Abyssinia, Ann!

My friend Laura Rosen Cohen bids hasta la vista to a woman she used to admire, but who lost her as a fan when the woman (okay, it's Ann Coulter) made an obnoxious tweet about the "f---ing Jews."

Who Is Harsha Walia and Why Is She Saying All Those Terrible Things About Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

She's a keffiyeh-wearing "migrant justice activist" who wrote a book entitled Undoing Border Imperialism and who co-founded the Vancouver branch of No One Is Illegal. 

Impressive credentials, no?

Well, maybe not to you and me, but impressive enough to a reporter, who, in a report about a Winnipeg anti-racism conference, included a link to Harsha's upcoming workshop in that city. So now everyone's invited to "A Village Without Borders," including all us "right-wing fascists" (as Harsha refers to those of us who don't share her politics).

Speaking of which/whom: Prime Minister Stephen Harper comes in for some harsh words from Harsha. As she sees it, he isn't letting in nearly enough displaced Syrians, a response she calls

...absolutely inadequate. Because...the numbers are staggering. We're in the largest mass displacement on the planet since World War II with upwards of 60 million people displaced around the world. And there's a, with the specific numbers of 10,000, which is already unclear how many exactly Harper is going to accept and how immediate that is, one of the main concerns with that of course is that there is currently in Canada a ceiling for the number of refugees who can come to Canada under the refugee resettlement program. 

One of the main concerns with Harper's announcement is that, and it's already a vague announcement to begin with, but one of the main concerns is that it's unclear whether those 10,000 are on top of the existing ceiling or whether that announcement is going to be subsumed within the existing ceiling, which of course would then mean that refugees who are trying to be resettled form other countries, particularly parts of Africa and parts of the Middle East would then not be able to come to Canada. So it would mean that Harper's actually not really making an additional announcement of anything, it would just be within the existing numbers.

And another thing that's really concerning which we heard in the clip that you shared is you know, when Harper really plays up and into this idea of refugees being terror threats. This is something that we've seen particularly under this government consistently. When the boat of Tamil refugees came, the two boats in 2009 and 2010, one of the first things that the government said and really spread in mainstream media was the idea they were all terrorists, they're a part of the Tamil Tigers, and this included women and children.  

And so there's been a really--not just under this government, but particularly under this government there has been a linking, a really problematic, stereotypical linking of refugees as being a terror threat, which really hinders the ability of refugees to come to Canada. It affects the way in which the public views refugees. It means refugees are stuck in years and years of red tape around security screenings, and it also means that the government is going against every international standard to essentially say we're going to prefer minorities from the Middle East who are not Muslim. And so there's an explicit prioritization of preference under this government for, for example, Christian Syrians over Muslim Syrians, and other minorities who are non-Muslim. And so that has also been part of Harper's announcements at different times when it comes to Syrian refugees.  

So all of this is really troubling and deeply inadequate, and also deeply discriminatory...

Maybe to her, and maybe to many of those attending the 'Peg's anti-racism thingamajiggy. But if Canada can "discriminate" in the sense of exercising discernment and vetting these Syrians before allowing them in, it will be better--and safer--for us all.

The Media Play Their Latest Trump Card--To No Avail

The American media are convinced they may finally have their Donald Trump "gotcha" moment. It came in New Hampshire, where Trump offered no rebuttal when one of his supporters called President Obama "a Muslim and a foreigner."

Silly media. Even if, as everyone knows, Obama is neither of the above, his manifold actions speak for themselves. And, as the ever-sagacious Mark Steyn once observed, "If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?"

Here's Steyn, funny as heck, on what went on at the summit Obama convened last February in a bogus effort to counter "violent extremism" (the clunky euphemism non-Muslims like Obama employ to obfuscate the jihad):

"Violent extremism" may have nothing to do with Islam, yet Obama's summit on "violent extremism" was oddly preoccupied with Islam, to the extent of according it a special deference:

A Muslim prayer was recited at the start of the second day of the White House summit on "Countering Violent Extremism," but no other religious text was presented during the portion of the event that was open to the press. 

Imam Sheikh Sa'ad Musse Roble, president of the World Peace Organization in Minneapolis, Minn., recited a "verse from the Quran" following remarks by Obama administration officials and Democratic members of Congress.

But hey, what's so odd about that? "Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding," says the President. You might think that Islam has been entirely irrelevant to "the fabric of our country" for its first two centuries, and you might further think that Islam, being self-segregating, tends not to weave itself into anybody's fabric but instead tends to unravel it - as it's doing in, say, Copenhagen, where 500 mourners turned up for the funeral of an ISIS-supporting Jew-hating anti-free-speech murderer. 

But President Obama knows better than you. So he organized a summit dedicated to creating and promoting a self-invented phantom enemy.

He may not be a Muslim (like his dad and stepdad), but he sure seems to have the best interests of Muslims at heart.

So nice try there, lefty news outlets, but your trumped up "gotcha" is unlikely to do the trick.

Update: Oh, look--the media are trying to do a two man takedown via a single "gotcha!"

Update: Remember this?

 

Update: White House denounces Trump and his followers

Ruth Wisse Has Oslo On Her Mind

"Oslo" (the site of those notorious "accords" which, as Wisse writes, brought nothing good and a taste of hell-on-Earth to Israel) is the first signpost on my own political road to Damuscus (even though I'm Jewish). (The second and third signs: "Durban"--where the UN held an anti-racism fiesta which declared Israel its designated piñata--and "New York City," 9/11/01).

Paul Berman, Cognitive Dissonance the Purported Importance of Being Earnest

Paul Berman is an essayist who situates himself on the left end of the political spectrum. Despite that, I have read many of his pieces with interest--and even admiration (for example, this lengthy examination of the career of Tariq Ramadan, academic and grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, appeared in The New Republic some years ago, and is nothing short of superb).

Quite often, when reading what Berman has to say on the subject of radical Islam, I find myself wondering what it's going to take for him, a man who seems more than half way there, to have that final epiphany that will push him over to the right side of politics. Then I read something like this, wherein Berman performs contortions worthy of a Cirque du Soleil performer, with the aim of convincing himself and others that there are actually "two lefts." There's one left, goes Berman's claim, that is comprised of newly-minted British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. That kind of left makes icons of "rebels" such as Cuba's Castro brothers and the late Hugo Chavez; that kind of left makes common cause with Hamas and Hezbo and spits on the Israel, the Jewish State, for supposedly trampling on Palestinians' dignity and their legitimate national aspirations.

The other kind of left, Berman further insists, is comprised of people who are more or less like him (or who are like, say, Alan Dershowitz, another noted contortionist). These Type 2 leftists can see the true threat posed by the jihadis/neo-Caliphatists, deplore the Jew-hate/Zionhass inherent in Corbyn's nutty utterances, but cannot bring themselves to decamp from the Democrats.

The difference between the two kinds of leftists--and here's where I think Berman really misses the boat: the Corbyn sort of lefty is exponentially more "earnest" than those in the second lefty camp.

That's it. One type of leftist is excessively earnest. The other type...isn't.

But does that claim hold up under scrutiny? Are there really two kinds of leftists, and is their degree of earnestness (what--is there some sort of "earnestness meter" that can measure the trait?) what divides them?

I'll answer those questions with a question: is Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a Jew, any less earnest than is egregious Jew-hater Jeremy Corbyn?

And here's another question: does Paul Berman really think that bifurcating his political fellows in this manner is the way to quell the cognitive dissonance that arises when someone on/of the left wants to find a way to distance himself from today's leftist ideology, a toxic potage that incorporates Zionhass and anti-Americanism and that evinces a distinct fondness for totalitarianism and its puveyors?

Sorry, Mr. Berman, not only can it not be done, but the effort to do so reeks of desperation.

Pervy Male Gawkers In Iran Show That a Chicks' Cover Ups Can Make Men Even Pervier, More Hot and Bothered

The Guardian's Tehran correspondent describes the unpleasant experience of perambulating while female:

Sometimes it is just stares. As I am walking down the street, I see him coming across me. He is several metres when I am already cringing. I lower my stare, or look away.
I want to close my manteau - the medium-length, light jacket worn by some Iranian women instead of chador - to avoid his snooping glare, but it’s too late. As I walk past him, I feel his piercing eyes looking for my breasts under my thick cloak, sizing up my figure with acute intensity. Riveted to my body, they follow me up until I feel them burning my back as he is already behind me. There isn’t even the slightest pretence of hiding: the ogling is unabashed, both nonchalant and full of aplomb. 

Every so often, there are sounds. As he walks by, he turns his head towards me and slams his tongue against his palate. Or kisses the air loudly. There are so many shades of whistling, hissing, smacking, licking, puffing that I am amazed at the capacities of the human mouth. Sometimes it comes from behind me: a hiss directly in my ear. Sometimes it’s a last-second move as we walk past each other, like a snake suddenly sticking out its tongue. Every time, it is the same hideous expression of unhindered lust sending shivers through my spine. 

Oftentimes, it is words too. Fortunately, my Persian is not good enough to grasp the profanity thrown in my face. Or maybe I don’t want to know anyway. 

In the end, it makes little difference: the way those words are tossed at me in the air, with a peculiar expression on the guy’s face, sleek eyes and upper lip slightly turned up, that is part of universal language. I can only guess he is commenting on my outfit or my body, inviting me to his home or just calling me a whore. Verbal aggression does not need even rough translation. This is the most basic form of bestial communication.

Instead of forcing chicks to cover up, wouldn't it be more effective to force the men to wear blindfolds? 

Why I Love Free Speech

I love it because when Ann Coulter says something offensive about Jews, John Podhoretz can immediately blast her for it.

Update: Ann Coulter's Jew problem

Question: Why Is It Okay to Depict Islam's Founder In an Iranian Movie But Not in a Danish Cartoon?

I only ask because the 10th anniversary of the Danish 'toons is coming up (Mark Steyn and Flemming Rose, the editor of the Danish newspaper whose decision it was to publish the 'toons, will be speaking about it at a commemorative event in Copenhagen on the 26th), and because, according to far-left British rag The Guardian, there's a new Muhammad flick, the work of an Iranian director, that's making the rounds:

Majidi’s film is the first on the subject since Moustapha Akkad’s 1977 film The Message, and the first to visually depict the prophet, though a Qatari team is currently said to be developing its own Muhammad franchise.

What gives? I thought any depiction of that "messenger" was strictly verboten?
 
Or could it be that that's really a crock, and that the level of outrage surrounding such visuals is apt to depend almost entirely on who is doing the depicting? (In the case of the Iranian film, for example, some Egyptian clerics--Sunni rivals to Iran's Shias--are said to be upset because "the actor playing the prophet might later portray a criminal, leading viewers to associate Islam with crime." But that kind of pique pales in comparison to the violent riots that erupted ten years ago in response to the Motoons.)

Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before: "Death to America"

An oldie but a baddie, no?

Update: Obama, Iran and the absence of moral courage

"The Future Belongs to People Like Ahmed"

This "teachable moment" is brought to you by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. When Z-berg heard about a Muslim teenager in Texas who had been "racially profiled" as the result of a school clock project that was mistaken for a bomb (an honest mistake considering that at first--and even second or third--glance, the contraption did look a lot more bomb-like than it did clock-like), the Silicon Valley "progressive" leapt onto his highest steed and tweeted the affirmation of the lad's efforts that’s quoted above.

As for me, I'm thinking that if I were a jihad-minded young'un and/or his extremist mentor, I, too, might see this as an opportunity to teach something meaningful. Only my lesson would be this: bring a bomb to school disguised as project that you claim is really, say, a clock, or a slow-cooker or a trash compactor; proceed to blow everything up, secure in the knowledge that you'll be able to do so because school authorities will be too afraid to be accused of racism to alert the cops. (Consider, for example, what could happen if and when a Dzhokhar Tsarnaev-wannabe brings his clock-like bomb science project to school. I doubt the likes of Zuckerberg, or for that matter Barack Obama, would be tweeting their approval of that sort of ingenuity.)

If that ends up being the infidels' M.O.--giving every young Muslim "inventor" the benefit of the doubt out of fear of being labeled racist--the future may not belong to people like Ahmed. However, it could very well end up belonging to people named Ahmed (and Muhammad and Anjem and Ibrahim and Osama and...).

What's the Difference Between How Jake Tapper Moderated the GOP Debate and How Andy Cohen "Moderates" a Real Housewives Reunion?

From what I saw--Tapper, as per his promise, pitting one candidate against another Cohen-style so as to gin 'em up and see what sort of fracas ensured--not a whole hell of a lot.

And the winner of last night's marathon cage match: the silent hottie sitting behind Tapper, of course.