Creme de la creme : A French phrase meaning the cream of the cream, used to mean the very best. The phrase also has a figurative meaning that it is most commonly known by, this being: the top, the best of the best or somewhat elite, also expressed as "the cream of the crop".
Our Pals the Beheaders - Let’s not get too friendly with the Saudis.
Friday, January 30, 2015
National Review : At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Secretary of State John Kerry argued that although extremists may cite Islam as a justification for terrorism, the world should refrain from using the term “Islamic radicals.”
Extremism, Kerry maintained, is apart from Islam, and the millions who support or engage in violence in its name are driven by “criminal conduct rooted in alienation, poverty, thrill seeking, and other factors.”
This soothing, half-baked philosophy is cant in the Obama administration. So when the Islamic State took credit for the beheading of Japanese hostage Haruna Yukawa, it shouldn’t have been surprising that the most important thing Rick Stengel, undersecretary of state for happy thoughts, could think to tweet to his followers was that there was “nothing religious about it.”
We’ve gone from incessantly offering (appropriate) distinctions among factions of Islam to fantasizing that terrorists are a bunch of shiftless, underprivileged adrenaline junkies with no particular philosophy at all.
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs that makes sense of existence. Under no definition of “faith” is there a stipulation that it must be devoid of any violence. And whether or not violence used in Islam is a distortion of the faith is for people of that religion to work out for themselves.
Of Treachery and the Taliban - Obama's war-on-terror fiascoes mount.
National Review : To call President Obama’s Afghanistan policy a mess is a colossal understatement.
To call it a coherent “policy,” for that matter, is a gut-busting exaggeration.
It’s a bloody, incompetent, and treacherous disaster.
Our military heroes and families, God bless them, refuse to stay silent about the consequences. Consider these three national-security fiascos:
1. Washington is awash in conflicting reports this week that the Pentagon may — or may not — charge Taliban tool Bowe Bergdahl with desertion. I first reported on Bergdahl’s betrayal and abandonment of his post in July 2009. A military source tells me that the Obama administration has “slow rolled” the investigation and prosecution — while withholding vital intelligence gathered from Bergdahl’s debriefing last summer.
As the Obama administration dithers on the desertion charges, at least one of the five Taliban terrorists the president exchanged for Bergdahl has reportedly returned to jihad. The news comes this week as the White House adamantly refuses to call the Taliban a terrorist group.
Former Army Ranger and sniper Nicholas Irving, who served in Afghanistan when Bergdahl went AWOL, minced no words. “I think he should definitely be put to death. He’s given a lot of information to the enemy, and he should pay the price,” Irving told radio host Howie Carr.
The Final Solution: a Nuclear Iran - Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, and in the Middle East a new Holocaust looms.
National Review : Amid the ritual expressions of regret and the pledges of “never again” on Tuesday’s 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a bitter irony was noted: Anti-Semitism has returned to Europe. With a vengeance.
It has become routine. If the kosher-grocery massacre in Paris hadn’t happened in conjunction with Charlie Hebdo, how much worldwide notice would it have received?
As little as did the murder of a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school in Toulouse. As little as did the terror attack that killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.The rise of European anti-Semitism is in reality just a return to the norm.
For a millennium, virulent Jew-hatred — persecution, expulsions, massacres — was the norm in Europe until the shame of the Holocaust created a temporary anomaly wherein anti-Semitism became socially unacceptable.
The hiatus is over. Jew-hatred is back, recapitulating the past with impressive zeal. Italians protesting Gaza handed out leaflets calling for a boycott of Jewish merchants. As in the 1930s. A widely popular French comedian has introduced a variant of the Nazi salute.
In Berlin, Gaza brought out a mob chanting, “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone!” Berlin, mind you. European anti-Semitism is not a Jewish problem, however. It’s a European problem, a stain, a disease of which Europe is congenitally unable to rid itself.
From the Jewish point of view, European anti-Semitism is a sideshow. The story of European Jewry is over. It died at Auschwitz.
Europe’s place as the center and fulcrum of the Jewish world has been inherited by Israel, now the largest Jewish community on earth.
The threat to the Jewish future lies not in Europe but in the Muslim Middle East, today the heart of global anti-Semitism, a veritable factory of anti-Jewish literature, films, blood libels, and calls for violence — indeed for another genocide.
The founding charter of Hamas calls not just for the eradication of Israel but for the killing of Jews everywhere. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah welcomes Jewish emigration to Israel — because it makes the killing easier: “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” And, of course, Iran openly declares as its sacred mission the annihilation of Israel.
Israel on brink of new conflict with Hizbollah after two soldiers killed
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Blazing Cat Fur : Israel stood on the brink of all-out conflict with Hizbollah on Wednesday after launching air and ground strikes against the Lebanese Shia group in retaliation for an attack on a military convoy that killed two soldiers and injured seven others.
A Spanish member of a United Nations peacekeeping force was also killed in the border town of Ghajar, which straddles the frontier between Israel and Lebanon.
The incidents amounted to the most dangerous escalation on Israel’s northern border since the last war in Lebanon in 2006.
Israel told the United Nations it would take “all necessary measures” to defend itself.
“Israel will not stand by as Hizbollah targets Israelis,” wrote Ron Prosor, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, in a letter to the Security Council. “Israel will not accept any attacks on its territory and it will exercise its right to self-defence and take all necessary measures to protect its population.”
The Abbey and Charlie Hebdo Or, how not to confront jihadist Islam.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
National Review : The third volume of Evelyn Waugh’s masterwork, the Sword of Honor trilogy, begins in October 1943, with a wartime queue outside Westminster Abbey:
The people of England were long habituated to queues; some had joined the procession ignorant of its end — hoping perhaps for cigarettes or shoes — but most were in a mood of devotion. In the street, few words were exchanged; no laughter. . . .
The sword they had come to see stood upright between two candles, on a table counterfeiting an altar. . . .
It had been made at the King’s command as a gift to the “steel-hearted people of Stalingrad.” An octogenarian, who had made ceremonial swords for five sovereigns, rose from his bed to forge it; silver, gold, rock-crystal, and enamel had gone to its embellishment. In this year of the Sten gun it was a notable weapon and was first exhibited as a piece of craftsmanship at Goldsmiths’ Hall and at the Victoria and Albert Museum…
The gossip writer of the Daily Express suggested it should be sent round the Kingdom. Cardiff, Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh paid it secular honors in their Art Galleries and Guild Halls. Now, back from its tour, it reached its apotheosis, exposed for adoration hard by the shrine of St. Edward the Confessor and the sacring place of the kings of England.
If Evelyn Waugh found it bizarre, and indeed slightly blasphemous, that Westminster Abbey should become the stage on which a mock liturgy in honor of Britain’s wartime ally, the Soviet Russia of Joseph Stalin, was played out, one can only wonder what the greatest English novelist of the 20th century would have made of last Friday’s episode, when, as the Abbey itself tweeted, “The Abbey flag is flying at half mast as a mark of respect following the death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, King of Saudi Arabia.”
Michelle Obama forgoes a headscarf and sparks a backlash in Saudi Arabia
Washington Post : Barack Obama was in Riyadh on Tuesday to pay his respects to the late Saudi King Abdullah.
His visit, for which he cut short a much-hyped trip to India, underscores how important the U.S.-Saudi relationship remains to the American leadership. On social media, however, much of the attention has focused on something else: His wife's attire.
As noted by the Associated Press, Michelle Obama did not wear a headscarf or veil Tuesday. In Saudi Arabia, that's unusual: The country is one of the few on Earth where women are expected to cover their heads, and most Saudi women wear niqabs.
Exceptions are made for foreigners, however, and Michelle – who did wear loose clothing that fully covered her arms – appears to have been one of them.
In photographs from the official events, other foreign female guests are also shown not wearing headscarves.
More than 1,500 tweets using the hashtag #ميشيل_أوباما_سفور (roughly, #Michelle_Obama_unveiled) were sent Tuesday, many of which criticized the first lady. Some users pointed out that on a recent trip to Indonesia, Michelle had worn a headscarf. Why not in Saudi Arabia?
Al Jazeera Hits Delete - Network bans use of terms such as “terrorist,” “Islamist,” and “jihad.”
National Review : Shortly after news broke of a deadly January 27 attack by Islamic terrorists on a hotel in Libya’s capital, Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek shot out an email to his employees.
“All: We manage our words carefully around here,” the network’s head of output wrote to staff at the Doha-based news channel’s New York and Washington, D.C. newsrooms. “So I’d like to bring to your attention some key words that have a tendency of tripping us up.”
In an email obtained by National Review Online, van Meek warned the network’s journalists against the use of terms including “terrorist,” “militant,” “Islamist” and “jihad.”
“One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” the Al Jazeera executive wrote.
The word “extremist” was labeled off-limits. “Avoid characterizing people,” van Meek said. “Often their actions do the work for the viewer.”
“Do not use,” van Meek’s said of the term “Islamist.” He described it as “a simplistic label.”
According to van Meek’s instructions, Al Jazeera English employees are not to use the Arabic term “jihad.”
“Strictly speaking, jihad means an inner spiritual struggle, not a holy war,” he said. “It is not by tradition a negative term. It also means the struggle to defend Islam against things challenging it.”
Instead of “terrorists,” van Meek told his employees to use the terms “fighters” and “militants” — but only in certain contexts.
“For example, we can use the term [militant] to describe Norwegian mass-killer Andres Behring Breivik or Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh,” he wrote.
In a 2013 seminar held at Northwestern University in Qatar, van Meek was described not only as “head of Al Jazeera English,” but also as the person charged with “establishing Al Jazeera in America.”
How the SEALs Improvised Right from the Start - America’s first swim commandos have relied on their members’ ingenuity since the 1940s
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
National Review : Today, the Navy SEALs are the stuff of Hollywood legend: The last two years alone have seen them featured in both Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper.
But few people know the history of America’s first swim commando teams.
It all began with a kick in the ass. On the night of December 19, 1941, a 709-ton Auda-class Italian submarine surfaced in Alexandria Harbor, and six Italian frogmen mounted three miniature submersibles that contained massive warheads.
Clad in wetsuits and wearing breathing devices, they each received a ceremonial kick in the backside from their commanding officer, Prince Junio Valerio Scipione Borghese, as they exited the submarine. Later called “The Black Prince,” Borghese was the leader of Decima MAS, an Italian special-operations unit that included these underwater swim commandos.
Invisible from the surface, these men entered the home of the British fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean and detonated their warheads, sinking two British battleships and a tanker. As a result of their daring attack, the balance of maritime power in that part of the world shifted, setting off an underwater arms race. Other nations rushed to develop their own capabilities and the means to support them.
Blazing Cat Fur : Indian history serves
as a prime example of the fight against Islamization. “One by one many
Sikh women suffered such brutal atrocities, but they all chose to remain
steadfast to their Sikh faith instead of embracing Islam”
On March 6, 1752 A.D., Muin-ul-Malk, Governor
of Lahore (now Pakistan), also known as Mir Mannu, ordered the
extermination of Sikhs in his area and had the men-folk beheaded
publicly, with the younger unmarried girls sold or distributed among the jihadis.
The women and children had a different fate and were taken captives and kept hungry in the Lahore jail. Starving women were forced to operate heavy wheat grindstones and were given the option of conversion to Islam or to suffer the consequences. They unanimously chose to remain steadfast to their faith in the face of certain death, upon which the Muslim guards gruesomely massacred over 300 infants and children, IMPALING them on spears.
Chopping their limbs, bodies of babies were RIPPED open to take out internal organs which were then garlanded around their mothers necks. One by one many Sikh women suffered such brutal atrocities, but they all chose to remain steadfast to their Sikh faith instead of embracing Islam.
Miraculously though, before the womens’ turn to be slaughtered came, the surviving Sikh women were rescued by the Akalis (Sikh horsemen) sometime after the death of Mir Mannu on November 4, 1753. One can guess, that similar barbarity must have befallen on Sikh babies at other prisons where their mothers could not be rescued to tell their part of the tragedy.
IBT : But across the Middle East, denying the incontrovertible events of the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews, as well as left-wing intellectuals and the disabled were murdered by the Nazis is the official line.
In fact, you're in the minority if you don't. Some political leaders and officials in the Middle East have used the populist rhetoric of Holocaust denial to bolster their own positions, reinforcing the lack of knowledge about the horrors the Jews suffered in the Second World War in those societies.
"There is definitely a high proportion of people who genuinely believe out of ignorance – and it is a matter of ignorance really, because there is very little education and knowledge of the Holocaust in the Arab countries – that this is something that has been exaggerated or even invented for the purpose of getting the West to support Israel," Professor Gilbert Achcar, a Middle East expert at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), told IBTimes UK.
Of course, it's a very, very foolish theory. But ignorance allows such views to be widespread. Senior politicians are no exception to the rule of ignorance. The selection of leaders in the Middle East is not based on academic achievement or intellectual capacity."
Achcar, who wrote a book in 2010 titled The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, said the explosion of Holocaust denial in the region "is actually linked to a regression in the quality of the intellectual debate" after the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and religious conservatism since the 1960s, such as the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
There is also an uncomfortable history between the Arabs and Nazis. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem before and during the Second World War, was a collaborator with Hitler's Nazi regime.
Not only did the Mufti hate British imperial rule, he also hated the Jews who had been migrating into Palestine as they fled persecution in Europe – and he knew there was a genocide taking place under Hitler.
Bobby Jindal Gets It What he understands about Islam, and most Westerners still don’t.
National Review : Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos.
With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.
In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.
With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”
And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”
The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely.
It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere:
is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.
A bashing for a self loathing Chinaman - Surat terbuka untuk Tee Chuan Seng (dikenali sebagai Ridhuan) by Nomy Nozwir
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Malaysian Insider : Ke hadapan saudara Tee Chuan Seng,
Apa khabar saudara Tee di sana? Diharapkan saudara Tee di sana sihat hendaknya.
Saya terbaca satu laporan di media mengenai kenyataan saudara Tee yang mengecam seorang peguam yang merupakan aktivis Lawyers of Liberty, Eric Paulsen.Pada masa saya membaca laporan tersebut, saya percaya saudara Tee memang betul-betul memarahi Paulsen sehingga menggelarkan peguam tersebut sebagai "seorang peguam bernama orang putih tapi bermata sepet" kerana Paulsen mengkritik Jakim tentang teks khutbah Jumaat.
Baiklah Tee, pertama sekali, secara jujurnya apabila kali pertama saya mendengar nama Eric Paulsen ini, saya membayangkan Paulsen ini bermata biru, berambut blonde serta berasal dari Denmark.
Tetapi akhirnya saya mengenalinya dan dia seorang rakyat Malaysia yang bermata sepet, jadi saya berfikir, "ah, ada apa dengan nama?
Nama Muhammad pun berasal dari Arab, tapi kenapa ramai Melayu memakai nama tersebut. Jadi apa salahnya dia bernama begitu?"
Saudara Tee juga sejak berpindah agama, saudara menukar nama saudara kepada Ridhuan, nama Arab juga, walhal saudara daripada kaum Tionghua.Jadi, tiada salahnya bukan?
Jadi, kenapa nak marah Eric Paulsen dengan panggilan "seorang peguam yang bernama orang putih tapi bermata sepet"?
Adakah saudara Tee lupa yang saudara juga bukan seorang yang berasal daripada keturunan Arab atau Melayu?Saudara Tee ada menyebut tentang "ultra kiasu dan konco-konconya semakin berani mencampuri urusan agama Islam, sedangkan kita tidak pernah mencampuri urusan mereka."
Saudara juga pernah mencadangkan supaya "kita" menyamar masuk ke gereja dan dengar khutbah mereka pada hari Ahad.
Why is Westminster Abbey honouring the king of a country where Christianity is banned?
Blazing Cat Fur : Private Eye will have a field day when it comes to the tributes being paid to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia – it’ll be like beheading fish in a barrel (for adultery).
Among the tributes paid to the people’s medieval theocrat was one by David Cameron, who said:
‘I am deeply saddened to hear of the death of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Majesty King Abdullah bin Abd Al Aziz Al Saud.
‘He will be remembered for his long years of service to the Kingdom, for his commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths.
‘I sincerely hope that the long and deep ties between our two Kingdoms will continue and that we can continue to work together to strengthen peace and prosperity in the world.”
‘PS We’re having a special deal on Typhoons at the moment – 6 for 5. D.C.’
Ok, he didn’t say that last bit.
I believe in showing respect to the dead but do world leaders have to openly grovel to a country that exports Islamism around the world, whose ideology has poisoned countries like Pakistan and Indonesia, and which has funded Islamist murderers in Syria and Iraq. Abdullah’s kingdom is currently half-way through flogging a man to death for blogging and holds public beheadings for such crimes as witchcraft and homosexuality.
So let’s not fall over ourselves here. Most craven of all is the decision by Westminster Abbey to fly a flag at half-mast, a church honouring the leader of a country where conversion to Christianity is a capital offence. It’s appropriate for the Foreign Office in Whitehall to mark the late king’s passing, but for a church to do so, when Saudi treats Christians so badly, is utterly pathetic.
Obama’s Bloody Yemen Disaster - The counterterrorism model he boasted about in September isn’t looking so good now.
National Review : When President Obama declares something a “success story,” you know it has “TOTAL FAILURE” embedded in its DNA.
Four months ago, America’s King Midas in Reverse crowed about the fruits of his triumphant foreign policy in jihad-infested Yemen. A “light footprint” approach to counterterrorism operations, he claimed, was the most effective path to stability. In addition, Obama has shoveled nearly $1 billion in American tax-subsidized foreign aid to Yemen.
Four months later, Iran-backed Shia rebels seized a Yemeni presidential palace. The president and his entire cabinet tendered their resignations on Thursday, creating a vacuum that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is ready and eager to fill. The Islamic State is gaining its own Sunni foothold in the Muslim terror-breeding ground.
And while the JV team at the State Department dithers with hashtag games and selfies, adults at the Pentagon want to evacuate U.S. embassy personnel and other Americans before it’s too late.
It would be bad enough if the current crisis were merely the result of incompetence and negligence. But Obama’s disastrous Yemen policy reflects his radical left-wing administration’s deep-rooted ideological sympathies for our enemies.
'Allah' court decision violates Malaysia Agreement
Malaysiakini - Kim Quek: The Federal Court decision effectively means that Article 11 of the constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion has been amended with the proviso that such freedom is subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by the government as it deems fit.
And this proviso applies, of course, to all states including Sabah and Sarawak, as the Court of Appeal judgment on Oct 14, 2013, did not specify any state to be excluded from its ruling that non-Muslims are prohibited from using the word ‘Allah’.
And this means that the BN federal government, through the courts, has violated a fundamental term of the Malaysia Agreement under which the people in Sabah and Sarawak are guaranteed full freedom to practise their religion.
The state governments as well as the people of Sabah and Sarawak must now consider what action they must take to protect their interests, now that the legal foundation upon which they had merged with Malaya at the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 has been undermined unilaterally without their concurrence.
All Malaysians must realise that such de facto amendment to Article 11 also means that religious freedom as a fundamental right for every person, as agreed upon through consensus by all racial and religious groups at the founding of the nation, has been taken away.
This applies to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as Article 11 does not stipulate such freedom to be confined to a specific religion.
So, all Malaysians, including Muslims, must now reflect on the ramification of the current court decision in respect of the loss of their religious rights, and ponder as to what they can do to recover it, if so desired.
To Call This Threat by Its Name Marine Le Pen: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism
New York Times : PARIS — “To misname things is to add to the world’s unhappiness.”
Whether or not Albert Camus really did utter these words, they are an astonishingly apt description of the situation in which the French government now finds itself. Indeed, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius no longer even dares pronounce the real name of things.
Mr. Fabius will not describe as “Islamists” the terrorists who on Wednesday, Jan. 7, walked into the offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, right in the heart of Paris. Nor will he use “Islamic State” to describe the radical Sunni group that now controls territory in Syria and Iraq. No reference can be made to “Islamic fundamentalism,” for fear that Islam and Islamism might get conflated. The terms “Daesh” and “Daesh cutthroats” are to be favored instead, even though in Arabic “Daesh” means the very thing to be hidden: “Islamic State.”
Let us call things by their rightful names, since the French government seems reluctant to do so. France, land of human rights and freedoms, was attacked on its own soil by a totalitarian ideology: Islamic fundamentalism. It is only by refusing to be in denial, by looking the enemy in the eye, that one can avoid conflating issues. Muslims themselves need to hear this message. They need the distinction between Islamist terrorism and their faith to be made clearly.
Meet Marine Le Pen's gay fan club The Front National now has the support of a quarter of Paris’s gay voters – and only 16 per cent of the straight ones
The Spectator : A week before the attack on Charlie Hebdo, France’s leading gay magazine, Têtu, announced the winner of its annual beauty contest.
His name was Matthieu Chartraire, and he was 22, doe-eyed and six-packed, with perfectly groomed hair, stubble and eyebrows. A pin-up in every way — until he started talking.
To the anger of many of the magazine’s readers, the Adonis of 2015 turns out to be an outspoken supporter of the Front National. Têtu’s editor-in-chief, Yannick Barbe, refused to play censor. ‘It’s within his rights to vote for the FN even if we don’t share his beliefs,’ he said.
‘This is a beauty pageant, and our readers’ vote was only based on a single criterion! He only stands for himself and not for the gay community.’
Barbe has a point (although from next year, it’s worth noting, entrants for Têtu’s beauty contest will have to sign a code of ethics that rejects discrimination). But his assertion that Chartraire does not stand for the gay community overlooks a trend that has been accelerating over the last decade:
French gay votersare falling for the Front National’s leader, Marine Le Pen. A survey by the polling firm Ifop indicates a dramatic increase in support for the FN among homosexual and bisexual voters since the French presidential elections of April 2012. It showed, for instance, that in Paris 26 per cent of homosexuals supported Le Pen, compared with 16 per cent of hetero-sexuals.
The Last Lion Remembered Winston Churchill never once flinched in the face of the Third Reich.
National Review : Fifty years ago this Saturday, former British prime minister Winston Churchill died at age 90.
Churchill is remembered for his multiple nonstop careers as a statesman, cabinet minister, politician, journalist, Nobel laureate historian, and combat veteran. He began his career serving the British military as a Victorian-era mounted lancer and ended it as custodian of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
But he is most renowned for an astounding five-year-tenure as Britain’s wartime prime minister from May 10, 1940, to June 26, 1945, when he was voted out of office not long after the surrender of Nazi Germany.
Churchill took over the day Hitler invaded Western Europe. Within six weeks, an isolated Great Britain was left alone facing the Third Reich. What is now the European Union was then either under Nazi occupation, allied with Germany, or ostensibly neutral while favoring Hitler.
The United States was not just neutral. It had no intention of entering another European war — at least not until after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor a year and half later.
From August 1939 to June 1941, the Soviet Union was an accomplice of the Third Reich. Russian leader Joseph Stalin was supplying Hitler with critical resources to help finish off Great Britain, the last obstacle in Germany’s path of European domination.
Some of the British elite wished to cut a peace deal with Hitler to save their empire and keep Britain from being bombed or invaded. They understandably argued that Britain could hardly hold out when Poland, Denmark, Norway the Netherlands, Belgium, and France all had not.
Yet Churchill voiced defiance and vowed to keep on fighting.
After the fall of France, Churchill readied Britain’s defenses against a Nazi bombing blitz, and then went on the offensive against Italy in the Mediterranean.
As much of London went up in flames, Churchill never flinched, despite the deaths of more than 40,000 British civilians.
By some estimates, the Soviet Red Army eventually killed three out of four German soldiers who died in World War II. The American economic colossus built more military ships, aircraft, vehicles, and tanks than did any other country during World War II.
There is no difference between the Saudis and the Islamic State
Blazing Cat Fur : Following the lashing of blogger Raif Badawi and leaked footage
that showed the public execution of a woman accused of beating her
daughter, Saudi Arabia’s harsh interpretation of sharia law and its use
of capital punishment have come under international scrutiny.
For many, the Saudi justice system sounds not unlike that of Isis,
the extremist Islamist group also known as Islamic State, which has
struck fear in much of the Middle East.
This week, Middle East Eye, a website that focuses on news from the
region and is frequently critical of Saudi Arabia, contrasted a set of
legal punishments recently announced by Isis with the corresponding
punishments in Saudi Arabia. Click on image to enlarge
On January 11, Emerson said they “exist throughout Europe. . . . They’re places where the governments — like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany — don’t exercise any sovereignty. . . . You basically have zones where sharia courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.”
Although Emerson, whom I admire for his moral courage and investigative skills, immediately apologized for his “terrible error” of saying that cities such as Birmingham, England, “are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go,” he did not address the larger question of whether no-go zones, in fact, do “exist throughout Europe” and are places where governments “don’t exercise any sovereignty.”
Is he right about this? In a 2006 weblog entry, I called Muslim enclaves in Europe no-go zones as a non-euphemistic equivalent for the French phrase Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones. No-go zones subsequently became standard in English to describe Muslim-majority areas in West Europe.
After spending time in the banlieues (suburbs) of Paris in January 2013, as well as in their counterparts in Antwerp, Athens, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, the Hague, Malmö, and Stockholm, however, I had second thoughts.
I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.
So, what are these places? A unique and as yet unnamed mix. What does one call Rotherham and Birmingham? They are not no-go zones, either in terms of geography or sovereignty.
This is where we — Emerson, others (such as Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal), and I stumbled. The English language lacks a readily available term for this. And for good reason: I know of no historical parallel, in which a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker immigrant community.
The world has never seen anything comparable to the contemporary West’s blend of achievement, timidity, and guilt, of hugely superior power matched by a deep reluctance to use it.
Instead of no-go zones, I propose semi-autonomous sectors, a term that emphasizes their indistinct and non-geographic nature — thus permitting a more accurate discussion of what is, arguably, West Europe’s most acute problem.
Are We the Next France? Consult the rates of Muslim immigration.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
National Review : A major Islamist terror attack in France was only a matter of time.
For several decades, the country has invited immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa en masse – first to bolster the labor force in the rebuilding years that followed World War II, then out of multicultural impulses that prevailed over prudential considerations. That radical Islam was transplanted to France, grew in strength and extent, and bore this week’s hideous fruit was not difficult to predict.
The same is not unlikely in Sweden, Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere.
Demographics may not be the whole of destiny, but they are certainly a good part, and across the Atlantic, the United States seems increasingly to be turning toward Western Europe’s most undesirable demographic trends. In 1992, 41 percent of new permanent residents in the United States — green-card holders — hailed from the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and North Africa, or sub-Saharan Africa, according to the Pew Research Center. A decade later, the percentage was 53 percent.
Over that same period, predictably, the number of Muslim immigrants coming to the United States annually has doubled, from 50,000 to approximately 100,000 each year. In 1992, only 5 percent of Muslim immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa; 20 years later, it was 16 percent. Of the 2.75 million Muslims in the United States in 2011, 1.7 million were legal permanent residents.
Europe’s Immigration Problem Unassimilated populations continue to grow.
National Review : The New York Times ran a front-page article after the Charlie Hebdo massacre on Europe’s “dangerous moment.”
As terrorists rampaged through Paris, ultimately killing 17, what was the cause of this particular alarm? That anti-immigration parties in Europe might gain.
The Times article captured perfectly the reaction of polite opinion to the Paris attacks, which is driven almost as much by fear that someone might notice that Europe has an immigration problem as it is by fear of the terrorism itself.
Europe’s anti-immigration parties run the gamut, from the loathsome (Greece’s Golden Dawn), to the unsavory (France’s National Front), to the more or less respectable (Britain’s UKIP). What they all have in common is that they benefit from the refusal of mainstream parties to admit the obvious: If a country is manifestly having trouble assimilating the immigrants it already has, it shouldn’t add to their numbers willy-nilly.
Flattering Islam Since 9/11 it’s gotten better treatment than other religions. By Dennis Prager
National Review : Political correctness has led us to privilege it above other religions.
Since 9/11, the Western world’s academic, media, and political elites have done their best to portray Islam in a favorable light, treating it very differently from all other religions. Criticism of every doctrine, religious or secular, is permitted, often encouraged. But not of Islam. Only positive depictions are allowed.
We’ll start with an example of pro-Islamic bias that is so ubiquitous that no one seems to notice it. Why do Western media — largely composed of irreligious people, one might add — always deferentially refer to Mohammed as “the Prophet Mohammed” in news articles and opinion pieces?When Jesus is mentioned, the media never refer to him as “Christ, the Lord” or as “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Just “Jesus.”
In fact, “A.D.” (“Anno Domini,” “In the Year of our Lord”) has been completely dropped by the very academics and media who always write “the Prophet Mohammed.”
When the media discuss Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), they don’t refer to him as “the Prophet Joseph Smith.” Why not?
Is there a single difference between his title and role in Mormonism and Mohammed’s in Islam?
And Jews refer to Moses as “Moshe Rabeinu,” Moses our Teacher. Why don’t the media?
National Review : The White House is convening a conference on “violent extremism,” and the president and his underlings are, depending on your point of view, either painfully, hilariously, or terrifyingly reluctant to call the thing by its name, which is Islamist extremism — jihad.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest, bearer of one of the great inaptronyms of our time, explains: “All forms of violent extremism would be discussed in the context of the summit. . . . Violent extremism is something we want to be focused on, it is not just Islamic violent extremism that we want to counter. There are other forms.”
Indeed, there are other forms of violent extremism, about which the president might consult his buddies Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the murderous Weather Underground terrorists. There are violent environmental extremists, would-be bridge bombers coming out of the Occupy movement, the occasional animal-rights lunatic — fruits and nuts of sundry descriptions. But the world at large is not suffering from a global insurgency motivated by eccentric interpretations of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Earth in the Balance, or The Silent Scream just now.
The progressive fantasists keep assuring us that there’s a wave of terror just around the corner, soon to be perpetrated by militant, right-wing gun-lovers. But the people carrying out hideous acts of terrorism in Paris, Fort Hood, Boston, New York, Washington, etc., are not citing The Turner Diaries.
They are citing the Koran.With all the usual caveats — most of the world’s Muslims want nothing to do with al-Qaeda and its pathetic primitivism — we have a specific, discrete, acute problem:
Radical Muslims are waging a holy war against the United States and the Western world at large. Their aim is enslavement or extermination. To name the enemy is not to libel Muslim patriots at home or well-meaning Muslims abroad — it is simply to acknowledge reality. There are no prominent figures in the Southern Methodist Church calling for the murder of non-Methodists, no furious Amish taking hostages from kosher markets.
Al-Qaeda et al. may no more speak for Islam at large than the IRA speaks for the Roman Catholic Church — but the radicals do speak for a not-insignificant body of homicidal maniacs, torturers, murderers of children, pizza-shop bombers, and cartoonist killers that is currently plaguing every continent on this planet save Antarctica. (Apparently, news of the gay penguins has not yet reached Cairo.)
UK shops to receive Charlie Hebdo as Muslim cleric calls it an “act of war” that will bring “repercussions”
Jihad Watch : But in absurd, cowed, subjugated Sharia Britain, where public
officials race to outdo each other in appeasing and showering privileges
upon Islamic supremacists, Choudary runs around loose and says whatever
he wishes, while counter-jihadists are defamed and marginalized, or —
if they’re not British — barred from the country outright.
Why not just
make Choudary Prime Minister and be done with it? “UK shops to receive Charlie Hebdo magazine despite radical cleric calling it an ‘act of war,'” by Nicola Harley, the Telegraph, January 13, 2015:
Hundreds of copies of the ‘survivors’ edition of the
Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine are expected to go on sale in the UK
when the magazine is published on Wednesday. Radical preacher Anjem Choudray has criticised the magazine’s
controversial cartoon front cover of the Prophet Mohammed as “an act of
war” and warned there will be “repercussions”.
White House: Obama will fight media to stop anti-jihad articles
Jihad Watch : More self-censorship and voluntary acceptance of Sharia blasphemy
The President of the United States is now (again) signaling that
terrorism works: he is saying he will act to curtail Americans’ freedom
of expression because Muslims are committing mass murder in response of
the freedom of expression. He could have said that he would defend those
who say things that jihadis dislike from violent attacks, but no.
was as consistent as ever. And the freedom of speech will suffer for it.
How long before he shuts down Jihad Watch, to appease our jihadi
brethren? “White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles,” by Neil Munro, Daily Caller, January 13, 2015: President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push
back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to
publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against
the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said
“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or
taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety
and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work
may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at
the White House’s daily briefing.
Obama watched the NFL Playoffs instead of attending the Paris march for victims of jihad
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Jihad Watch : Look: he told Charlie Hebdo not to mock Muhammad. They didn’t heed
He told Israel to make more concessions to the “Palestinians.” They
didn’t heed him. So maybe he stayed away because he has scant sympathy
for the victims. And hey, it was the Playoffs. This Paris march was more show than substance, and severely
compromised any message it might have had by including jihad leader
Mahmoud Abbas, but Obama’s absence was glaring.
“Too little too late? Kerry says he WILL go to Paris but only after
U.S. was shamed for snubbing historic weekend rally of world leaders,”
by Simon Tomlinson and Francesca Chambers, Daily Mail, January 12, 2015: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he will now
travel to Paris after the U.S. government was shamed for not joining a
rally yesterday for victims of the French terror attacks.
The rally was attended by 40 world leaders, including British Prime
Minister David Cameron and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and a million
people. A staggering 3.7 million people gathered across France today to stage
further defiant marches in a moving tribute to the 17 people killed in
hostage sieges last week.
France in Islamic Peril - They Should Have Seen it Coming
Monday, January 12, 2015
INN : The tragic events that took place in Paris over the past few days came as no surprise to readers of this column and from other commentaries that regularly appear on these pages. Going back decades, we kept warning that what comes to Israel will come to France and to all of Europe.
Sadly, we were right…and we continue to sound the alarm.
Cries of 'kill the infidel' do not come from our synagogues or churches.
For my part, I don’t read the stars. But I can see the clouds. Here is a selection from what I warned over the years from the clarity of being a pessimist.
From “First, The Saturday People” -- Published in Arutz Sheva Sept 15, 2003, yes, 12 years ago.
“As for you masters of Europe and your treachery; one day your sly anti-Semitism will come back to haunt you. Over the centuries, you have uprooted a thousand synagogues and replaced them with ten thousand mosques. Wait, now, and see what grows from the soil of Ishmael. Your churches are next.
“For Sunday is coming, Sunday bloody Sunday.”
Also this incidentally from the same piece more than a decade ago:
“Bush believes he has the answer. He is sending in 87 billion dollars to find Thomas Jefferson in that seventh century feud-crazed swamp that is Iraq. So now we sit back and wait for Iraq to become a light unto the nations, along with the 21 other backwater regimes that make up part of the Arab world.
Haaretz : The rifts are large between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities, above which all hovers National Front leader Marine Le Pen.
It’s a great day for the French republic. Anyone who remembers the atmosphere in Israel during Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral can imagine what the French are feeling Sunday.
The list is long: the crowds thronging to the square, the free world’s leaders arriving to express solidarity, the live broadcasts on radio and television, the mobilization of young people, the honors for bodyguards and the men and women in uniform, unprecedented security arrangements, the speeches chilling in their honesty and pain, and above all, the pulsing one-time feeling of unity spawning hope for a return to one nation based on the values the victims embodied.
But the national euphoria — and who knows this as well as we? — will vanish in a very short time. The crowds will disperse, the TV and radio stations will return to their regular schedules, and the foreign leaders will take off for home the very same evening. And when the roar of their jet engines grows fainter in the distance, we’ll be able to hear the cracks in the wall of imaginary unity. Without a doubt, Sunday is a great day for the French republic — over a million people filling the streets of Paris.
Nicolas Sarkozy will stand beside François Hollande, union chiefs will march beside captains of industry, the members of the Muslim council will sit beside not only the archbishop and the rabbis, but also those responsible for the secular regime in whose shadow they shelter. The speeches will be pained and honest, young people will turn out in great numbers, and the slogans will be brilliant and resounding.
The promise will be great.
But the cracks are already starting to appear. Members of online teachers’ forums all over France are talking about the yawning gap between their Muslim students and the show of national solidarity. Many primary-school students refused to stand for a moment of silence in memory of the victims, claiming they could not honor the memories of people who had blasphemed Islam.
Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the French radical-right National Front party, said “We’ve been predicting this for a long time.”
New Yorker : She said this on Wednesday, shortly after the massacre at the Paris office of the radical-left satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
“It was to be expected. This attack is probably the beginning of the beginning. It’s an episode in the war that is being waged against us by Islamism.
The blindness and deafness of our leaders, for years, is in part responsible for these kinds of attacks.” Although Le Pen and the National Front were frequent targets of Charlie Hebdo’s
savage mockery, the two were at least as frequently aligned against
shared political enemies.
As the French say, “the extremes touch,” and
when it came to ridiculing the mainstream political parties—the
center-left Socialists of President François Hollande and the
center-right Gaullists of his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy—it was often
difficult to distinguish the grotesque caricatures you might find in Charlie Hebdo
from those in National Front rhetoric. So, too, when it came to the
xenophobia and racism of their anti-immigration polemics, and their
baiting of Islamophobic and anti-Semitic sentiment. (Charlie Hebdo
was merciless toward Christianity, too, but there Le Pen lost his sense
Le Pen, the former fascist street fighter, relishes his role
as a scourge of the establishment as much as the former Communist
street fighters of Charlie Hebdo did, and he has always delighted in an opportunity to taunt his adversaries and critics. When I wrote about him in 1997, I reported that he had asked me, “What do I have to do not to be racist? Marry a black woman? With AIDS,
if possible?” After the article appeared, he wrote to the magazine,
complaining that, as “an Anglo-Saxon,” I had missed the Gallic subtlety
of his wit: he had not said “une noire,” a black woman, but “un noir,” a black man.