I haven't been able to ascertain for sure whether or not Syria will be taking part in the Paris climate confab. However, there is one nation, a state supporter of Syria, terrorism, and of changing the climate of Israel by frying it via a nuke, and that uses its immense, carbon-emitting oil reserves to fund much of its rotten, terror-supporting efforts, that will be taking part.
President Hollande welcomes Iran’s vice-president Iran Ebtekar to COP21 opening day sesssion in Le Bourget, Paris
Photograph: Christian Hartmann/Reuters
One cannot help but see this embrace of these odious totalitarian theocrats as a sign of the Obama desire for a thaw that will pave the way to "normalizing" (ha!) relations with the Grandiose Ayatollah (his favorite slogan: "Death to America!") is well underway, Iran's plans to wipe out a fellow UN member notwithstanding and, indeed, seeming to be irrelevant for the 151 leaders taking part in the summit. (There are actually 152 leaders participating, but I didn't number Israel's Netanyahu with the other world leaders, including Obama and Justin Trudeau, who are more than willing to put Iran's evil, genocidal intentions on the back burner for the sake of intra-summit amity.)
Oh, the terror outside is frightful But our summit's so delightful. And here's what we want to defeat: It's the heat, it's the heat, it's the heat. Oh, the body count's up with ISIS But we're on a diff'rent crisis. It's carbon we hope to deplete. 'Cuz of heat, 'cuz of heat, 'cuz of heat. When we finally all agree That rich nations must spend all their dough The results will be plain to see: Downward Earth's hot temps will go! See, the problem is existential, And our task is monumental. And green is our colour, my sweet, For the heat, for the heat, for the heat.
Words on the base: "She is waiting." Who, pray tell,
To quote CNN, "French intelligence services are operating under the theory that Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam has escaped to [where else but?] Syria."
If he can change his appearance, get the right forged documents, quickly acquire a family, and effectively deploy taqiyyah when being vetted by infidel officials, he could be in line to come to Canada. ;)
Authorities in France are calling on Muslims to ix-nay the ihad-jay in favour of a more "enlightened Islam."
On minor hitch, though: how do you amend/edit/bowdlerize problematic aspects of the faith (jihad verses in the Koran; Islamic law extrapolated from the Koran and other sacred sources; some actions of Islam's founder, all of which Muslims are required to emulate) when, according to Islamic dogma, everything, including the problematic stuff, is said to be sheer perfection?
In brief: how do mere lowly mortals go about reforming that which emanates from Allah?
Hasn't that been the stumbling block all along in effecting an Islamic Reformation?
And let's not forget the many decades of bloodshed and division associated with the Christian Reformation--more bloodshed and division probably being the last thing Muslims (as well as infidels) need.
An "enlightened Islam"?
All I can say is bonne chance with that one, mes amis.
The truth is that Islam has already had its own reformation of sorts, in the sense of a stripping of cultural accretions and a process of supposed “purification”. And it didn’t produce a tolerant, pluralistic, multifaith utopia, a Scandinavia-on-the-Euphrates. Instead, it produced … the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Exactly. Whenever Islam "reforms," it does so by harkening back to what is held out as being a better, "purer" time--the era of Islam's founder and the four "rightly-guided" caliphs who succeeded him. Even though, as we know, that period was marked by violence, assassination and internecine squabbling; indeed, it gave rise to the eternal--and eternally violent--Shia v. Sunni split.
Sharia rejects the touchstone of American democracy: the belief that the people have a right to govern themselves and chart their own destiny. In sharia governance, the people are subjects not citizens, and they are powerless to question, much less to change, Allah’s law. Sharia systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is brutal in its treatment of apostates and homosexuals. It denies freedom of conscience, free expression, property rights, economic liberty, and due process of law. It licenses wars of aggression against infidels for the purpose of establishing sharia as the law of the land.
To which I'd add: in grown ups too, I think (except, that is, when they're pulling off such doggy shenanigans as, say, shredding an entire newspaper into confetti-sized bits and/or swiping whatever food you happen to have left on the kitchen counter, anxiety-inducing things my pooch has been known to do).
When the savagery of ISIS and its fellow caliphatists is running amuck, what's the best way to persuade the world that climate change is the most pressing problem du jour? Isn't it obvious? You make the counter-intuitive not to mention gobsmacking claim that terrorism is caused by climate change. Not by the jihad imperative embedded in Islam's core religious teachings. Not by the desire--call it Totalitarianism 2.0--to want to create a global caliphate to lord it over the planet. By environmental changes about which we likely can do next to nothing, even though, in our errant arrogance, we think we can do plenty. Who does Ban Ki-Moon think he is, anyway?
Yesterday's sermon in synagogue had to do with Jacob and Esau; how, years after having his birthright stolen, Esau wanted to see his brother again. Jacob, however, was extremely reluctant, fearing that such an encounter would result in a death--his, at the hands of his vengeful brother. Finally, however, the meeting could not be put off any longer, and the two brothers had their reunion Shockingly, Esau greeted Jacob with tears and a kiss. Or did he? You see, in the Torah scroll, for some mysterious reason, there are several dots above Esau's name in the line recounting the reunion. For some rabbis for whom Esau is and remains pure evil, those aren't dots, they're teeth, and they represent the fact that that alleged kiss was actually a bite (with the dots standing in for/representing Esau's teeth). We were assured, though, that that's a rather extreme interpretation, and that the lesson the Torah wishes to impart is that we should get over our fears and let the blighters kiss us. And by blighters (my word, not the sermonizer's), of course, he means Syrians, who are even now streaming to our shores, fully vetted by the UN and other deft scrutinizers, we are told.
When the US government says they'll do a two-year vetting process of Mohammed bin Mohammed al-Mohammed, it just means his application sits gathering dust for two years -- and then when it's his Mohammed bin Mohammed al-Mohammed's turn to get in, they just stamp it. There's no way to vet these Syrian refugees. It's not like you can check the Aleppo DMV or anything.
Oh, come now, Mark. It would be churlish, "Islamophobic," and, yes, unwelcoming of us (as Jacob was unwelcoming of Esau, who didn't bite him) to bar them entry.
Oskar Deutsch, head of Vienna’s Jewish community, told reporters on Monday that he is concerned that the overwhelming rush of asylum seekers into Austria would result in a rise in anti-Semitism, European media reported. Deutsch argued that many of the Muslim migrants have been raised on a “diet of anti-Semitism.” He also believes Austria has already “more or less” reached its capacity for new arrivals.
Deutsch also believes that some asylum seekers in Austria are only “so-called refugees,” meaning they are not fleeing war and persecution but are merely looking to improve their economic situation.
Meanwhile, the Central Council of Jews in Germany has also warned of growing anti-Semitism, brought in by migrants from Islamic countries where the Jewish religion and Jews are maligned regularly. They called for a limit to be imposed on migrants entering Germany. Council president Josef Schuster told Die Welt: “Sooner or later we won’t have a choice but to set an upper limit.” He added, “Many of the refugees are fleeing the terror of the Islamic State and want to live in peace and freedom, but at the same time they come from cultures were hatred of Jews and intolerance are an integral part” of life.
I understand the impulse to want to swoop in and rescue the suffering; I really do. However, I'm not given to the sort of moral preening which refuses to consider the Jew-hate we shall be importing (in the name of "tikkun olam" and because of "None is too many"), and how it is likely to bite, not kiss, us where it hurts the most.
That's a lesson that the Jews of Europe, and in particular of France, know all too well, and it's the reason why more and more of them are leaving the continent and making their way to Israel (where, in recent days, Arabs have been "kissing" Jews by stabbing them with daggers).
Update: Ezra's sermon makes more sense to me:
Update: Found the following montage of photos and words on the Religion of Peace site. It pretty much says it all, I think:
Twenty victims of the Islamic attacks in Paris, which claimed
the lives of 130 innocents - most of whom were young.
Each of the killers was - ultimately - a product of Islamic
immigration. Each was in a position to kill because
of the trust and kindness of Europeans - and the naive
belief that Islam is neither different nor dangerous.
A new movie about Dalton Trumbo Reveals that the man was no dumbo. And there's no caterwaulin' Re how he loved Stalin, Just the same old hard left mumbo-jumbo.
The only way to explain the ridiculous comparison: either there was way too much tryptophan in yesterday's White House Thanksgiving turkey, or else he's availing himself of some unnamed psychotropic drug.
Further to this post from yesterday, I wish all the Jewish interfaith squishes could get it through their heads that, "moderate" Muslim protestations to the contrary, Islam is not a religion of peace, and Israel will likely always come between Jews and Muslims, even most of the "moderate" ones. Here's someone who really "gets it," and who lays it all out:
The Islam of today is the Islam of Muhammed who wreaked horror throughout Arabia and destroyed the remaining Jewish tribes of the region. Islam is death, destruction, and brutal subjugation. ISIS is the same as Fatah, Hezbollah, and Hamas; they are simply more effective in their barbarism. Mohammed would be proud of ISIS, since they are replicating his conquests.
The Chief Rabbi of England, may he live and be well, is a man of books. Let him start his Islamic education by reading a proper uncensored translation of the Koran before he reflects on Islam’s teachings. The problem is that if he insists on participating in interfaith discussions with supposed moderate Muslims, he will remain incapable of discerning truth. Many of these polite moderates oppose violence in Europe, but readily support violence against Jews in what they call “Palestine.” Let him delve into the many bloody hadiths, which speak of rocks and trees imploring Muslims to kill Jews. Let him read scholarly works on Islam, from Islamic theologians themselves, to critical scholarly works not authored by John Esposito and Karen Armstrong, two infamous apologists for Islam.
Mock emphasized that while anti-Muslim feelings in the Jewish community sometimes occur in response to events in the Middle East, the conflict in Israel is “political, not religious,” and that for Jewish-Muslim dialogue programs to be effective, it’s important to put aside political issues initially, until people have developed a relationship.
In other words, you have to tell yourself and others a massive fib--that the ongoing jihad against the Jews of Israel is "political, not religious." Actually, Ms. M., it is both political and religious--like Islam itself, which does not separate the two. But something tells me that that problematic fact won't come up during tomorrow night's hug-fest.
In reality, we need a revived CJC (which, by the end of its life, had become little more than a "progressive" SJW racket) like we need (some suggested phrases)...:
a hole in the head;
a bad batch of gefilte fish;
25,000 Syrian "refugees" landing in Canada by February;
You would think that what with all its current agita with ISIS (terrorism in Paris, Brussels still in lockdown), the EUnuchs would think to connect the dots between their enemies and Israel's.
Yesterday the European Commission announced an additional €10 million in support to UNRWA to keep schools open and to maintain core services for Palestinian refugees..
According to the press release, this contribution, which comes in addition to the €10 million granted in October, brings the 2015 EU support for UNRWA’s General Fund up to €102 million.
Additional support to the Palestinian Authority totalling €1.525 million has also been provided by Austria (€1.5 million) and Portugal (€25,000) through the PEGASE mechanism. This facility allows Member States, in partnership with the EU, to provide assistance in a coherent and cost-effective manner directly to the Palestinian Authority.
The High Representative Federica Mogherini said:
“UNRWA is doing invaluable work with the Palestinian children whose experience has been marked too often by war, violence, displacement and insecurity. Thanks to UNRWA, their right to go to school and build a better future for themselves and the region can be guaranteed. The EU will continue to stand by UNRWA as it provides Palestine refugees not only with critical quality services, but also with stability and hope for the future in very difficult circumstances“.
Isn't it odd/funny how we're so keen to bring Syrian "refugees" to the West--and so intent on keeping Palestinian "refugees" exactly where they are?
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh (which looks like it should--but doesn't--rhyme with "meh") Johnson explains the rigorous screening process refugees are subjected to, one that's been "enhanced" for fleeing Syrians. Re the above-quoted statement, I'm curious about the following:
have only 2,000 been admitted because the rest failed their screening?
have only 2,000 been admitted because the process is so slow, with the remaining 23,000 yet to be screened?
if it turns out that, out of this pool of 25,000, only 2,000 passed muster, isn't that something that should concern us?
how many of the rejected 23,000 (if they have indeed been rejected) can we expect to show up here in Toronto?
So many questions; so little clarity from "progressive" leaders on both sides of the 42nd parallel.
As many as 900 refugees a day are expected to arrive from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The vast majority of them will arrive in Toronto and Montreal.
Sources say most of the newcomers will initially be housed in military bases, which have been preparing for their arrival. Other kinds of housing will also be used, including hotels and abandoned hospitals.
But sources also say the government will stay away from calling any of these temporary housing locations "camps" — perhaps to stay away from the notion that refugee camps are typically large-scale and temporary, often using tents.
Refugees will not be housed in tents in Canada.
Nah. I think they're staying away from calling them "camps" because the word has such negative connotations.
Update: Here's a Palestinian "refugee camp," which, as you can see, is a permanent large-scale settlement sans tents.
So I have now made my way through Black Earth, Yale history professor Timothy Synder's revisionist take on the Holocaust and its grim warning for our time. And all I can say is: it took 318 pages to reach the warning, and I can't say it was worth the effort.
In brief, the book's thesis is that Adolf Hitler earmarked the Jews for elimination because their religiously-based morality was a huge impediment to his nutty "survival-of-the-fittest/man-is-but-another-animal line of thinking. Further, contends Snyder, it was far easier to kill Jews in places whose state authorities had already given way to the Nazis, or broken down in chaos, or both, than in places where some civic authority was maintained (as it was in, say, Denmark). In the countires such as Poland and the Ukraine (the "bloodlands" so named in this book as well as in Snyder's previous work by that name), it was far easier to exterminate Jews because there was nothing to stop the locals from getting in on the Jew-killing action, which many did with wild abandon (although not necessarily, insists Snyder, for reasons of "anti-Semitism").
But I am not entirely convinced by his conclusion that state power is the crux. It clearly matters what kind of state is coming into power and what kind of state is losing it. Germany, after all, demonstrated that state power can be harnessed for organizing mass murder. Today, ISIS has proved that a well-run organization with a system of law can institutionalize atrocity. There is also a hint of circularity in Mr. Snyder’s formula: If state power is the creator of social order, then of course the lack of state power would mean the end of social order. The destruction of authority results in a lack of authority. But the wartime massacres didn’t take place solely because there was no state structure; they happened because the lack of authority accompanied fervent anti-Semitic convictions. Anti-Semitism should not just be thought of as a form of racism or prejudice. It is a deeply held belief, religious in its power, through which the world’s events are interpreted. Expressions of furious hatred are not merely choreographed passions staged for new masters.
Clearly, Mr. Rothstein has read David Nirenberg's Anti-Judaism, the revisionist work which demonstrated how deeply held Western ideas, religious in their power, understood the world via the use of "Judaism." Not that that the way they unpacked the world had anything to do with real Jews or their real religion. But by using "Judaism" as a negative via the claim that it was, for example, too worldly, too legalistic, too sneaky, too concerned with wealth and greed--they could set it up as the straw man against which they compared all the wonderful concepts they believed in--selflessness, spirituality and caring less about this world than about the one to come when the body dies and the soul finds it's place in the Afterlife.
But getting back to Snyder. One of his key contentions, and it's the one that sets the stage for his final chapter, the one where he issues his dire warning re the possibility of another Holocaust, is his idea that Hitler was really big on "ecology." Of course, that's Snyder's word, for in no part of Hitler's writings does he so much as mention the word. For Snyder, though, "ecology" is the key that explains why Hitler was so intent on acquiring "Lebensraum." He needed large fertile fields outside Germany so that he could feed his populace, because a well-fed people were a happy people, one likely to remain loyal to their Fuhrer. Snyder also floats the astonishing claim that Hitler was jealous of America's Lebensraum, (as he saw it, the vastness of the continental U.S. and its "Manifest Destiny") and that this jealously loomed large in his decisions. This is the paragraph--a muddle of the half-baked and the unbaked--in the book's conclusion where Snyder attempts to wrap it all up in one tidy package:
Just as Hitler's worldview conflated science and politics, his program confused biology with desire. The concept of Lebensraum unified need with want, murder with convenience. It implied a plan to restore the planet by mass murder and a promise of a better life for German families. Since 1945, one of the two senses of Lebensraum has spread across most of the world; a living-room, the dream of household comfort in consumer society. The other sense of Lebensraum is habitat, the realm that must be controlled for physical survival, inhabited perhaps temporarily by people characterized as not fully human. In uniting these two passions in one word, Hitler conflated lifestyle with life. For the vision of a well-stocked cupboard people should endorse the bloody struggle for other people's land. One standard of living is confused with living, a rich society can make war upon those who are poorer in the name of survival.
And here comes the line that had me scratching my head every time I read it--which I did many times: For me it marks the point where historical revisionism devolves into sheer nonsense. You'd better steel yourself, because it's a doozy. "Tens of millions of people died in Hitler's war," says Snyder, "not so that Germans could live, but so that Germans could pursue the American dream in a globalized world."
In other words, Snyder sees it as more of a Horatio Alger that a Heinrich Himmler sort of aspiration.
Kind of nutty, no?
But wait--it gets even kookier. For the entire point of Snyder's 300+ page revisionism is to yoke the Holocaust to--I kid you not--global climate change. Because just as Hitler's ideas about "ecology" ultimately led to failed states which facilitated the mass murder of Jews, so too in our time the failed states and their "ecology," or rather, the desertification of places like Libya, Iraq and Syria, a situation exacerbated by "climate change," could very well result in Arabs and others blaming it all on Israel, and taking steps to wipe it out.
To which I'd respond: don't worry, Professor Snyder. The Arabs' desire to pull a Hitler on Israel goes way back--and has nothing to do with "climate change" or the lack thereof. Its provenance is the Koran and other Islamic holy texts and teachings, ones that may have even served to inspire Hitler, who admitted to being a big fan of Muslims, and was certainly on the best of terms with the Jew-despising Grand Mufti.
Nor would I worry, as Snyder does, that Israel's "right-wing" American religious friends, who are apt to be climate change "deniers," cannot be trusted due to their ulterior motive of wanting to convert Jews to Christianity prior to Jesus's return. Oddly enough, I'm more worried about the UN, an organization in thrall to its largest voting bloc, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and how it continues to demonize and marginalize the world's one and only Jewish state. This despite the ongoing threat to both Muslims and infidels of ISIS and its Hitlerian caliphate dreams.
Then, too, there's Iran, a deranged Shia theocracy which has been given the green-light to proceed with its nuke-building efforts, ones which may yet enable it to wipe out iniquitous Zion via one well-aimed A-bomb.
None of which has anything to do with climate change. But I suppose if you're a leftist academic for whom global warming is the most crucial issue of our time, one which you think poses an existential threat to humankind, positing that it could be the impetus for another Shoah is a novel and highly effective way to get people, especially those likely to be bowled over by your critical acclaim and academic credentials, to buy in to the allegedly imminent climate catastrophe.
One final thought: were there an annual prize for most original global warming hysteria (and why the heck isn't there one?), Snyder's climate-change-could-cause-another-Holocaust tome would win this year's award, hands down.
A line that could serve as the motto of the thin-skinned, safe-space-seeking campus snowflakes. (See what comes of marinating kids in "self-esteem" and giving 'em prizes for merely showing up?)
On the lighter side, for the sake of the State Department I hope no one allows this travel warning to reach the university campuses of the United States. Trigger warning: State's advice is on a collision course with those "safe spaces" that are now the prime mission of the academy. There's a "conversation" in the making here that could rival the final moments of HAL the computer, in "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Remember when Secretary of State John Kerry sarcastically grumbled, “Hell of a ‘pinpoint’ attack,” after one Israeli strike in Gaza? We don’t hear Kerry calling the French bombing of those Raqqa medical clinics a “hell of a ‘pinpoint’ attack.” We don’t hear National Security Adviser Susan Rice demanding that Hollande apologize for describing Islamic killers as “barbarians.” We don’t hear President Barack Obama calling for “both sides” to “exercise restraint” as he always does when Israel responds to Arab terrorists.
On the contrary, Obama administration officials are boasting that the US provided “military intelligence” that assisted the French in their bombing of Raqqa. This, a cynic might say, makes the Obama administration complicit in the bombing of a medical clinic, a museum and a soccer stadium.
Israel has always understood the nature of this conflict. Now, it seems, France does, too.
I'm not so sure about that last bit. I bet Hollande, too, thinks that the key to quieting tensions in the Middle East is for there to be a Palestine.
How ridiculous! Why blame it on Rambo? Why not blame it on, say, the Terminator? Or on Bruce Willis's character in those Die Hard movies?
Or--here's a wacky notion--why not blame it on the enduring appeal of the jihad/the ability to participate in establishing the primacy of the global caliphate?
Re: Europe Goes On The Offensive, Nov. 20.With at least 130 civilians killed, and countless injured, the world has witnessed one of the most gruesome attacks in recent history. Time and time again, we are seeing these barbaric attacks across the world. Growing up as a Canadian Muslim, it deeply saddens me that these brutes continue to stain the name of Islam, and use it as an excuse to wage war and raise havoc. We need to educate ourselves about the true teachings of Islam, so that the peaceful Muslims do not fall victim to prejudice and violence. If not, then more accounts of mosques being burnt — like the one in Peterborough, Ont. — and the random attacks on Muslims will continue to rise and divide our country. I pray for the peace and stability by anyone affected by this tragedy, and for the day when religion is no longer the scapegoat for extremist actions. Imran Mohammad, Toronto.
Mawdudi explains the ideological foundation of this [Islamic] state by the doctrine of tawhid, the unity of Allah and of the koranic revelation. This unity places on Muslims the religious obligation to accomplish the Divine will on earth. The will of Allah revealed to Muhammad in the Koran and the sunna was intented for mankind. As sole keeper of the True Revelation, the Islamic community is distinguished from other peoples by two characteristics: the election (Koran, 3:106) and the perfection attached to the laws of Allah, implemented in the shari'a:
The shari'ah stipulates the law of God and provides guidance for the regulation of life in the best interests of man.
These two characterics--the umma's election and perfection, linked to the koranic revelation and the shari'a--that is, Allah's will--is considered legitimate and usurped, because only Islamic--that is, Allah's--law must prevail. This concept bestows legitimacy of authority and power at an international level exclusively on the umma. It confirms the supremacy of its authority over all other peoples by its divine election. The same principle legitimizes jihad.
That being so, it isn't that religion is, as the NatPo letter-writer puts it, "the scapegoat for extremist actions." It's that the dogma of this particular religion is the source, motivation and prime impetus for these actions. An since they are entirely in keeping with the mainstream doctrine of tawhid, it is misleading as well as inaccurate to characterize such actions as "extremist."
So who needs to learn more about Islam's true teachings? I would venture to say it's the letter-writer, that's who.
“Diversity” The noun was rebranded in the 1980s, and does not mean what it by nature should -- “a range” or “multiplicity.” No one furthers the goals of “diversity” by ensuring plenty of conservatives, liberals, radicals and reactionaries on campus, or welcoming lots of Christian fundamentalists as well as atheists and Muslims. The word instead is a euphemism for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-Christian, and non-liberal. It is a relative and entirely political noun. The University of Missouri football team can both be 52% African-American and proof of diversity, even if African-Americans make up less than 12% of the population -- in a way that all white and elderly Democratic primary candidates are honorifically diverse by virtue of their homogeneous left-wing politics.
Three other observations: First, racial and ethnic diversity, without assimilation and integration into one culture, and when identity becomes essential rather than incidental to a nation (i.e. a salad bowl society rather than the melting pot), leads to Armageddon, whether in Austria-Hungary, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, or Iraq.
Second, the word gained careerist currency because of the bankruptcy of the idea of affirmative action, after it became impossible to explain and thus defend racial set-asides. Who can define the proper DNA that makes one deserving of admissions and employment reparations: 1/4 African-American, but not Punjabi or Egyptian? Hmong, but not Japanese? Oaxacan, but not Castilian? Muslim, but not Mormon? An indigent Appalachian, but not Eric Holder’s son? As a result, universities had to lump everybody deemed non-white together as they pleased and called the catch-all result “diversity” -- regardless of class, income, status or history. If one wishes someone non-white to be hired on the physics faculty, then a South Korean immigrant green-card-holding PhD counts as diversity, in a way that his son would not qualify for traditional affirmative-action status as an 18-year-old applicant to UC Berkeley. Diversity lowered the affirmative-action bar and the natural consequence of vagueness were the fantasies of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King, and Ward Churchill -- all professed to be diverse, but all without proper certifications of affirmative-action status.
Third, no one outside the campus much believes in the inherent advantage of diversity/diverse, as least as opposed to united: The Diverse States of America? Diverse Airlines? The Diversity Way? Diverse Technologies? The Diverse Auto Workers?
I wouldn't go giving the diversity mongers any ideas there,Victor. Speaking of which/whom, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a huge "progressive," is devoted to "diversity." He made a lot of noise, for example, about the fact that, it being the year 2015, his cabinet would be 50-50--half men and half chicks (of course, he didn't use the "c" word, which is my cheeky anachronism).
Now, that's "diverse."
Sort of.
Then again, if he fully bought in to the concept, he would have made sure to include, say, more trans people and more folks who are mentally challenged (where, for example, is someone to represent the all-important and long underrepresented schizophrenia demographic?), among many, many other identity groups.
The jihad matters. And if we don't send it packing, the only "peace" that will be possible is the peace that will prevail once the jihad succeeds and the world submits to the caliphate.
Celine Dion warbles in memory of those murdered in Paris by jihadis.
(Not that anyone at the AMA tribute uttered the "j" word in any form.)
Update: Personally, I prefer Edith Piaf's rendition:
I know--maybe if Belgians redouble their Zionhass, the terrorists will go back to targeting the Jews exclusively (you know, like the Nazis did) and leave "regular" Belgians alone.
Quite the Debbie Downer/Grinch, isn't he? Surely in this dark time Catholics are looking for something more uplifting and inspirational from the head of their church.
That got me to thinking: why not have a reality show about a Prince and the Pauper sort of switcheroo? They could call it "The Justin Project," a fish-out-of-water experiment whereby the "hottie" singer trades places with the "hottie" p.m. and we see who sinks and who swims.
Could the Biebs be any worse a prime minister than Trudeau? I doubt it. Then again, I'm not sure if Trudeau could hold up his end, since it's unclear if he can even hold a tune. (Heaven knows, his acting is awful.)
Then again, there's always Auto-tune, so Justin's pitchiness needn't be a deal breaker.
DENVER, Nov. 20 — In a historic vote Friday night, the American Anthropological Association at its annual business meeting resoundingly approved a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions by a vote of 1040-136. The resolution will now be forwarded to the full membership for a final vote by electronic ballot in the coming months.
The resolution enjoins the Association not to enter into any formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. Individual Israeli scholars may continue to participate in AAA conferences and publications. Moreover, individual AAA members will remain free to determine for themselves whether and how to apply the boycott in their own professional practice.
As heirs to a long tradition of scholarship on colonialism, anthropologists affirm, through this resolution, that the core problem is Israel’s maintenance of a settler colonial regime based on Jewish supremacy and Palestinian dispossession. By supporting the boycott, anthropologists are taking a stand for justice through action in solidarity with Palestinians. ...
Wrong, stupid scholars. The core problem is that Israel's very existence is a rebuke to Islamic doctrine, one which Arabs and other Muslims are unable and unwilling to countenance. Were the issue really one of "supremacy" and "dispossession," you "justice"-mongers would be concerned about all the Muslim nations of world where democracy and minority rights are in extremely short supply and all the Jews dispossessed from Arab lands. But since those items aren't even on your GPS, your concern must be a function of something else--like, say, your Marxist ideology.
While I in no way condone the actions of yobs who do mean things to local Muslims, I think the subsequent freak out that's being hyped in the media, especially by the CBC, is far more concerning. From the way some folks go on and on about a handful of incidents, you would think that Canada had suddenly morphed into a facsimile of Nazi Germany. (Which should be particularly risible to any Jew who has attended a Toronto Al Quds Day Seethe-a-palooza and experienced a frisson of deja vu when speaker after speaker spews the ugliest sort of Zionhass and angry shouts of "Allahu Akbar!"--shades of "Heil Hitler!"--fill the air.)
Since the Islamic extremist group ISIS took credit for last week's deadly Paris attacks, there has been a visible uptick in reported hate crimes targeting Muslims and others in Ontario.
"I feel like we're being judged for something we had nothing to do with," Shara Fathima told CBC News during a march in Toronto on Friday, where hundreds gathered to call for peace after a string of reportedly anti-Muslim attacks in and around the city.
Even children are on edge, with students at the Islamic Foundation of Toronto in Scarborough telling CBC News they feel frightened and helpless in the face of these attacks.
"You really realize it could happen to anyone of us," Sara Ahmad, 17, said.
The Ceeb's online piece features a photo of Imam Yusuf Badat reassuring a roomful of moppets at the Islamic Foundation of Toronto school in Scarborough.
Probably unbeknownst to most of the Ceeb's audience is the fact that Badat's ISF mosque had printed matter calling for jihad on offer when it participated in "Doors Open Toronto" last year. (You can read about it, and other Badattery, here.)
Which, when you think about it, makes him the perfect man to tackle the subjects of fear and hate.
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is urging politicians and private citizens to avoid condemning Syrian refugees as a group.
The museum says in a statement issued Thursday that Americans “should not turn our backs on the thousands of legitimate refugees.” The statement compared their plight to that of Jews who were unable to flee Nazism.
Several Republican presidential contenders have called on the United States to stop accepting refugees after last week’s attacks in Paris by Islamic State militants. The House passed legislation Thursday that would essentially ban Syrian and Iraqi refugees from the U.S. President Barack Obama opposes the bill.
The statement from the museum notes that many refugees are fleeing the Islamic State and says “security concerns must be fully addressed” before they enter the U.S. ...
Given its mandate, I can understand why the museum would feel compelled to make all the right noises vis-à-vis this current tide of refugees. That does not change the fact, however, that in ethos and mindset, especially when it comes to how they view Israel and Jewry, Syrians as a group are a lot closer to the Nazis than they are to Americans.
Or have the museum's powers-that-be forgotten that it was not that long ago that the Jews of Syria had to be rescued because the antipathy of Syrians as a group made it impossible for Jews to continue living there? Update: Why Syria Is Not the Holocaust
The humour, such as it is, is very dark and highly inappropriate, I know. But when the world seems like it's spinning out of control, I feel the need to write song parodies. You could say it's a compulsion. Or maybe it's therapeutic. Either way, here goes:
I get no kick from champagne. Allah, it's true, said, "There's no booze for you." I'll tell you want gives me a thrill: It's knowing that I'm gonna kill. I'd like to blow up that plane. It has a load of kafirs who'll explode. We'll show 'em our jihadi will To 'splode and to blow up and kill.
I like to kill every time infidels Kneel there helpless and hopeless before us. I like to kill because it's Allah's will And "Allah' Akbar!" is this song's chorus.
I get no kick from the West Our great caliphate I can state is the best. And, no, I am not mentally ill. I just gotta rage, seethe and kill.
Would that be the same Hillary who would sooner see her "friend" Chris Stevens blown away by jihadists than balk at the then-prevalent narrative that Obama had Al Qaeda on the run?
The same Hillary who, while acknowledging the truth about the terrorist attack to her daughter, went on to lie and blame it all on some lame YouTube video?
