, or not liking Muslims, is simply beyond the pale: unthinkable, unforgivable. - CM

A Ray Morgan poll conducted in October last year found broad support for Muslim immigration, with 28 percent of respondents declaring themselves opposed.

Hmm. And since October 2015 we have had the attack on the Bataclan in November 2015, the attack on the Brussels airport in March 2016, and the spectacularly mass-murderous attacks in Orlando, Florida (June 2016) and in Nice in France (14 July 2016), not to mention the frenzied Muslim murder of two backpackers right here in Australia ... And that is only within the 'western' world; plenty more has been happening elsewhere.  It's not surprising that people's attitudes have changed. - CM

'The Obama comments came as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull revealed his government would dial up its refugee intake (one hopes this means that he will increase the number of mortally-imperilled Iraqi and Syrian Christian refugees, and other non-Muslims, such as Mandaeans and Yazidis, that we will admit - CM), but was also ratcheting up the pressure on Iran to take back persons deemed not to have legitimate refugee claims, in a bid to clear out the detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru - the blight on Australia's internaitonal reputation.

"It's very important that nations accept back, whether on a voluntary or an involuntary basis, their citizens who have been denied refugee status", Mr Turnbull said at a United Nations press conference held on the banks of the East River.

"This is a keen issue with a number of countries who will not do that (of course the Muslim countries won't; they intend for the flow to be one-way, a stream of Muslims pouring neverendingly, as hijra, immigration-invasion, into previously non-Islamic countries; - CM), and of course it is important that if there is going to be the cooperative action to end the scourge of people-smuggling - and there is a global commitment, I believe, to do that (good luck with getting any real cooperation from the Muslims, on that one...CM) - then there are a number of measures that have to be undertaken.  One of them is to be prepared to accept the return of a nation's own citizens."

That is indeed a key point.  Because infidel countries wishing to reverse the hijra will, in the end, have to choose to ignore and override the stonewalling of the Muslim countries of origin of the muhajiroun, the "migraters". - CM

'Reluctant to name individual countries, he eventually yielded, declaring: "I am certainly in contact with my Iranian counterpart over this issue.  It's been a long-running discussion; we will continue to seek to negotiate with Iran so that they take back Iranian citizens, who are found not to be owed protection.  The simple fact is that they are Iranians who have been found not to be refugees, and they must go back to Iran."

No Iranian Muslim should be permitted into Australia, even if a "refugee".  Iranians who can, via investigation with groups such as Barnabas Fund and the relevant communities of origin,  can be shown firmly to be Christian - whether they be apostates from Islam, or persons from the indigenous dhimmi minorities - or Jewish, should be admitted; life in Iran is a misery for non-Muslims.  Anyone else... no. - CM

'Mr Obama cited the treatment of the Jews by Nazi Germany, and the refusal of third countries to take in those fleeing the genocidal regime, to declare that failure to help people escaping current conflicts would leave a similar stain on our collective conscience.

Muslims are not Jews.  Jews (despite the mad fantasies of the antisemites who influenced the decisions, in the 1930s, to reject those frantic Jews who were trying to flee from the Third Reich, or to take in only limited numbers) posed no threat to potential host countries whatsoever. Whereas Muslims do; Muslims carry in their mental baggage the religion of blood and war, a belief system that primes them to regard non-adherents with hatred and contempt, and to seek to subjugate them, "convert" them, or annihilate them. Also: not until 1948 was there even one state that Jews could call their own.  Right now, there are 57 states in the world that are majority Muslim, where Muslims rule.  Muslims from this or that Muslim state or region have many countries culturally, ethnically and religiously compatible, that could take them in.  The real analogy with the shameful refusal of many countries to receive the persecuted Jews from Germany and Europe in the 1930s, is the shameful refusal of majority-nominally-Christian countries, today, to give absolute priority, in their refugee and immigrant intake, to the mortally-imperilled (by Muslims!) Iraqi and Syrian Christians, together with smaller non-Islamic groups, also in deadly peril (from Muslims!).  Many free countries "flubbed their catch" with the Jews; we are, today, "flubbing our catch" with the middle-eastern Christians.  If, instead of throwing open the gates to nearly a million Muslims, mostly males of military age, Germany had quietly gone to Barnabas Fund and asked them to find a million bona fide displaced Syrian and Iraqi Christians in need of a new and safer h homeland, I am sure that Barnabas could have obliged them; and if they had, we would not have had the rapes and the killings and the explosions; all that would have happened is that many Catholic churches in Germany would now have a great many new parishioners.  - CM

'Thanking Germany, Canada and Australia, among other nations, for their leadership in addressing the refugee crisis, Mr Obama nonetheless criticised the international community for doing too little to fix the root causes of displacement - singling out the faux cooperation over achieving a peaceful resolution to the Syrian civil war.

The root cause of the massive flows of people - whether Muslim or non-Muslim - from countries suffused with Islam, like Syria, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, is ... Islam.  Take Islam out of the equation and there would still be displaced people because of assorted human conflicts, and other factors, but those non-Muslim displaced people would be much easier to resettle, because not being card-carrying adherents of an ideology that seeks Total World Domination. - CM

'And in a direct repudiation of the Trump/ Hansonite philosophy of ending Muslim immigration and refusing refugees from countries suffering extremist problems (that is: countries crazed by Islam and wracked by Jihad - CM) Mr Obama pledged the opposite response.

"In the coming fiscal year, starting next week, the United States will welcome and resettle 110,000 refugees from around the world - which is a nearly 60 percent increase over 2015. We intend to do it right, and we will do it safely", he said.

Nonsense.  If any of those 115, 000 people are Muslims (and given your obvious preference for Islam over anything else, Mr President, I fear that they will nearly all be Muslim, whilst the desperate Christians of Syria and Iraq are casually kicked by you back down into the Predator Pit), then they - and if not they themselves, then their children and grandchildren - represent a standing menace to the people and infidel polity of the United States. - CM

'He said the use of people-smugglers exposed refugees and the target countries to "the same criminals who are smuggling arms and drugs and children".

"When nations with their own internal difficulties find themselves hosting massive refugee populations for years on end, it can risk more instability.  It oftentimes surfaces tensions in our society when we have disorderly and disproportionate migration into some countries that skews our politics and is subject to demagoguery", he said, in an obvious reference to the outspoken Republican nominee.

If those massive refugee populations are causing chaos where they already are, then why on earth will they not also produce identical problems in, say, the United States... which already does have plenty of very obvious "internal difficulties" of its own. You've already got trouble; why are you so eager to import more? - CM

"And if we were to turn refugees away simply because of their background or religion (as seems, Mr President, to be currently the case with the Christian refugees from Iraq and Syria, eh? - CM), or, for example, because they are Muslim (but, Mr Obama, Muslims belong to the religion of blood and war; got Muslims? Got Jihad - CM), then we would be reinforcing terrorist propaganda that nations like my own are somehow opposed to Islam, which is an ugly lie that must be rejected in all of our countries, by upholding the values of pluralism and diversity".

Values that do not exist, in any real sense, in any Muslim country in the world.   And in any case, Mr Obama: what's wrong with opposing Islam, or being known to oppose it?  Why should one not oppose a cult that teaches wife-beating?  that permits 'marriage' to girls as young as nine?  that enjoins Death for apostasy and Death for 'blasphemy'??  Would you twit us for criticisng and opposing the Mafia or the Triads, and not wanting to admit known mafiosi or triad assassins into our countries? So why is it now a cardinal sin to oppose Islam, the whole of which is an organisation analogous to the Mafia or the Thuggee cult?   I don't care what the jihadis think of us.  Everything that every Infidel nation is, is opposed to Islam, ipso facto. Our art, our statues, our pet dogs, our music, the uncovered faces of our women and the free mixing of unrelated men and women in the workplace and at leisure, our church bells, our pubs, and what used to be our freedom of speech, including not only the right to publicly question and criticse but the right to poke fun. everything we are is already 'opposed to Islam'. - CM

"We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs.  To slam the door in the face of these families (which families? Muslim families or non-Muslim families? There's a difference.  From the former, we can reliably expect more such as the Brothers Tsarnaev. From the latter... well, a Syrian Christian refugee has just been crowned "Wine Queen" in a region of Germany, and is enthusiastically embracing German culture. - CM) would betray our deepest values. It would deny our own heritage as nations, including the United States of America, that have been built by immigrants and refugees.  

By non-Muslim immigrants and refugees. The fact that, whatever else they were, they were overwhelmingly not Muslim, is what makes the difference. - CM

"And just as failure to act in the past - for example, by turning away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany - is a stain on our collective conscience, I believe history will judge us harshly if we do not rise to this moment".

Fine.  So let's get on board with Barnabas Fund's "Operation Safe Havens' and take in all the surviving Christians, Yazidis and Mandaeans from Syria and Iraq, who are fleeing from the genocidal 'reich', so to speak, of the Islamic State's nascent caliphate. Because it is they, and they alone, who are today's equivalents of the Jews who were fleeing from the Third Reich.  It's turning them away - which is what, Mr Obama, you're currently doing, so far as I can see; the USA has admitted a minuscule number of Syrian Christians, amongst hundreds and thousands of Syrian Muslims - that is exactly the same as the actions of those who turned away the Jews, in the 1930s.  And let's not take in even one more Muslim, no matter what sob story they spin to us; because it is Muslims, Muslims, Muslims who are murdering, raping, driving out and robbing the non-Muslim minority groups of Syria and Iraq.  - CM

 

clear
Posted on 09/22/2016 11:10 PM by Christina McIntosh
clear
Thursday, 22 September 2016
Egyptian Leaders Praise Donald Trump, Blast Hillary Clinton
clear

Jen Lawrence and Dustin Stockton write in Breitbart:

NEW YORK CITY, New York — Members of the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations blasted Hillary Clinton just a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi met with both Clinton and Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump. They also had high praise for Trump—and while not an official endorsement, it is a positive outcome for Trump’s first and only meeting with Muslim world leaders thus far.

Egyptian officials expressed frustration and outrage over the Obama administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and expressed concern that a Clinton administration would continue to undermine Egyptian efforts to dismantle Brotherhood terrorists attempting to destabilize the democratically elected Egyptian government.

Ahmed Gad, a member of the Egyptian Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, told Breitbart News Tuesday night:

I think 90 percent of Egyptians would prefer Trump because he will not cooperate with terrorists. He [Trump] will not cooperate with Muslim Brothers and our main concern in Egypt now is terrorist attacks as you saw two days ago in the United States. We saw it daily in Egypt on the hands of Muslim Brothers so we know very well that Muslim Brothers are a terrorist group and we want to build up our democratic regime.

Many members of the Egyptian delegation spoke on the record exclusively with Breitbart News at an event to promote communication and unity between the United States and Egypt on Tuesday night. The event was organized by popular Egyptian media personality and host of American Pulse Dr. Michael Morgan, and featured several American foreign policy experts including representatives from the London Center for Policy Research and more than a hundred prominent Egyptians including members of parliament, leading media figures, government officials, and businessmen.

The Egyptian delegation interviews came as El-Sisi, in an interview with CNN, said that he has “no doubt” that Donald Trump would make a strong leader. El-Sisi also responded to a clip of Hillary Clinton accusing the Egyptian government of being “basically an army dictatorship,” during a debate with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He said, in part, that “in Egypt there will not be a chance for any dictatorship because in Egypt there is a constitution, there is law, and there is the will of the people which will refuse to allow any leader to stay in his position for any period longer than his term which is four years.”

The fact that El-Sisi and those from the Egyptian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly here in New York City this week would speak so openly and positively about Trump—and so openly and negatively about Clinton—may surprise some. They are Muslim leaders and Egypt is perhaps one of the biggest and longest-standing Muslim nations in world history. Many establishment media outlets have painted Trump’s relationship with all Muslims as toxic, since he has expressed plans to temporarily ban Islamic migration into the United States. But El-Sisi, when asked about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban during his CNN interview, defended Trump.

“The United States in general conducts very strict security measures for everyone who wishes to visit it, which has been in place for quite a few years,” El-Sisi, the first Muslim world leader to meet with Trump, told CNN. “It’s also important to know that during election campaigns many statements are made and many things are said, however afterwards governing the country would be something different.  And will be subject to many factors.”

 

El-Sisi expressed these same sentiments in other interviews with the Egyptian delegation to the U.N.G.A. this week. At Trump’s meeting with El-Sisi, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn—the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for two years during the Obama administration—and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) were also present.

The Trump campaign said in a readout of the meeting sent to press:

Mr. Trump thanked President el-Sisi and the Egyptian people for what they have done in defense of their country and for the betterment of the world over the last few years. He expressed great respect for Egypt’s history and the important leadership role it has played in the Middle East. Mr. Trump expressed to President el-Sisi his strong support for Egypt’s war on terrorism, and how under a Trump Administration, the United States of America will be a loyal friend, not simply an ally, that Egypt can count on in the days and years ahead. Mr. Trump emphasized the strong partnership that the United States and Egypt have shared for so many years and how this relationship is vital to help promote peace and stability in the Middle East, broader region and the world. Mr. Trump also expressed his recognition of Egypt’s close relationship with Israel on countering terrorism.Mr. Trump highlighted how Egypt and the U.S. share a common enemy and the importance of working together in defeating radical Islamic terrorism, not only politically and militarily, but also addressing the ideology. Mr. Trump emphasized to President el-Sisi his high regard for peace-loving Muslims and understands that every day there are people of goodwill that sacrifice their lives and fortunes to combat the growing threat of radical Islamic terrorism. Mr. Trump said that if he were fortunate enough to win the election in November, he would invite President el-Sisi on an official visit to the United States and would be honored to visit Egypt and the Egyptian people who he has a great fondness for.

Clinton’s campaign described her meeting with El-Sisi as being successful as well. According to a Clinton aide:

Secretary Clinton and President Sisi had a constructive discussion about bilateral ties and cooperation on a wide range of issues, including counterterrorism. They also discussed the importance of economic development and investment in Egypt. Secretary Clinton emphasized the importance of respect for rule of law and human rights to Egypt’s future progress. Secretary Clinton called for the release of U.S. citizen Aya Hijazi and raised concerns about prosecution of Egyptian human rights organizations and activists. Secretary Clinton discussed ways to deepen counterterrorism cooperation, particularly in the fight against ISIS. She and President Sisi exchanged views about the Middle East, and Secretary Clinton underscored the importance of the Egyptian cooperation with Israel on counterterrorism, and her commitment to defeating ISIS, to addressing foreign fighters, and to countering radicalization.

However, the Egyptian delegations’ respective statements to Breitbart News do not reveal a positive aftermath for Clinton’s meeting.

But clearly, based upon El-Sisi’s interview with CNN and comments that the various members of the Egyptian delegation here made to Breitbart News, it is Trump not Clinton whom the Egyptian leadership wants to win the election.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Egyptian Chamber of Media Industry, Amr Fathy, took issue with Hillary Clinton’s claims that President El-Sisi is a dictator. “The signs you take as dictatorship is not dictatorship,” Fathy told Breitbart News. Of El-Sisi, Fathy added: “This is our president and we are behind him.”

“The Egyptian authorities they have already dealt with Hillary before; we did not deal with Trump,” Fathy explained about the meetings between El-Sisi and the American presidential candidates. “So, maybe we know now much more and better idea about Mr. Trump in specific.”

When asked about the coziness between Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood, Fathy showed just how damaging the Obama foreign policy directed by Hillary Clinton and her successor at the State Department, John Kerry, has been to America’s standing in the eye’s of the Egyptians. He said:

They [Muslim Brotherhood] were supported by the Americans and the Western world. Why? I don’t know. They did not come by democracy, they were not the people who came out on the 25th of January. They were not, the youth were the people who came out. We have our own identity, we are not a theocratic nation we have never been a theocratic nation. The American policy is always pushing for theocratic regimes and then when you have a theocratic regime you start crying.

One consistent theme among the Egyptians who spoke with Breitbart News was the deep distrust of Hillary Clinton. Dr. Morgan said of Egyptian President El-Sisi’s meetings with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on Monday:

President El-Sisi wanted to meet up with both candidates because he did not want to give Hillary a chance to use and abuse an indirect endorsement from a meeting with a President like El-Sisi. As evil as she is, she was going to go out into the media and say, ‘oh I have a good relationship with this man, I know foreign policy’ so he made sure that he would meet Trump as well to make sure the America public doesn’t think he supports Hillary. We know he would never support Hillary because Hillary is another eight years of Obama and Obama has been really bad for Egypt.

The members of the Egyptian Parliament that Breitbart News spoke with Tuesday night showcased the inclusive nature of the new Egyptian government under President El-Sisi. Among the representatives were two women, a Coptic Christian, and a 31-year-old man. One of the female Parliament members pointed out that a third of the Egyptian parliament members are under the age of 35.

One of those women, Sahar Talaat Moustafa, is the head of the Tourism and Civil Aviation Committee. When asked by Breitbart News how the Egyptian people see Hillary Clinton, she responded: “A lot of people in Egypt feel she is in support of the Brotherhood. Actually, a majority of people think so.”

Moustafa invited Americans to come visit Egypt and see for themselves.

“I invite you to come and see how things are going on in Egypt,” she said. “Everything is so smooth we are walking normally in the streets and there is no terrorism. Egypt’s is one of the safest countries to go.”

Ahmed Gad is a member of the Egyptian Parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee and he echoed the desire of the Egyptian dignitaries who spoke with Breitbart News for a better relationship with the United States, but also concern that under the Obama administration the United States sided with the wrong side in the Muslim Brotherhood. Gad said:

For us, it’s a very important signal that we want to resume our good relations but in the same time, I am speaking as a political researcher, frankly speaking, we are very disappointed from Obama’s policy towards our country. Because, by the way, I am a Coptic in Egypt so we suffered a lot under the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Some sort of cooperation between the American administration, Obama Administration, and the Muslim Brothers. We know very well that they are terrorists, they burned and destroyed over 100 churches in Egypt, and they killed a lot of Christians. They killed and are still killing a lot of Egyptians priests men and soldiers. At the same time the Obama administration is refusing to deal with the Muslim Brothers as a terrorist group.

Gad said that El-Sisi’s background as a general should not be taken to mean he is somehow running a “military dictatorship” as Hillary Clinton claimed.

“Yes, El-Sisi has a military background but he saved Egypt,” Gad said. “He restored the Egyptian identity.”

That’s why they seem to really want Trump elected in the United States.

Some of the members of the Egyptian Parliament did express concern that Donald Trump might have trouble restoring the relationship with Egypt because of the institutional nature of the American system of government and foreign policy. Many of the American foreign policy experts explained that the American President sets foreign policy and that a President Trump would have the authority to change the diplomatic course between the two nations.

“That’s why we are ready to cooperate with anybody who can fight the Muslim Brothers and frankly speaking, we are fighting terrorism on behalf of the Modern World,” Gad said.

clear
Posted on 09/22/2016 11:55 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Wednesday, 21 September 2016
Ireland Will Not Bite The Apple
clear

by Michael Curtis

Rarely in history has an offer of 13 billion euros been refused by a state or organization. One would think this was an offer that couldn’t be refused. The Government of Ireland entered the book of records on September 2, 2016 by not taking the offered gift. Instead, it decided to appeal against the ruling of the European Commission that it had granted Apple undue and illegal tax benefits that allowed it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses, and that Ireland should recover the illegal aid.

The European Commission had no specific concern about the Irish tax system, nor is it anxious to harmonize corporate tax rates in Europe. Nevertheless, its decision on Apple and on other firms is part of two problems, issues that should be important for discussion in the U.S. presidential campaign. One is the specific problem of whether large business corporations, especially American firms, are paying a fair share of taxation. The other, that should be particularly pertinent in the U.S. election is whether the European Union can attempt to decide tax laws, or whether all sovereign states, like Ireland in the case of Apple, have the sovereign right to determine their own tax laws.

The European Commission (EC) has been actively investigating tax deals in the European countries since 2014.  Its surprising departure has been to use a device, in a sense a ploy, that favorable tax exemptions or “sweetheart” tax deals are in reality state aid bestowed on the firm. State aid is defined as in place when a company receives government support thus gaining an advantage over its competitors. This is held to be incompatible with the single market, the central principle, of the EU. State aid is prohibited by Article 107 of the EU Founding Law, that has been amended several times, unless it is justified by reason of general economic development.

The central figure involved in the current controversy on the issue is Margrethe Vestager, Danish politician and former minister, who since November 2014 has been European Commissioner for Competition. As a minister in Denmark she believed in a free trading economy. As Commissioner, a powerful position that affects global as well as European companies, she was instructed to enforce rules and policy on competition to contribute to jobs and economic growth. To do this she has focused with intensity on cases concerning tax benefits and state aid to large firms, many American though she claims she is not anti-American. Her views on this, however, are implied in her comment that the American market gives consumers very little choice and higher prices than in Europe in general.

Within a few months of her appointment as Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, brought antitrust charges against Google. She initiated investigations into tax affairs of a number of prominent companies, including Starbucks, Amazon, Fiat, Gazprom, and now Engie in France, as well as Apple.

In 2015 Vestager ordered Cyprus Airways to pay back to the Cyprus government more than 65 million euros in what she considered “illegal” state aid it received in 2012 and 2013 as part of a “restructuring program.” As a result, the Airways, 93 % of which was owned by the state, suspended operations resulting in the loss of 550 jobs, and, ironically reducing competition. Vestager explained her decision by saying the Airways had no chance of becoming viable without continuing state subsidies, and that the restructuring plan was based on unrealistic assumptions.

On addition, Vestager has dealt with other agreements involving selective tax advantages, ordering Luxembourg to get 30 million euros from Fiat, the Netherlands to get 30 million euro from Starbucks, and Belgium to get 700 million euros from Anheuser Busch and 35 multinational companies. In these cases a tax ruling lowered the tax paid by the various companies.

In the Irish case, Vestager acted because she claimed Apple had paid only 0.005% corporation tax on its European profits in 2014.  She held that Ireland had granted illegal tax benefits to Apple that enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses. Benefits of this kind were equivalent to a bundle of cash. Money had flowed through Apple subsidiaries in Ireland.

This selective tax treatment, Vestager held, was illegal, and also gave Apple a significant advantage.  Apple was able to void taxation on almost all profits made in the whole European Union, because Apple had recorded all its sales in Ireland rather than in the countries where the products were sold.

In its defense, Apple agreed it had shifted income to Ireland and its Irish subsidiaries because of the growth of its sales overseas. It said it paid 30.5% on profits made on its U.S. sales, and that it paid standard Irish tax, 12.5% corporate tax, in respect to its Irish branch, and employed 6,000 in Ireland, many in the town of Cork.

For its part, Ireland had prospered from the entrance of large corporations, Apple,  Microsoft, Intel, the internet social networks, and chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Ireland argued that jobs had been created by Apple, especially in the city of Cork, and the flow of international investment might slow or stop if there was a retroactive tax demand. These international companies had transformed Ireland’s regional economy.

The problem for Apple started with an inquiry by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Investigations chaired by Democratic Senator  Carl Levin who thought Apple’s corporative  arrangements were unorthodox because it did not have to file publicly for its Irish subsidiaries. It was that investigation that found Apple paid “essentially no tax” in on its income in Ireland that tipped off what led to the EC investigation.

The tax problem goes beyond Apple. In November 2014 the LuxLeaks scandal, tax avoidance schemes, revealed that large companies in Luxembourg were able to exploit legal loopholes and get tax rates as low as 1%. In the UK, Amazon paid only £11.9 million by routing much of its British sales through its Luxembourg subsidiary. The essential problem is that global corporations use mechanisms to reduce or avoid corporate tax by shifting profits to tax havens. There is universal agreement that international tax rules must be changed so the corporations will pay tax based on economic activity in a country.

The issue for the U.S. and European countries is the isolated nature of decision making by the EC on tax and other issues, virtually acting without consultation of the US or other countries. The US Presidential candidates should note that Commissioner Vestager plans to look into tax affairs concerning the companies linked to Business Roundtable. This group with 185 CEOs and a collective revenue of $7 trillion has already argued that such an inquiry would increase business uncertainty with an adverse effect on foreign investment in Europe because the tax uncertainty will disrupt trade and investment.

It is essential that at least one of the U.S. Presidential candidates will take a firm stand on the issue and make clear that tax policies, whether they need to be changed or not, must remain in the hands of sovereign states, including the U.S.

clear
Posted on 09/21/2016 2:31 PM by Michael Curtis
clear
clear
Showing 1-26 of 117 [Next 25]


Join leaders of the American Middle Eastern community to endorse

Donald J. Trump
for President of the United States

and spend an evening with his foreign policy advisors featuring
Dr. Walid Phares
and other surprise campaign guests.

Monday October 17th

Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20008

cocktails at 6pm - dinner at 7pm
Business casual attire

$150 per person / $1500 per table

Sponsored by the American Mideast Coalition for Trump

Buy Tickets

Subscribe