Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Jew-Hate and Holocaust Denial Are a Key Part of Iran's Founding Ideology

That being so, why would anyone want to "normalize" relations with these monsters?

"Poetic" Injustice: The Trudeau Government's "We Vetted Syrian Refugees Via 'Biometrics'" Scam

We've been assured again and again that all the Syrian refugees who've arrived in Canada--and to date there are more than 25,000 of 'em--have undergone a thorough vetting by Canadian officials.

What kind of thorough vetting?

According to Trudeau's immigration factotum, John McCallum, government-sponsored refugees have been scrutinized via "biometrics"--retinal scans and the like--to ensure that their info isn't on an American data base of potential terrorists.

However, as Jonathan Halevi points out, most of these evacuees have never been on an airplane before, which means that their biometrics have likely never been recorded.

So, biometrics aside, how do we know that these folks don't harbour any jihadi/supremacist sentiments?

Apparently, we don't. Apparently, we're letting them in based almost entirely on a leap of faith--ours, not theirs.

Frighteningly, the Liberals' modus operandi here seems in keeping with the final lines of W.H. Auden's tribute to the over-"examined" and yet entirely "Unknown Citizen":
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

Daniel Johnson in Standpoint Magazine: "The Spectre of Mayor Khan's Islamist London"

While some are inclined to paint a rosy picture of what it means for London to have its first Muslim mayor, Daniel Johnson, for one, is far less sanguine. In fact, you could say he's a real Debbie (Delbert?) Downer on the subject:
Under Mayor Khan, London will undoubtedly deserve more than ever the ironical nickname it earned a decade ago among European intelligence services: “Londonistan”. It is hard to imagine Khan taking the tough measures to root out Isis cells hidden inside Muslim ghettos that have been forced on French and Belgian police forces since the attacks on Paris and Brussels. Even in the aftermath of a similar attack on London, it is inconceivable that Khan would risk the accusation that he had turned his back on his Muslim heritage. His opinions change according to need; his allegiance doesn’t.

In policing, Khan is far more likely to attach weight to the “sensitivities” of Muslim community leaders than to put pressure on those communities to eradicate radicalisation. According to ICM, only a third of Muslims say they would inform police if they thought someone was involved with terrorist groups in Syria. The Metropolitan Police have searched London mosques on very few occasions. They would be more proactive if they felt that the mayor would back them in upholding the law. Fear of causing offence explains the failure to protect minorities who are unpopular with the Sunni majority. After an Ahmadi newsagent was killed in Glasgow in March, it emerged that a Pakistani group urging Muslims to murder members of the Ahmadiyya sect has close links with a Deobandi mosque at Stockwell in South London where their leaflets were found, though a mosque trustee denied any knowledge of such links. The same concerns apply to London’s 40-odd universities. It is rare for police to intervene to preserve free speech on campus, or for a university to clamp down on intimidation by an Islamic society. Yet terrorists and IS recruits include a high proportion of students and graduates, including doctors and engineers. I cannot imagine Mayor Khan standing up to such powerful lobbies as London’s universities and mosques, even after a major attack.

And yet, regardless of the illiberal views he has held or condoned and the vicious company he has kept, London seems bent on electing Khan as its first Muslim Mayor. The symbolism of his election will be understood differently around the world; but for me, as a Londoner who is proud to live here, there is a sense of impending doom. London has a claim to be the greatest city on earth, because we have given the world the cosmopolitan Western values by which London has always lived. But as the ICM survey shows, a substantial proportion of the Muslim community rejects those values. 

Increasingly, British Islam will now redefine London, rather than London redefining British Islam. I shall be astonished if Mayor Khan is strong enough to resist Salafist pressure to transform London into a city as segregated as Paris, Brussels — or Birmingham. One reason why Paris and Brussels have already succumbed to such terrible attacks is that the sheer weight of numbers makes it impossible for the authorities to know what is going on inside Muslim communities. After decades of denial, French demographers now agree that about 25 per cent of school-age children are Muslim. So France faces a cultural and political revolution within a generation. Paris, including its suburbs, is a microcosm of this new France. London, which is home to more than a million Muslims, is heading in the same direction.

A Phrase I Loathe That Should Be Retired Post Haste

"Change agent"--mega-yuck!

"Fun" Family Du Jour: The Romanovs

"Each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way," observed Tolstoy, in what is perhaps the most astute, and certainly the most succinct, description of familial dysfunction ever written. But I bet no family was as unhappy--and as dysfunctional--as the Romanovs, absolute rulers of a massive swath of the globe. Here's Simon Sebag Montefiore in his latest book The Romanovs (my non-fiction read du jour; I'm a sucker for Russian history in general and this dynasty in particular) itemizing some of the family drama:
The Romanovs inhabit a world of family rivalry, imperial ambition, lurid glamour, sexual excess and depraved sadism; this is a world where obscure strangers suddenly claim to be dead monarchs reborn, brides are poisoned, fathers torture their sons to death, sons kill fathers, wives murder husbands, a holy man, poisoned and shot, arises, apparently from the dead, dwarfs are tossed, beheaded heads are kissed, tongues are torn out, flesh knouted off bodies, rectums impaled, children slaughtered; here are fashion-mad nymphomaniacal empresses, lesbian menages a trois, and an emperor who wrote the most erotic correspondence ever written by a head of state...
And you thought your family had problems.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Obama's "Clueless" Non-Apology Apology in Hiroshima

Obama may not have extended an official "I'm sorry" during his visit to Hiroshima. But, as Claudia Rosett writes, considering how he stripped the dropping of the A-bomb of all historical context, his words ended up being tantamount to an apology:
As Obama frames the tale, Japan's Dec. 7, 1941 surprise attack on Pearl Harbor disappears from the picture. So does the Rape of Nanking, the alliance with Nazi Germany, the Bataan Death March; so do the battles of Saipan, Leyte, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and the hideous toll that would surely have come of a land invasion, had the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not led within days to Japan's surrender. We are left to infer -- Obama invites all mankind to believe -- that none of these specifics are really relevant to Hiroshima.
In this alternate universe, we can forget Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who led America to victory in a Second World War that America did not seek. Never mind that America dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and, three days later, on Nagasaki, not to start a war with Japan, but to end it.

On Obama's clock -- as he made clear at Hiroshima -- it is not Pearl Harbor, but August 6, 1945, the day the first bomb was dropped (by America), that is the real date which will live in infamy. Unless, of course (there is always a twist to Obama's rhetoric) the human race takes his advice to be inspired to moral perfection by the horror of Hiroshima.
In the words of that great American sage, Cher Horowitz: As if!

"Interfaith" Muslim Azeezah Kanji Blows Smoke on Behalf of the "Religion of Peace"

A Jew, a Christian and a Muslim walked into a Toronto church and proceeded to engage in a bit of comforting moral relativism (the basis of most "interfaith" activities these days). The Muslim, Azeezah Kanji (I wrote about her here), then took that football and ran with it:
[Rabbi Baruch] Frydman-Kohl, [Rev. Dr. Peter] Holmes and Kanji each acknowledged that violence has been part of their tradition and that, at different times in history, violence has been carried out in the name of their religion. 
Each stressed, however, that their faith heavily values peace and emphasizes the need to understand and befriend the other, which must be striven for above all. 
Kanji further raised some points related to contemporary politics – namely, attitudes towards Muslims in the post-9/11 age in the West and the hypocrisies of the so-called “war on terror.” 
She argued that in our current context, Islam is, “thought to have a special relationship with violence, one that other religious traditions aren’t necessarily burdened with.” 
While Islam is in no way monolithic, she said, there exists the common misconception that “Islam emanates from a hostile, Arab Middle East.” 
Most European and North American media today propagate the notion that the [the West’s] enemy is “the militant, unyielding, violent face of Arab Islam,” she added.
While there have been, and are, episodes where Muslims commit violence, Kanji said, this remains the aberration, not the norm; violence is no more intrinsic to Islam than to other religions. 
The Prophet Muhammad did engage in warfare during his tenure as prophet and leader of a Muslim community, she said, but, in his adherence to Islam, war was not valorized, it was only permitted under very limited circumstances and methods of warfare were bound by ethical constraints, such as the ban on killing non-combatants. 
She pointed out that a group of over 100 eminent scholars of Islam recently wrote an open letter to an ISIS leader outlining the myriad of ways that the group’s practices violate Islam’s fundamental ethical and legal traditions, including offences like targeting civilians, killing the elderly, torture and desecrating dead bodies. 
“But it’s not only daesh [ISIS] who violates these laws of war; all modern warfare executes indiscriminate violence,” Kanji argued...
Nice work, Ms. K. I'm sure all the little infidel interfaithers bought your spin hook, line and stinker (pun intended).

The facts, however, speak for themselves. Which is to say that Islam began in the Arabian subcontinent (and while Islam may not be "monolithic," the Koran is written and chanted in Arabic throughout the Muslim world); Islam is a supremacist, triumphalist religion and violent jihad is a core religious precept aimed at spreading the faith far and wide; Islam's founder was, first and foremost, a warrior; Islam's sacred texts counsel believers to not befriend Jews and Christians; and if Western civilization hopes to survive, it must deal with--and do its best to counter--the jihad of our time, the continuation of the holy war that's been going on, in fits and starts, ever since Islam's get-go.

Ms. Kanji, FYI and BTW, is a certified "moderate" Muslim ("moderate" enough to take part in these "interfaith" Kabuki soirees, that is).

French Jews In Direst Straits Since WW2

The Israel-hate of the country's seething Muslim masses has translated into something horrible for France's Jews (not that the new Official Juif would dare mention the Muslim aspect of the grim situation).

David Cameron Sucks Up to London's New Mayor For the Sake of the "Remain" Campaign

Politics, they say, is the art of the possible.

Or the expedient.

Or sleeping with strange bedfellows.

Or whatever this is:
Mr Cameron congratulated Mr Khan on his victory in the Mayoral contest, saying: "I'm proud to be here with the mayor of London - with the Labour mayor of London - on this vital, vital issue." 
He hailed the fact that "someone who is a proud Muslim, a proud Brit and a proud Londoner can become mayor of the greatest city on Earth. That says something about our country". 
The prime minister said he expected many disagreements with the London Mayor but they were both part of "an incredibly broad campaign" in favour of EU membership.
Mr Cameron described himself as a "Eurosceptic" but said the ability to criticise the EU is "a cause of strength in our campaign... we're levelling with people, something the other side refuses to do". 
The two men unveiled a "five point guarantee card" listing what they say voters will get if they vote to Remain on 23 June.  
The card promises "full access" to the EU single market, protection of workers' rights, "a safer Britain" with co-operation with other EU states, the UK keeping its "special status" within the EU, outside the euro and the Schengen passport-free area and with an opt-out from the EU's aim of "ever-closer union" and "stability". 
During London's Mayoral election race, Mr Cameron repeatedly attacked Mr Khan for having a history of sharing platforms with extremists, which Mr Khan rejected. 
At Prime Minister's Question Time in the Commons some Labour MPs denounced Mr Cameron as a racist when he attacked Mr Khan's judgment.
Now, of course, all is forgiven in the service of a larger cause (much in the same way that Marco Rubio has "forgiven" his former opponent, the nasty, brutish and short-tempered Donald Trump).

David Cameron: desperate, feckless and terrified. Donald Trump: nasty, brutish and short-tempered.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

German Bishop Calls For Islam to be Taught in All State Schools

The remorseless Islamization of Merkel's Germany continues apace.

Sharia Tough Love: Spare the Rod and Spoil the Wife

An Islamic council in Pakistan has weighed in on the proper way for a husband to deal with a recalcitrant wife. It's okay to beat her "lightly," the body has ruled, if and when the woman "defies his commands and refuses to dress up as per his desires."

How, er, "enlightened," no?