DAMN LIE: AP claims Islamic State recruits have a poor grasp of Islam

Over at PJ Media I take apart yet another attempt to exonerate Islam of responsibility for crimes committed in its name and in accord with its teachings:

IslamicStateshahadah

At last the universal claim has been proven: Islamic terrorism has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with Islam! The proof?A new report from the Associated Press claims that recruits to the Islamic State (ISIS) knew little or nothing about Islam. After all, if they did, they would have known Islam is a religion of peace. So they wouldn’t have joined an outfit as violent and brutal as ISIS, right?

Wrong, of course.

This AP study is one of an endless stream of mainstream media articles intended to show us that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, that the real Islam is peaceful and benign, and therefore we need have no concern about the elites’ suicidal Muslim immigration policies.

The study is, as one might expect, vague and anecdotal. Apparently much of the AP’s assumptions rest on jihadis’ self-evaluation of how much they knew about Islam, as well as their refusal to expound on Islamic theology in court. The AP tells us about a “jihadi employment form”:

[The form] asked the recruits, on a scale of 1 to 3, to rate their knowledge of Islam. And the Islamic State applicants, herded into a hangar somewhere at the Syria-Turkey border, turned out to be overwhelmingly ignorant.

AP also notes:

[W]hen pressed by the judge on his knowledge of Shariah and how the IS group implements it, Mohammad-Aggad, a former gas station attendant, appeared dumbfounded, saying repeatedly: “I don’t have the knowledge to answer the question.”…

[O]ne of his co-defendants, Radouane Taher, was also pressed by the judge on whether beheadings carried out by the IS group conformed to Islamic law. He couldn’t say for sure, answering: “I don’t have the credentials.”

Very well. But even if jihadis might rate their knowledge of Islam as low, and not feel competent as non-clerics to explain the teachings of the religion, that does not imply they are “ignorant” of Islam. Further, it answers nothing about whether the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam.

Meanwhile, in selecting its anecdotes, the AP ignored those that don’t fit its agenda. We hear nothing in the AP report about the Islamic State propagandist whose parents said of him:

Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.

Nor does the AP say anything about the Muslim politician from Jordan who said:

[ISIS] doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Most telling about the AP’s motives, their report ignores the central importance that the Islamic State places upon the Qur’an: In its communiqués, it quotes the Qur’an copiously. They quote it in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos.

ISIS’s beheadings (47:4), sex slavery (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30), subjugation of Christians (9:29), global imperative (8:39) and more are all based upon the Qur’an.

ISIS has also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training.

As for misrepresenting the Qur’an? One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an.

AP also hauls out the evergreen anecdote that two jihadis ordered The Koran for Dummies andIslam for Dummies from Amazon. This factoid has been seized upon before by apologists for Islam — including Mehdi Hasan and Karen Armstrong — as evidence that Muslims going to Syria and Iraq to join the jihad don’t really know anything about Islam and are motivated by other factors.

However — and of course — no one actually knows why the jihadis ordered the books. Maybe they wanted to learn how to explain it better, or were planning to give the books to others relatives, or had one of any number of other possibilities in mind. But any irrational argument will do for the likes of the AP, Hasan, or Armstrong when it comes to exonerating Islam from all responsibility for crimes committed in accord with its texts and teachings.

The AP even invokes Tariq Ramadan to emphasize that Islam forbids the killing of innocents.

But it doesn’t ask Ramadan to explain the Islamic perspective that considers all non-Muslims to be guilty, or the Islamic State’s view that they are fighting against people who are not innocent because they have rejected the authority of the ISIS caliphate.

Not in the AP report, of course, is any information about the slick pseudo-moderate Ramadan himself, the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna and formerly a paid employee of the Iranian mullahcracy. Ramadan is skillful at manipulating credulous infidels into thinking that he is the very model of the modern moderate Muslim….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran vessels “harass,” make “high speed intercept” of US warship near Strait of Hormuz

Canada: Muslim ‘Mounties’ allowed to wear hijabs on duty

VIDEO: Hillary is Satan’s mop for wiping up the last remaining resistance to him in America

Hillary Clinton is evil. There is no other way to say the reality. She is evil. Hillary is Satan’s mop for wiping up the last remaining resistance to him in America.

TRANSCRIPT

Hillary Clinton (left) and Lucifer.

Hillary Clinton is evil. There is no other way to say the reality. She is evil.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen made the perfect distinction between someone who is bad, and someone who is evil. A bad person does bad things — steals, lies, cheats. An evil person seeks to destroy goodness, virtue, honor, decency, morality and truth.

That the United States will have an evil person such as her as the next leader is a heart-stopping notion. Obama was the warm-up act to this evil woman. Like goodness, there is a hierarchy to evil as well. Not all evil is equally malicious, just as all good is not equally sublime. And barring an act of God, she will be the next president of the United States. This Luciferian candidate has the Luciferian media backing her nearly completely. And a nation which has given itself over to every Luciferian act imaginable sees no big deal.

For Donald Trump to pull this out at this point would be the greatest comeback in U.S. political history. Look at this map, if you can stomach it. Between the states where Clinton has a commanding lead — meaning more than 20 points — and then the states heavily leaning in her favor — meaning more than 10 points — she already has more than the required 270 electoral college votes to win — 272, to be exact.

And on top of all this, even if she lost Ohio, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina, she would still win the White House, because those states are still toss-ups. mostly leaning slightly toward her, but still uncertain.

The point is: She doesn’t need to win those states to win the presidency. She is so far down the road with electoral college votes from huge, populous states already in the bag that the reality exists that she has it in the bag before the battle has even begun.

Could things change in some “never before seen in history” kind of way? There’s always hope — but we are moving out of the realm at this point of a reasonable hope to a virtually despairing hope. Faithful Catholics have to begin picturing their faith lives under evil Hillary. Trump’s almost comical characterization of crooked Hillary doesn’t even come close.

This is the woman who declared out loud that religious beliefs were going to have to change — to accommodate her diabolical world view. And she’s just the agent of Hell to do it. This is the woman who has said repeatedly that it isn’t freedom of religion but only freedom of worship. To evil Hillary, clusters of faithful Catholics in faithful parishes here and there are temples of sedition, little groups that recognize her for who she is and fight her attempts to destroy goodness and truth and beauty.

Understand, this woman is a tool of Satan. She revels in the blood of innocent children, she accepts awards named after enemies of Christ, like Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood. She understands very clearly that the Catholic Church is her enemy because she sets herself up against Our Blessed Lord.

She has no fear of God. She has no love for the supernatural. Like her whole rotten, stinking Democratic Party of sodomy-loving, baby-slaughtering, child-perverting, communism-embracing, anti-God fellow travelers, the devil is her father.

Father John Hardon, a saint of a man who died here in Detroit 16 years ago, warned of this very catastrophe coming to America. He correctly understood and announced that just as Our Lord has His disciples, so too does Satan.

This moment has been being prepared for over many decades. A persecution is imminent, and it will be led by this woman and her tribe of fellow evildoers. But not all Catholics will be swept up in her plans for the simple reason that most Catholics — including large swaths of the clergy — have already abandoned the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

And woe to those baptized, especially the ordained, who offer a pinch of incense at the altar of false gods. Hillary is Satan’s mop for wiping up the last remaining resistance to him in America, a country that once held so much promise to be converted to the true Faith until it was betrayed into the hands of the demonic by twisted, traitorous priests and bishops.

It was, and in many cases still is, bishops who rolled out the red carpet to these demons under the guise of caring about race and poverty and immigration and the death penalty and gun control and stemming violence. But as the old saying goes, Satan always comes dressed up to the party, and he is about to drop his façade.

Even today, there is hardly a word from any of those wearing miters decrying the evil this woman propounds. Her education is straight from Hell, her policies bathed in the blood of innocent children and world population control. She advances evil in every manner conceivable — and still from our bishops we hear crickets, or idiotic statements about immigration or health care or religious liberty.

The bishops of America over the past 40-plus years helped create this monster, this destroyer, and she and her whole party belong to them. If God does not end this before she is sworn in to show His might, then He will use it in its unfolding to show His glory in the coming martyrs.

In either case, God be praised.

RELATED ARTICLE: What a School Letting Students Opt Out of Pledge of Allegiance Says About Our Patriotism

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen

Emerson Self Reliance book coverIn his 1841 essay “Self-Reliance”, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.

He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?

Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Wikipedia notes:

Emerson presupposes that the mind is initially subject to an unhappy conformism. Throughout the essay he gives a defense for his famous catch-phrase “Trust thyself”. This argument makes three major points: that each person has his own self-contained genius, that society and worldly influences must be resisted in favor of one’s own individuality, and that self-worth has great importance and value.

Emerson understood that forced consistency destroys the individual mind and spirit.

Gerald Russello writes in his column Open season on religious persons? that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent refusal to rule on a religious freedom case demonstrates government’s determination to force conformity.

In Stormans, Inc. v. Weisman, the Supreme Court refused to review a federal court’s decision that upheld a Washington State regulation forbidding pharmacists from refusing to provide contraceptives or abortifacients contrary to their religious belief.

This refusal, in other words, lets the federal appellate court decision stand, which would permit Washington State to force the consciences of pharmacists.  The case is potentially a dark precedent because it allows states to discriminate against religious believers, even when the discrimination against them is clear – and even when no one was adversely affected by the assertion of religious conscience.

The next president will be either one who believes in self-reliance or one who believes in foolish consistency. That president will not only change government itself but also appoint, perhaps three, Supreme Court justices, whose judicial temperament will or will not “force conformity.”

donald-trump-quotes-thinking-big-600x400

There are groups in America that want forced conformity such as: the Democratic Party, the Communist Party of the USA (who has nominated Hillary Clinton for president), Islamic Supremacist organizations, career statesmen of both political parties and one candidate for president.

It is important for Americans to ‘Trust Thyself” rather than trust government. As Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem, not the solution.”

In other words always Trust Thyself!

Video Documentary: Death By China — One Lost Job at a Time

Death_by_china-confronting_the_dragonA Global shift is well underway, and it is scheduled for the United States of America to lose on multiple levels. Already America is no longer the only or premiere reserve currency, a position by which all economies and currencies in the world have been measured since 1945.

Mr. Trump is correct in stating American professional politicians have given away our Nation’s economic strengths in multiple dimensions, from manufacturing to technology; from educational instruction of critical thinking to science even health care and more, America is very rapidly sinking to second and even third tier status.

Our economy is close to depression levels, and our unemployment rates are already at depression range with an unemployment level more realistic at 25%, and getting worse. China has been chosen to become the world-wide economic engine and reserve currency…but how did this occur, and what evidence is there to support my premise?

The below film: “Death by China – One Lost Job at a Time” is a very good place to begin the study of how, and to look at the growing evidence to support the premise I just declared. Watch this film and ponder what it all means, and how will you fair given what you are about to see?

Now before you begin your journey after viewing this film, may I add a closing thought?

chinese workers

Chinese workers

The Chinese people are far more kind and gracious, hardworking and sincere than what is being broadcast. To really grasp the world wide shifting taking place before our eyes, you must come to a full appreciation, if not understanding that the Global Elites care nothing about national sovereignty or political parties or people for that matter, and they are calling the shots. For the most part the Elites share a common philosophy of absolute Marxism, and view the world in simple terms; Elites and privilege verse slaves to keep the Elites and privileged well fed and well taken care of. That’s it!

The Elites are the same regardless of where they might currently live; from Russia or China, to Africa the Middle East, to Europe and America the Elites live a far different life style with a far different view and thinking; after-all they are the Elite and the rest of us are their slaves, some of us more useful than others, but still all expendable. Such are the Chinese Government officials who are the beneficiaries of the decision to make China the premiere economic engine.

The people of China are still, for the most part, treated as indentured servants beholding to the government. At the same time a strong and very real outpouring of God’s love is taking place among the people of China. There truly is a remarkable move of the Holy Spirit and true Christian birth occurring, quite similar to what is recorded in the Book of Acts in the Bible. House churches coming alive and multiplying, out-of-the-way meeting rooms where sincere and deep heart-felt prayer is taking place.

God is on the move through China, and the people, the hard working and giving people are responding with their hearts, and in many ways with their lives. I wish America were experiencing the same resurgence in walking with the Lord and declaring: “How blessed is the nation whose God is Adonai, the people He chose as His heritage” (Pslam 33:12).

VIDEO: John Hopkins Study — ‘Gay gene’? No scientific evidence for it!

Homosexuals have been looking for any genetic reason for their behaviors. A person who changes their sex is violating biology, science and genetics. Homosexuality is a choice, one that does not demand special rights, rather homosexuals require treatment for their abnormality.

OneNewsNow reports:

A new study should convince academics and the general public that there is no “homosexual gene.”

Two distinguished scholars at Johns Hopkins University have released a lengthy, three-part report concluding that there’s not sufficient evidence to prove homosexuals and transgenders are born in that condition – in other words, there is no “gay gene.”

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” states the executive summary.

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex – that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” it adds.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality offers his comments on the report to OneNewsNow.

“Homosexual activists have been desperate to try to say they’re ‘born that way’ because they believe this absolves them of their moral responsibility for their sexual behavior,” he shares. “And they know that if the public believes that people are – quote – ‘born gay,’ then the public is much more accepting of homosexual activism. And that’s exactly what we’ve seen in the culture.”

LaBarbera argues that the culture is getting false information from liberal academics and liberal media that present the “gay gene” theory as truth when study after study confirms there’s no such thing.

LaBarbera, Peter“I think the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that there is no gay gene that even liberal-minded academics are forced to concede this point,” he adds. “The homosexual lobby and a lot of people in it banked on the gay gene theory to win sympathy. It worked … but the evidence continues to mount against that theory.”

The 143-page report recognizes a corollary between same-gender attraction and sexual abuse as a child.

The Johns Hopkins experts also emphasize that sexuality is fluid – which means homosexuals can change; and many have, mostly through Christ. See video summary below:

The Center for Disease Control’s latest report states:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men made up an estimated 2% of the population but 55% of people living with HIV in the United States in 2013. If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African-American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men.

In 2014:

  • Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
  • Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
  • Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. Center for Disease Control: Gay Men are 2% of the Population but 55% of HIV Cases, 67% of New Cases!

Zulu Witchcraft and Liberals (and, No, This Isn’t Racist)

Zulus and Liberals (and, No, This Isn’t Racist) by Malcolm Allen, Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley and a longtime commiserater with and supporter of Dissident Prof, as well as contributor to Exiled: Stories from Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized, and Frozen Out. British spellings have been retained–Mary Grabar, Posted August 22, 2016

In odd moments I am reading Donald R. Morris’s The Washing of the Spears (1965), the helpful subtitle of which is The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation. Amazon.com no less helpfully tells us that “this unsurpassed history details the sixty-year existence of the world’s mightiest African empire—from its brutal formation and zenith under the military genius Shaka (1787-1828), through its inevitable collision with white expansionism, to its dissolution under Cetshwayo in the [Anglo-]Zulu War of 1879.”

History buffs will remember the names of that war’s two famous battles, Isandhlwana, according to Wikipedia the “single greatest defeat for the British Army at the hands of a native army,” and Rorke’s Drift, a brave British hold-out against an overwhelmingly superior force that enabled the preservation of some national self-respect. It was followed by the awarding of eleven Victoria Crosses, the highest British award for valour in the face of the enemy, an act perhaps having a slightly politic component. Movie enthusiasts will remember Zulu Dawn (1979), a not very commercially successful film about Isandhlwana, and Zulu (1964), a hit about Rorke’s Drift. I am no historian, and am, anyway, presently much nearer the beginning of Morris’s book than the end but it seems superb, a vigorous narration of an absorbing, if finally tragic, tale.

The first chapter, after a “Prologue,” is entitled “The Bantu.” Morris describes what we know about Bantu provenance, which apparently isn’t very much (“No one knows from whence the Bantu came, and by the time modern man turned a scientific scrutiny on the problem a century ago, the layers of evidence were irrevocably tangled”), their social structure (subdivisions divided into clans, and kraals “inhabited by a single family”), and their sometimes self-destructive superstitions (a warrior who killed an enemy soldier had to undergo an elaborate “cleansing process” that involved going back to his own kraal, so military campaigns tended to be short). But what stopped me in my tracks were four paragraphs about Bantu, i.e. Zulu, belief in the strength and ubiquity of witchcraft. The italics in what follows are mine.

Witchcraft was universal. All illness, and indeed all evil, was caused by  . . . wizards who made use of primal forces. . . . The unfortunate host would be quite unaware of the parasite until a witch doctor pointed it out . . . .

An accusation of witchcraft was fatal; once the wizard had been smelled, no defense was possible, and because the host was quite unwitting, no plea of ignorance, purity of action, or innocence of action could stand. Whenever the presence of [a wizard] was suspected, the chieftain would summon the entire male membership of the clan, which assembled in a large circle with the witch doctors in the center. These worthies . . . paused in front of each man, sniffing and howling, passing on and suddenly darting back to terrorize anew someone just starting to breathe again . . . . The volume [of the witch doctors’ chant] peaked as [they] passed, and died away beyond the suspect. . . . [They] were merely sounding out public opinion, cleverly reinforcing nuances of sound until they were certain their choice met with popular approval—a rich but miserly kraal head, or the transgressor of some social taboo. The witch doctors would pass him and return, until finally they were leaping and screaming before some poor wretch on his knees. Bounding clean over him, they flicked him with a gnu’s tail, whereupon he was at once dragged off to have sharpened stakes pounded up his rectum, while an impi [“regiment” or “army”] was dispatched to exterminate his family root and branch, destroy his crops, and burn his kraal.

Finally, “Witch doctors also waxed fat on private practice. They were called in as consultants for every form of minor crisis, and rarely failed to secure the payment of at least a goat. The vicious grip in which they held the people was made possible by an implicit and universal belief in magic; not even the victim of a smelling-out was indignant. He might register horror or fear or remorse, but not even in his final painful moments did he doubt the existence of the wizard that had possessed him.”

“The Ubiquity of Irrational Fear”: Doubtless you can see where I’m going with this. The ubiquity of an irrational fear, the catastrophic consequences of being found the unwitting host of an evil parasite, the submission of the victims to the onslaught against them, a priestly class that acquires and keeps material goods and power by means of officious intervention. Sounds like the West over the last forty years or so, does it not? It sounds in particular like elite segments of government, the university, and the media.

A few examples. My account of the first is taken pretty closely from Wikipedia, which is trustworthy for this sort of thing at least. Notoriously, in 1999, David Howard, an aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C., used the word “niggardly” in reference to a budget. A black colleague heard the word, or claimed to have heard it, as a racial slur, and made a formal complaint. “Howard tendered his resignation, and [the mayor] accepted it” (my italics again). After a public brouhaha, Howard was offered his old job back; he refused the offer but agreed to accept another position with his former boss, “insisting,” in the words of Wikipedia, “that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. ‘I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind; that’s naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t [sic for “can”] afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.’” It must be conceded that many commentators found the controversy absurd, the head of the NAACP, no less, saying, “David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back—and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.” But then again this was seventeen years ago.

Woodstock

Woodstock

Two more contemporary examples, and when I say contemporary I mean occurring over the last month or so (I’m writing this in mid-August). A certain Rohini Sethi, vice president of the Student Government Association of the University of Houston, so far forgot the environment in which she lives and the nature of some of those amongst whom she lives as to post on Facebook, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like #AllLivesMatter” after five Dallas police officers were shot dead during a BLM rally. Blake Neff’s article in The Daily Caller (31 July) reports “numerous UH students denounced [the comment] as incredibly offensive or even hateful,” one of them, Nala Hughes, going so far as to observe, “Just for her to say, ‘forget Black Lives Matter,’ is a punch in the stomach.’” Sethi made an attempt to combine an apology with a justification of her words: “My response has caused enormous pain for many members of our community, and I think it is high time that I clarify my statement. . . . Let’s create the possibility of a culture rooted in open discussion” (Bob Price, Breitbart, 1 August). Although some students defended her, there followed a maliciously careful and detailed attempt to impose upon Sethi a protracted public humiliation. Shane Smith, president of the SGA, was allowed to sidestep the usual procedures and come up with a five-part punishment. I quote Neff again:

• A 50-day suspension from SGA starting August 1. This suspension will be unpaid (she currently receives a stipend of about $700 a month).
• A requirement to attend a three-day diversity workshop in mid-August.
• A requirement to attend three “UH cultural events” each month from September through March, excluding December.
• An order to write a “letter of reflection” about how her harmful actions have impacted SGA and the UH student body.
• An order to put on a public presentation Sept. 28 detailing “the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”

Furthermore, “If Sethi refuses or fails any of the requirements, she will be kicked out of SGA entirely.” Sethi commented, “I disagree with the sanctions taken against me by my SGA . . . . I have apologized for my words . . . . Even so, I will abide by the sanctions for as long as they are in place.”

Last example. It will be remembered that nine black mothers whose children had died, some in circumstances involving the police, were invited onto the stage at the Democratic National Convention. Bob Goosman, his feelings doubtless exacerbated by the fact that he was then a meteorologist in the Dallas area, took to Facebook: “As many of you have probably noticed, I’ve stayed away from politics on FB. The DNC parading the mothers of slain thugs around on their stage has me furious.” Two days later he was out of a job. I have found two sets of comments made by Goosman about his use of the word “thug,” published within a day of each other. Although this appears second (1 August, gop.usa, but originating in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram), perhaps it was made first: “It was frustration that I believe the DNC party will do anything, like using these mothers, to garner votes . . . . Some have said the word ‘thug’ is a racial term. [But] it means a violent person, as in a criminal. It does not mention color. Anyone can become a thug. If some want to make this statement out to be something else, I cannot control that.” The second (theblaze.com 31 July) is more sensitive to contemporary susceptibilities:

Regarding his use of the term ‘thugs,’ Goosman said he wasn’t aware it carried racial overtones for some.

‘I thought a thug was just a violent person. The definition of thug does not mention any race . . . . I will say that I talked with an African American acquaintance and he told me that he feels like when he hears the word, it is in reference to an African American individual. I had NO IDEA.’

Goosman confirmed his resignation as well but said he would’ve been fired ‘and rightly so.’

‘What I say online, no matter where, reflects upon my station and employer. KRLD is a great station . . . and I am sorry if they have had to deal with all the repercussions.’

Professor Malcolm Allen

Professor Malcolm Allen

Brought to heel. For what it’s worth, I’ve lived in the US for twenty-seven years and thought I understood American English. I too had NO IDEA that the word “thug” implies an African American but then “The unfortunate host would be quite unaware of the parasite until a witch doctor pointed it out.”

My three examples above all deal with race, a subject of notorious sensitivity in today’s US. A couple of months ago I was in a local convenience store. The guy behind the counter, picking up on my English accent, asked me if I’m interested in soccer. He then immediately assured me that he wasn’t being “racist.” (Oh, and I “happen to be” white, incidentally.) I understood him. Say the wrong thing, no matter how innocently, and you could lose your livelihood, as Bob Goosman found out (he apparently doesn’t intend to try for another job in the media), and perhaps your savings, and your house, and your reputation. Our society’s “witch doctors” are vigilant, and getting far more for their pains than the occasional goat. But I could easily have chosen three, or three dozen, illustrations of the dangers of misspeaking about what I’m apparently supposed to call gender: feminism, homosexuality, and, nowadays, transgenderism.  On another occasion, perhaps.

Let’s look on the bright side. Howard and Sethi and Goosman have been taught their place, doubtless a cause of grim satisfaction or even unabashed jubilation to their tormentors. However, they haven’t had sharpened stakes hammered up their arses. But that’s just because the aforementioned tormentors haven’t thought of that yet.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Zulu Diviners. Photo by Wizzy – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Make Babies, and Don’t Let the Greens Guilt Trip You about It by Steven Horowitz

Several years back, the economist Bryan Caplan wrote a wonderful book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Caplan argued that most parents underestimated the benefits of larger families and were engaging in costly parenting strategies that yielded few real benefits. Thus, he said, if you love kids, you should have lots of them.

From NPR this week comes a story that might well be called “anti-Caplan” in every dimension. It is a profile of bioethicist Travis Rieder and others like him who argue that it is immoral to have many children, if any at all, because of the burden that additional children place on the Earth’s ecosystem. Given that we are already, Rieder claims, on the road to climate disaster, adding more children will both make matters worse and condemn those children to a horrible life on a worsening planet. His argument might well be called “Altruistic Reasons to Have Fewer Kids.”

More specifically, he argues that children are what economists call negative externalities: “We as parents, we as family members, we get the good. And the world, the community, pays the cost.” As it turns out, that claim is almost entirely wrong. It is parents who pay most of the costs of having children and the rest of us who reap the benefits.

I am not going to contest some of the claims about climate change Rieder and others in the article invoke. He does tend to take the most extreme predictions of climate models as gospel truth when the recent data have suggested that reality is closer to the much more modest predictions. However, even if the worst case scenarios are true, Rieder misses a number of important points about population growth that need to be considered.

Human Beings are Producers

He, like so many environmentalists, sees human beings only as consumers of resources. So one core statistic he trots out is that the amount of CO2 saved by not having a child is roughly 20 times what we can save through traditional things like driving hybrids and recycling. Therefore, he and the other people discussed in the story conclude, if we really want to “save the planet,” we should have fewer, if any, children.

But this is single-entry economic and moral bookkeeping. This view ignores the idea that humans are also producers. As Julian Simon reminded us so often, more people not only means more hands to work and more minds to create, it means more different people with different ideas. Increases in population not only deepen the division of labor and productivity by their sheer numbers, they also take advantage of the fact that each of us is unique which leads to new ideas and innovation.

Human progress depends upon the increasing productivity that comes from a finer division of labor and new ways of doing things. And those are the result of more people.

It’s not, as a student in the article suggests, that one of those kids that isn’t born might have come up with a “solution for climate change,” but that each and every one of those kids that isn’t born would have contributed to greater economic growth, which is nothing more than the more effective and efficient use of the resources we have.

Such growth is what has made it possible for the Earth to sustain 7 billion lives of increasing length, comfort, and quality. Reducing the population might mean we use up more resources by losing the efficiencies that come from a larger population’s greater ability to innovate and productively specialize.

The benefits of having more kids are not primarily to the parents involved, though as Caplan points out there are many. More people means we are better able to beat back omnipresent scarcity and carve out a more inhabitable planet for more people who live longer, better lives.

This is the most fundamental error of so many environmentalists, especially those arguing for reductions in the population: they see humans only as consumers of resources and not the source of the very innovations that enable us to use resources more effectively and the riches that enable us to have a cleaner, healthier planet.

Demographic Transition

The other crucial point Rieder and people like him miss is that the Earth’s population is already in the process of stabilizing. One of the most agreed upon empirical facts of history is the so-called “demographic transition.” As societies become wealthier and more industrialized, the incentives facing parents change and family size falls. Once mom and dad, or perhaps only one of them, can earn enough income to support a family, and there’s no farm or cottage industry that requires the whole family pitching in, the need for many children is much less and parents seek to control their fertility.

The Western world began to go through this transition over a century ago, and the rest of the world has followed in turn. Most of the Western world is dealing with fertility rates that are below replacement, and rates of population growth in all but a handful of countries worldwide have fallen in the last few decades.

Thankfully Rieder does not want to use Chinese-style coercion to limit family size, but he’s not afraid to tax larger families more heavily. Even that isn’t necessary given the reality of the demographic transition:  in a free society, human beings naturally limit their fertility as they get wealthier. Again, the best way to save the planet is not to have fewer kids, but to have as many as you can afford and let their productivity enable us to use resources with more efficiency and create more progress.

Anti-Life, Anti-Human

The radical wing of environmentalism is, as Ayn Rand said decades ago, “anti-life” and “anti-human” in its belief that humans are the scourge of the planet and not the source of its progress. After all, if the important thing is saving the planet by reducing our carbon footprint, why stop by persuading people to not have kids?

Why not persuade currently living people, especially young ones, to reduce their lifetime carbon footprint by killing themselves? The logic is no different.

That they don’t make that argument suggests that “saving the planet” really isn’t the overriding issue here. Like so much else in the Green movement, this seems to be about protecting their own comfortable lives against what they think will happen when everyone else is able to live lives like they have. They got their progress and health and children, but everyone else needs to sacrifice for the sake of the planet. That Rieder does have a child is some evidence of this point.

Not only is Rieder’s argument deeply immoral and reactionary in how wrong it is, it turns out to be far less altruistic than it first seems. Nothing could capture the total failure of radical environmentalist anti-natalism better than calling it “selfish reasons everyone else should have fewer kids.” Let’s hope, for the sake of both actual humans and the planet we live on that these environmentalist arguments are as infertile as their proponents wish humans were.

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Miami-Dade Teachers Union backed State Senator Dwight Bullard linked to Terrorists

MIAMI, Fl. (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The grassroots group Miami United Against BDS (MUAB) is demanding that Florida State Senator Dwight Bullard immediately resign his seat in the Florida State House and end his bid for re-election. Reports surfaced this week that Bullard took a trip in May to territories under Palestinian control where he met with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an organization listed by the State Department since 1997 as a foreign terrorist organization.

Bullard, according to his campaign website, is a teacher. He teaches at Coral Reef Senior High School and Coral Gables Adult in Miami-Dade public schools. Bullard is a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and at one time was a union representative. Senator Bullard is a UTD backer and beneficiary.

bullard hamas plo

Florida State Sen. Dwight Bullard, wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh, or headscarf, at the Democratic National Convention, July 2016. (Ben Sales)

Bullard was photographed with a member of the PFLP, and those images were shared on social media by the group which coordinated Bullard’s trip to the Middle East. During his visit, Bullard also met with a co-founder of the anti-Israel BDS movement Omar Barghouti, and images of them together also circulated on social media. BDS, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, is a campaign aimed at singling out Israel for economic warfare.

Earlier this year, Florida passed a bill to prevent the state from doing business with companies participating in boycotts of Israel. Similar anti-BDS bills have also passed in a dozen other states across the country.

MUAB called upon the Florida Democratic Party to condemn this meeting with terrorists and urge Dwight Bullard to resign and end his reelection campaign. They also asked Equity Florida Action PAC, Florida Planned Parenthood PAC, Florida AFL-CIO, SAVE Action PAC, AFSCME Florida, 1199 SEIU, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida and United Faculty of Florida to immediately withdraw their endorsements of Bullard based upon his interactions with a terrorist organization and others whose ideology and actions make them enemies of the United States and its ally Israel.

One of the leaders of Miami United Against BDS, Joseph Daniels (a registered Democrat) said: “By meeting with supporters of terrorist organizations Dwight Bullard has shown himself to be completely unfit for office. We will not sit back and be silent when an elected official from Florida meets with a terrorist group that has murdered innocent civilians in Israel.”

Nilsa Alvarez from Comunidad Cristiana Pembroke Pines (Christian Community of Pembroke Pines) said, “BDS is the best example of racism and discrimination applied to business and the global market. BDS is the modern yellow star, aimed at financially persecuting the Jewish community in a baseless effort to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel and her rights to flourish as a democratic republic in a sea of politically unstable countries seeking to undermine her freedom to be.”

Said Rabbi Uri Pilichowski, Director of Israel Advocacy for Southern NCSY, “Elected officials have a responsibility to learn the truth and not take positions until they know the facts. Rep. Bullard did not do his due diligence about the reality in Israel and found himself on the side of hate. Now, the students of Florida are taking it upon themselves to teach Rep. Bullard the truth about Israel.  His statements are a pure example of the hypocrisy these BDS groups are all about.”

Joe Zevuloni, Founder of Miami United Against BDS stated: “State Senator Bullard is so concerned about Palestinian civil rights, but he should start condemning some of the same people he is trying to “defend.”  Why doesn’t he condemn groups such as the PFLP, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organization that carry out attacks and openly persecute Christians and members of the LGBT community? Within the Palestinian areas women cannot run for political office let alone participate fully in civic life. On the other hand, Israel is a vibrant democracy and the only true U.S. ally in the Middle East. Israel is America’s best friend and friends stand up for each other. All Americans from every background should step up and join us to help defeat BDS.”

Zevuloni added: “MUAB is vehemently opposed to the anti-Semitic BDS movement and we condemn all who support it. It is unconscionable that Bullard would meet with Omar Barghouti and other Israel detractors who advocate targeting Israel with economic warfare.

“In recent days Mr. Bullard has also expressed his unwillingness to endorse the two-state solution for Israeli-Palestinian peace, which puts him squarely on the side of those who advocate a one-state solution, which in practical terms amounts to destroying the Jewish state of Israel,” added Zevuloni.

MUAB Founder Joe Zevuloni concluded: “As South Floridians who champion the values of democracy, human rights, open dialogue and respect for human life, it is unthinkable to accept that there is someone in the Florida legislature who is willing to meet openly with terrorist groups and other hateful organizations whose values are diametrically opposed to those of Floridians and all Americans. It is our duty to condemn this form of hate and defeat it.”

Musings of a Muslim father

Raising American Muslim Kids in the Age of Trump was a meditative essay penned by Wajahat Ali in the New York Times.  During these years of Obama and Hillary, he has been comfortable knowing that no one would question his allegiance to Islamic law (sharia) over the American Constitution. Despite Islam’s record of subversion and violence, he and his coreligionists need not have been overly concerned if their children were caught rioting in the name of Allah, damaging or looting property, or burning tires or American and Israeli flags,  For nearly eight years, this has been a Land of the Freedom to Run Amok and cause damage; to join boycotts against a country, Israel, that is falsely accused of the decadence and immorality widespread in Islamic countries; to march and rally against an emasculated police force; to brazenly masquerade an ideology of conquest as a religion of peace, and to be believed!

As Mr. Ali ruminates about his toddler son and new baby daughter, he shares his concerns if Donald J. Trump were to become president, and the extreme vetting that could restrict others’ entry to America, regardless of possible aggression.  He fears that his friend’s son might be deported and he muses that his daughter could be sent to a “concentration camp” by the only presidential candidate who expresses his intense loyalty to our laws! Has Ali not studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Has he not heard Trump iterate that he wants America restored and that his favors cannot be bought? Ali fears a president who upholds the Constitution, but would be comfortable with a Clinton-Kaine administration that will continue to promote the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, endanger our homeland security with additional hordes of unvetted immigrants, betray Israel, and grant positions of power in exchange for payments, resulting in the stealthy imposition of sharia into government.

With pensive reminiscence, he speaks of the beauty of celebrating Eid-al Fitr, an elaborate dining festival that ends the Islamic month of Ramadan, and suggests that he could be denied his celebrations and food preparations under new leadership.  This is pure fantasy and fear-mongering, as no other religious group has ever been thus denied – unless, of course, he misses the cattle preparation of his forebears, the men who walk in the streets with their cattle purchases, and intentionally stab and torture the docile animals with picks and knives until they bleed out and bleat their last breath. Does he fear being questioned about his loyalty to the Constitution? Does he fear the prospect of living in a country that does not countenance the torture and abuse found in the Koran?

If, indeed, this new father truly hopes his daughter will grow up in a safe country, why not demand and relish the extreme vetting to verify the identity and ideology of the applicants who will walk our streets and encounter our daughters?  Under Hillary and Kaine’s continued penchant for multiculturalism from Islamic lands, we might well become an Islamic-majority nation, where no girl or woman is safe – perhaps as Sweden, which has become the rape capital of the world; or Australia and Canada, which share the title  of kidnapping capitals of the world, or Germany, where Angela Merkel’s news that one hundred women were raped on New Year’s Eve, 2016, was finally admitted to be as many as 1200 women raped by vicious gangs of 2,000 Muslim men. We could also become as Israel, where knifings, car jammings, explosions and rock-throwings that cause deadly car accidents, along with rocket launchings, are a daily threat, along with boycotts and legal tactics to delegitimize her very existence.  Trump has announced his goal of increasing and strengthening our police forces to ensure that our communities are safe, and that America’s daughters will never require a related male escort to leave the house or to cover themselves in full-blown tents – or the latest assault on women, muzzles! Does he find this troubling?

With babe in arms, the writer added a fear about Trump’s extreme vetting might include a database, but there is already an established database of our school children as part of this administration’s imposition of the Common Core curriculum, contrary to the wishes of their parents. American law, rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage, protects the welfare and security of our citizens and this is in constant need of adjustment so that security is never sacrificed for humanity, and vice versa. A good example is the suspension of naturalization proceedings, and the addition of registration requirements and restricted mobility for Italian, German and Japanese immigrants a day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Islam is at war with America, on par with Nazism and communism. Its declared aim is to destroy Western civilization from within and to ultimately establish a global Islamic caliphate.

Not to be ignored was Ali’s subtle accusation of “bigotry” against  Americans for their reaction to 9/11 – a bona fide reaction, I might add, to the sudden, spectacular and tragic death of three thousand people and the ineradicable pain of loss to their families, when 19 Muslims crashed planes into Pennsylvania, the Pentagon, and Manhattan’s World Trade Center, the personification of financial success to the backward Islamic nations. Is it also ‘bigotry” when we see and hear the adherents of Islam proclaim their intent to destroy America, when we see them stoning or hanging or burning people alive, and when we recoil in horror and grief to learn of the 29,065 (8/21/16) Islamic attacks on Americans and the world since 9/11. Is it bigotry when polls show that the majority of Muslims prefer the ideology and laws of Islam over the laws of the land to which they have made the al-hijra, the Islamic doctrine of immigration?

Ali took this opportunity to enhance the propaganda against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of US Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed in Iraq in 2004, 12 years ago. Why the choice of this man, and not a more recent military loss, has become clear: Khizr Khan has strong ties to the Saudi government and its huge donations to the Clinton foundation, and he received $375,000 to his immigration law firm for the political tribute he paid his son at the DNC. We are also aware that Khan’s former employer manages the Clintons’ taxes and has a patent on Hillary’s infamous email-filtering program.  Khizr’s son’s heroism is not in question, but the father’s integrity is.

A self-described “spiritual nomad,” Ali is nevertheless investing in a project, “Make space” in Virginia, to introduce selected aspects of Islam to their children. We might wonder what the “unmosqued” adherents will use instead of the Koran, with its 109 open-ended verses of commands to violence. America has been home to people of all nations who practice their many religious rites, but being religions, not ideologies, they have been able to assimilate and become part of American society, something that Islam’s ideology cannot do by its very nature.  American law and sharia law are profoundly antipathetic to one another and will bring incurable division to America. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and we will lose America if Clinton and Kaine, academia and the media continue their efforts to negate Christianity and Judaism, and further depreciate our freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right of self-protection.

The BBC reported that 95% of its viewers admit that multiculturalism is a failure, and a “leaked German intelligence document” described by The Gatestone Institute says: “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” British police are monitoring more than 3,000 homegrown Islamic extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK, and 80 percent of the 3,000 mosques in America are known to have deep ties to extremism, including to the Muslim Brotherhood.

If Mr. Ali hopes to safely raise his family in America, he has to live and vote so that all may celebrate the holidays of their choosing, and be suspicious of the mother of three who espouses “Islam has to trump them all.” She is not raising her children to be loyal Americans; rather, she is imbuing them with Islamic supremacism – to inspire them to jihad.  Muslims are safe here, but statistics prove that Jews and Christians are now targets in America and throughout the world.

The applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and “attached to the principles of the Constitution.” It is neither bigotry nor unconstitutional to enact laws to promote national security and national interests – to keep our citizens safe. Article Four, Section Four, known as the Guarantee Clause, states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Therefore, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

Trudeau’s Multiculturalism!

Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is building his legacy as the Western leader who promotes Islam as compatible with Western secular societies 1 and opens the door for massive Muslim immigration. In my opinion, this agenda of Mr. Trudeau and his government might be exploited by radicals to destabilize both the US and Canada and that Canada may develop into a security threat for the US.

One of the centre pieces of the Trudeau Liberals’ policies is its agenda regarding refugees, immigration and citizenship. Space doesn’t allow me to enumerate but it has raised concerns of many people including the Americans. The rapid influx of so-called refugees (perhaps as many as 20,000 are pre-qualified immigrants included in the 25,000 total to make the numbers and timing look good) out of camps in Lebanon is causing some angst because of the manner in which this operation is being carried out. Cost estimates to the Canadian taxpayer are already spiraling out of control and the budget deficit is doubling and tripling as I write this.

Canada is a multicultural society made up of many expatriates from troubled areas who came to Canada to escape tribalism and medieval cultures as well as threats to their personal freedom and safety.

In Canada, we see a government that appears to be encouraging the kind of cultural changes and the promotion of ideologies that many who fled communism, dictatorship regimes, and escaped Sharia law ruled by Islamic constitutional regimes and find it very threatening and hoped to never experience ever again. Changes to the immigration laws definitely pose a threat to women and allow the possibility of abuses and loopholes that the former Conservative government had been trying to close.

Changes to citizenship laws also invite abuses to family reunification laws and security: reopening Iran’s embassy and allowing their diplomats and spies to enter Canada, where they have political immunity and will walk freely in our communities, whereas in the past they had created an atmosphere of horror and fear among the Iranian Canadian nationals;  Canada normalizing relations with the current regime in Iran without regard to their daily human-rights violations, executions of juveniles and sponsorship of state terrorism throughout the middle east – disregarding international law violations and the welfare of Iran’s own population and those in it seeking reforms and greater freedoms – not to mention the fact that their embassy opens a door to infiltration of Canada’s own security apparatus.2 3 Canada, likewise is increasing its support of terrorist states and abandoning those who are looking to Canada – like Egypt and Israel.

With Mr. Trudeau opening the floodgates to those whose politics clash with liberal democracies and whose stated purpose is to change our way of life rooted in a Christian Judeo heritage, Canadians are rightly concerned about the impact and possibility of 50,000 people bringing their old way of life and the grievances associated with it to this relatively peaceful freedom-loving nation – especially when as many as 94% of refugees prefer to stay in their own country and Canada can support 12 refugees in Lebanon for the same cost as they can support one refugee in Canada.

Americans, too, are concerned about the Canadian border and the fact that the rapid citizenship process will allow many of these ‘refugees’ to cross into the United States with a simple visa or in some cases no visa.

Mr. Trudeau is also introducing the hated Carbon Tax which cost them a previous election and will cost Canadians the loss of jobs and lowering family income – affecting low income earners the worst.

Trudeau Liberal government is also trying to stop the sorely needed Canadian east, west and south gas/oil pipelines, relying on unethical oil from Saudi Arabia on its east coast and cutting off increased exports via US and British Columbia routes. This has depressed an industry which affects 40% of Canada’s resources and thousands of jobs. The pipeline could add billions to Canada’s economy and change the whole economic picture for Canadians for decades to come – also making Canada more energy efficient and independent.

Mr. Trudeau has been called Canada’s Obama for his lack of experience, socialist philosophy and tendency to circumvent parliamentary debate and approval of the representatives of the people of Canada. His father’s legacy was tax-and-spend putting Canada into the highest debt in history (similar to Obama), from which we have never recovered. Trudeau junior hasn’t fallen far from the tree. His compiled debt will be left to future generations yet unborn to pay – and already Canadians pay a third of their taxes in interest towards the national and provincial debt and that’s at a low debt interest rate. We could well go the way of Greece if interest rates rise.

This short space doesn’t permit me to list the litany of damaging and dangerous activities this government is bent on undertaking so this will have to do for starters.

Trudeau’s multiculturalism – opportunity or threat?

In addition to the urgent political and economic issues, President Obama may want to discuss with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the ramifications of the accelerated multiculturalism in Canada to the security of the US.

In a video message to the annual Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Mr. Trudeau said: “The Reviving the Islamic Spirit [RIS] convention… is also about celebrating our shared beliefs in justice, fairness, equality of opportunity and acceptance. The work you do in communities across the country is what builds the and strengthens our multicultural fabric.” 4

Trudeau has won the hearts and minds of Canadian Muslims by joining the ‘maghrib’ prayer in Ramadan, defending women’s right to wear the niqab, portraying the Islamic values as Canadian, opening Canada’s doors to massive Muslim immigration and stating that his mission is to educate Canadians that Islam is compatible with Western secular societies like Canada. No wonder he was called by leading Canadian imam al-Janashi of our era.5

American lawmakers are worried. Trudeau’s policy is being interpreted as gullible, mistaken and a golden opportunity for the radical Islamic movements to change the face of Canada forever. Trudeau fails to read the writing on the wall and the American signals. He will probably be asked to answer tough questions.

As to what Mr. Obama might suggest to Mr. Trudeau regarding his Canadian opponents; “do what I do – use executive privilege and ignore the constitution”, in Canada that amounts to greater powers than the monarchy since even the monarchy can’t interfere with parliament.

It appears that the Trudeau liberals neither like free speech or freedom of press nor wish to consult the public on policies they are rapidly changing. Would they soon try to silence the voice of the people? As a Canadian from Iranian origin, I feel I have lost my Canadian identity since Mr. Trudeau won his majority Liberal regime in Canada.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ottawa silent on alleged Tamil terrorist in Kitchener

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared on the Mackenzie Institute for Security Matters website.

NPR: ‘We should protect our kids from global warming — by not having kids!’

‘U.S. environmentalists are taking a page from China’s mandatory one-child policy even as China abandons the policy. If these wacky climate activists believed their own literature they would realize that ‘global warming’ may lead to less kids! (See: Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet) The warmists have now graduated from regulating our light bulbs, coal plants and SUVs to regulating our family size. Let’s keep ‘global warming’ out of the bedroom! Let’s give families the freedom to choose how many kids they want!’

NPR article: ‘The climate crisis is a reproductive crisis’ – Solution? ‘A carbon tax — on kids’ – Philosopher claims ‘Climate Change” is “affecting the morality of procreation.’

‘Scientists warn that a catastrophic tipping point is possible in the next few decades’ (Climate Depot note: Really? Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!)

“Philosopher Travis Rieder asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be. “Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

“I’m not ready to have children because I don’t know what the climate’s gonna be like in 50 years’

Bringing down global fertility by just half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us,” he says.

Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child. Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids.

Sierra Club: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license’

Full article: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change- - NPR.clipular

August 18, 201611:09 AM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

By  – Jennifer Ludden is a correspondent on NPR’s National Desk

Full NPR program:

Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder (a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University) tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.

For years, people have lamented how bad things might get “for our grandchildren,” but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore.

He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.

“Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

Big Data Predicts Centuries Of Harm If Climate Warming Goes Unchecked

Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.

Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.

There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

His arguments sound pretty persuasive in the classroom. At home, it was a different matter.

Toward a Small Family Ethic: How Overpopulation and Climate Change Are Affecting the Morality of ProcreationToward a Small Family Ethic - How Overpopulation and - Travis N. Rieder - Springer.clipular

When she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can’t help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term “global warming” in elementary school. “Knowing that I gave that future to somebody is something that just doesn’t sit very well,” she says.

Full NPR article here: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Daily Caller: Sierra Club: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license’ – By Andrew Follett – Daily Caller – Energy and Environmental Reporter – There are entire environmental groups dedicated to the view that humans should stop having kids due to global warming and environmental issues. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, for example, claims that “voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters” and believes that humanity should commit species suicide rather than continue damaging the environment…Mainstream green groups, such as The Sierra Club, also hold a more limited version of the view that the freedom to have kids should be restricted to save the planet. “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing” David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club, stated in an interview.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who advised both Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claims that the maximum number of people Earth can support is a mere 1 billion people. As of 2016, there are more than 7.3 billion humans on Earth, making the question of which 6.3 billion people are supposed to die a fairly important one.

Dire predictions of greens have consistently failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The quality of life of the average person has also immeasurably improved.

Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth

NPR Lectures About Selfish Moms Having Kids in ‘Age of Climate Change’

Skeptics Mock: ‘Having less babies might cool the world. There are no kids in Antarctica, and there’s no warming there either. How many non-babies does it take to stop a flood in Bangladesh? Perhaps the IPCC has an App for that.’

Related Links: 

Warmist Mike Hulme: Since 1979, China’s ‘one-child’ policy’ has ‘avoided’ 300 million births — Reducing ‘about 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 from being emitted annually to global atmosphere’ – Warmist David Appell mocks Overpopulation/climate fears: ‘On the other hand, maybe one of those 300 Million people would have invented a technique for massive noncarbon energy production’

‘Sexism’ at the Olympics? How’s This: Why do Women’s Sports Even Exist?

My, my, there those feminists go, complaining again. This time the whining concerns supposedly “sexist” Olympics coverage. Their problem?

Many journalists are, we’re told, using different language when talking about female athletes than when speaking of male ones. Oh, the humanity!

There’s the guy who credited a female swimmer’s husband/coach for her success, the talk about a six-foot-three-inch South Korean woman volley ball player’s difficulty finding a boyfriend, and a reporter who called an equestrian rider “blondie.” Putting aside the female teacher who once called me blondie when I was 13, let’s have a reality check. Do you really think sports commentators don’t look for storylines, often infused with frivolity, relating to male athletes? And insofar as the treatment is different, so what? As even über-liberal Bill Maher once observed (I’m paraphrasing), “We have two standards because there are two sexes.” But speaking of standards and differences, let’s get to a quintessential feminist complaint in a recent (very) Lost Angeles Times piece about “sexist Olympics coverage.”

Citing a Cambridge University Press study, writer Julie Makinen tells us, “The research, which analyzed multibillion-word databases of written and spoken English language, found that in general, men are referenced twice as often as women, but when the topic is sports, the ratio is about 3 to 1.” Male athletes earn more money as well, which also irks the feminists.

Of course, this is much like complaining about how heavyweight boxers get more press than lightweights or, speaking of lightweights, like kvetching about Barack Obama getting more exposure than a state legislator from Lakeview. Has Makinen ever heard of “market forces”?

Yet there’s a simple reason why men are referenced in sports three times as much as women — and if I don’t say it, no one will.

Women’s sports aren’t exactly a quality product.

Oh, female athletes look great compared to a weekend warrior or a feminist scribe’s writing. But how much coverage should they get? And if unequal press and pay are your bugaboo, here’s a cause for you: high-school boy athletes get far less coverage than the women, and no pay at all. Is that fair?

Oh, there’s no comparison? That’s true, as the following illustrates:

  • In May, the Australian women’s soccer team, the Matildas — ranked five in the world — played an under-15 boys team.

The women lost — 7-0.

  • Lest you think this a fluke, the U.S. Women’s National Team (ranked number one in the world) lost 8-2 to the under-17 U.S. boys’ team in 2012. And these things actually happen all the time, everywhere, as the women regularly scrimmage with quality boys — and lose.
  • The world’s best women’s hockey team, the Canadian Women’s Olympic Team, played in the Alberta AAA Midget Hockey League (boys 15-17) during the 2013-2014 season. They finished dead last.
  • The mile record for 15-year-old boys is faster than the women’s world record.

Other examples abound, but the point has been made.

Now, given the above results, it’s ironic that soccer’s U.S. Women’s National Team actually filed a wage-discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Can the boys file a complaint, too?

As for skill levels, there’s a heck of a lot of daylight between boys whose voices recently cracked and top-tier men’s competition. How many rungs down on the ladder are the women, really?

So with this perspective, let me rephrase my earlier question: how much coverage (and money) should a 10th-rate sporting realm get? (Is this Farxism {feminist Marxism}: from each according to his abilities, to each according to her moaning and groaning?) Answer: forget comparisons with the men.

It would be far more appropriate if women athletes got the coverage and pay of the 15-year-old boys.

Speaking of which, why is it that people watch women’s sports, anyway (to the extent they do), instead of, let’s say, watching superior high-school boys’ competitions? Shouldn’t better athletes draw bigger audiences than lesser ones?

Women’s sports have the success they do largely because of political correctness. This has three basic effects:

  • There’s a general feeling that since men have a vibrant professional athletics arena, it’s only fair if the women do, too; this leads to institutional impetus to create, perpetuate and subsidize (e.g., the WNBA) professional women’s sporting opportunities.
  • Decades of feminism and politically correct portrayals of the sexes have led people to believe that female athletes are far better than they actually are. Do you really think women’s sports would enjoy even their current limited commercial success if the average person knew their athletes paled in comparison to high-level high-school boys?
  • Owing to the above, professional women’s sports are now institutionalized and, at least for some people, have become “a thing to watch.” It’s as with actors or singers. Commercial success requires not that you be the best (or second, third or seventh best) — only that you have a market. This, of course, also explains the careers of most politicians and journalists.

Any complaint about sex inequality in sports should be met with one simple response: if the women want the men’s press or purses, there’s an easy way to get them.

Compete in — and succeed — in the men’s arena. You’ll be the talk of the town.

Isn’t it a little odd, though, complaining about unequal treatment while supporting a system that’s inherently unequal; namely, having separate and protected tours, leagues and teams for women? It’s a bit like forming a basketball league exclusively for short Jewish guys and then bellyaching that they don’t command the salaries of the NBA stars. As The Federalist’s Denise McAllister wrote last year, “If we’re going to have equal pay, then we need to have equal play.”

Instead, people just play at Equality™. Second-rate pay for a tenth-rate arena may not be “fair,” but not in the way feminists think. And if they still don’t agree, I know some 15-year-old boys they can talk to about that.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Americans’ Triumph at Olympics Shows Greatness of Melting Pot, Not Diversity

Bloomberg School of Public Health Professor: Take Granny’s Gun

Gun ban advocates, knowing their goals aren’t especially popular with the American people, have in recent years tried to couch their agenda in more innocuous-sounding terms. They don’t want to ban all guns, they’ll say, they just want to keep them out of the wrong hands. But once you start paying close attention to their claims, you realize that the “wrong hands” might be closer and more numerous than you think … and might even include the more senior members of your family.

Breitbart News recently pointed out that an “expert” who works at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (BSPH) is sounding the alarm about firearm possession amongst the elderly. Perhaps not coincidentally, that “expert” also claims that firearm ownership is most common in America for those aged 50 or older.

Dr. Shannon Frattaroli of the Bloomberg School told New America Media that the typical gun control focus on crime and mass shootings leaves out the risks of firearm possession among older Americans. “[A]ny conversation about guns has to include a conversation [about] gun ownership among older adults,” she said. “There’s definitely more to be done on that issue in the United States.”

Frattaroli believes depression, frailty, dementia, grandchildren, and the risks of accidental shootings all counsel against senior citizens keeping firearms in their homes, as she claims, “they would harm someone coming into the home who’s not there for a home invasion, someone there for a legitimate purpose like a caretaker.”

One solution, the New America Media article suggests, is “competency tests for gun owners,” which would be similar to “requiring motorists to prove their proficiency behind the wheel as they grow older.” Another, according to Frattaroli, is allowing a concerned “loved one or neighbor” to obtain a court order to disarm gun owners whom the petitioner considers a risk to themselves or others.

It takes a true gun control extremist to paint Grandma with the same brush as others who are categorically prohibited from possessing firearms, such as felons or those who are addicted to illegal drugs like heroin or methamphetamine. 

And while Dr. Frattaroli’s views may seem extreme, she is far from alone in suggesting the aged have a dark side that weighs against trusting them with firearms. Even the Social Security Administration, as we’ve reported, is looking to get into the gun control business by reporting certain of its beneficiaries to the FBI as “mental defectives.”

But lest gun control advocates like Dr. Frattaroli be accused of age discrimination, college students fair no better in their eyes. A spirited classroom discussion is likely to provoke murderous rage, they insist. And if academic debate doesn’t lead to homicide, they argue, binge drinking or other degenerate behavior surely will. 

What about adults with children? Shouldn’t someone responsible enough to oversee the well-being of another human being be responsible enough for possessing an inanimate object like a firearm? No, gun control advocates argue. The safest course is for them to forgo guns as well, because the children will find them.  

Perhaps single women, then? No, gun controllers will tell you, because they’re too weak to hold onto the gun and too incapable to use it if they do. They’d be better off with whistles to summon help.  

Even in an age of advanced political correctness, apparently no stereotype is too offensive to be employed in the pursuit of banning guns. And when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of “dangerous people,” even the Bridge Club or the Shuffleboard League could prove just a little too high-risk to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Twitter bans Breitbart bad boy Milo, but not Islamic State-linked London imam

Revealed here: the priorities of the hard Leftists who control Twitter, and of Leftist social justice warriors who in general turn a blind eye to the jihad and consider it “Islamophobic” to stand against it.

Anjem-Choudary

Anjem Choudary

“Bias alert: Twitter bans Breitbart bad boy, but not ISIS-linked London loudmouth,” Fox News, August 18, 2016:

The Twitterverse has more to fear from a gay conservative than a fire-breathing ISIS recruiter if the social media giant’s treatment of a pair of prolific and provocative posters is to be squared.

Twitter banned Breitbart tech editor and openly gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for life last month after his followers tweeted objectionable comments targeting African-American “Ghostbusters” star Leslie Jones, but a recent case in London’s Old Bailey shows Twitter took a hands-off approach to the poisonous posts of Anjem Choudary.

Jurors in the United Kingdom were told this week that British authorities repeatedly sought to get Choudary’s Twitter posts and YouTube videos taken down after his pledge of allegiance to ISIS surfaced online. Choudary, who in interviews with Fox News and other media has for years made no secret of his embrace of Shariah law and Islamic radicalism, was convicted Tuesday of “inviting support for a proscribed organization,” namely ISIS. He faces up to 10 years in prison when he is sentenced next month.

MILO SHOWDuring the trial, prosecutors complained that despite Choudary’s incendiary Tweets and YouTube videos, they had no power to force social media companies to remove the material.

It’s a sharp contrast to the treatment Twitter last month afforded Yiannopoulos, who was banned from the 140-character forum after his “Ghostbusters” tweets, but says the ban is a reaction to years of conservative posts.

“An Islamic hate preacher convicted of inciting terrorism: fine,” Yiannopoulos told FoxNews.com. “A gay man expressing concern about Muslim immigration: not fine. Welcome to the new, Shariah-compliant Twitter.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Expert warns terrorists may be setting wildfires across American West

Russia: Muslim cleric says “all women should be circumcised”

Robert Spencer, PJM: Creeping Sharia: Kentucky Firefighter Forced Out for Burning a Qur’an

German asylum seekers refuse to work: ‘We are Merkel’s guests’

Decisions on Muslim migration made by leftist politicians have become a scourge on the German people and other European citizens, who have witnessed the slow metamorphosis of their peaceful communities while they pay with their tax dollars for the recklessness of their leaders such as Angela Merkel. Tens of thousands of crimes and assaults have been committed by Muslim migrants in Germany, but these are less of a concern to the politicians who walk with their security detail and their bank accounts intact.

Even in the midst of the Muslim migrant crisis in Germany, Mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, where the asylum seekers refused to accept work, stated his concern about this latest piece of news playing “into the hands of those opposing the mass migration,” evincing yet again the all too familiar stench of political posturing and a cruel disregard for those who cast their votes in trust.

“German asylum seekers refuse to work insisting ‘We are Merkel’s GUESTS’”, by Siobhan McFadyen and Monika Pallenberg, UK Express, August 18, 2016:

ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom – using Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generous hospitality as an excuse.

According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.

The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were “guests of Angela Merkel”.

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.

However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community.

In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.

But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany.

The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home.

Mayor Pohlers said: “It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work.

“Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg.”

Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work.

Mayor Pohlers added: “In a specially convened meeting with an interpreter the authorities explained the rules again.

“Unfortunately, no agreement could be reached on the continuation of the measure.”

Now all seven of the jobs have been scrapped.

The mayor spoke out in a bid to highlight the issue of the asylum crisis in Germany.

He said he is aware his statements could play into the hands of those opposing the mass migration.

However after having raised money from the local community to help aid the asylum seeker’s transition into the community, he felt compelled to speak out…..

RELATED ARTICLE: Italians reject plans for mosque next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa