Above - Mohammed Karrar, his brother Bassam, and Anjum Dogar
A jury took just five hours and three minutes to find them guilty by a unanimous verdict at Oxford Crown Court this afternoon.
Dogar and Mohammed Karrar both took to the witness box during the trial in a bid to deny any wrong-doing. Dogar claimed one instance of abuse - at a parked car in Cutteslowe Park in which the victim was forced to perform sex acts on a number of men - was simply 'banter'. Karrar claimed he was 'no angel' but told jurors he was not a paedophile or a rapist.
Despite their claims of innocence jurors found all men guilty on all counts.
The abusers, who are already in prison for similar offences, will be sentenced in January. The three men were part of a violent sex grooming ring convicted in 2013 of abusing six girls from Oxford over an eight-year period after a police operation codenamed Bullfinch.
The verdicts come after another trial ended earlier this year in which eight men were jailed for grooming a number of victims, including the victim in this case.
The verdicts in full:
Mohammed Karrar was found guilty by unanimous verdict of three counts of indecent assault, one count of rape and one count of conspiracy to rape.
Bassam Karrar was found guilty by unanimous verdict of one count of indecent assault and one count of rape.
Dogar was found guilty by unanimous verdict of one count of indecent assault, and three counts of conspiracy to rape.
After the unanimous verdicts for charges including indecent assault, conspiracy to rape and rape were read out, Mohammed Karrar clapped the jury.
Anything you can be, I can be greater, sooner or later I’m greater than you. Certainly, this sanguine proclamation may be overly favorable, in view of existing forms of discrimination, but in a changing cultural climate, women in the U.S. and elsewhere are expressing themselves in a more open and franker way than in the past and participating in social and political experiences in more equal fashion than in the past.
Evidence of this shift is mixed but one simple example of change in the U.S. occupational area is that until the 1970s most U.S. architecture schools refused to admit women, with the result that only about 20% of licensed architects are women who earn less than males at equivalent level, but now, half of the students in graduate schools in architecture programs are women.
In the past there may have been inexcusable silence or scant concern over the reality regarding women, their sexual experiences or the gender pay gaps and inequalities, but now more attention is being paid, though the inequities still exist.
In this change, the Me Too movement is playing a significant role to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault, especially but not only in the workplace. Significantly, in December 2018 many radio stations in the U.S. have refused to play the song Baby it’s Cold Outsidew ritten in 1944 by Frank Loesser, because of alleged suggestions of rape in the lyrics. It is also not coincidental that Kevin Hart, African-American comedian, who was chosen as Oscar presenter in 2018 was let go because of his past homophobic comments. Nor that a film critic was fired in December 2018 for an offensive joke concerning the scene in Bernardo Bertolucci’s 1973 film, Last Tango in Paris, in which the protagonist, played by Marlon Brando, rapes a young woman using butter as a lubricant while having anal sex.
The inequities confronting women are clear. Women face discrimination, and sometimes violence, economically and socially. About 90% of countries have some form of legal restriction on women's economic activity, and gender gaps exist in health, education, investing in infrastructure, and access to clean water, issues. The gender gap remains, women hold only 4.9% of top economic roles heading the largest U.S. and European companies, 6.9% in the U.S, and none in Denmark and Italy. One recent study of 14 countries shows that only one fifth of board seats are held by women. Of women in 2018 in the world, only 2% of chief executives in banks are women.
Not only does the gender gap remain, other problems exist. One is that women are less likely to be recommended for a senior job than is an equally qualified man. Another is the phenomenon of what is called the “glass cliff,” that women are more likely than men to be given top jobs, in economics and in politics, during periods of decline, when chances of failures are highest.
Yet, a significant shift appears to have occurred, Women in 2018 account for 38% of oncoming board members at Fortune 500 companies, a rise from the 28% in 2017. If this rise continues, women will have parity with men in new appointments by 2025.
This optimistic forecast may be borne out by two factors: one is change in public law as in California, where publicly traded corporations must include at least one woman on their boards by the end of 2019, and in Iceland.
The other factor is shown in recent studies that boys underperform girls at school, are worse at reading, and are less likely to go to university than young women who are more self-disciplined. Moreover, jobs dominated by men such as driving are among those most likely to be automated.
In spite of discrimination, politically and socially, women are present in prominent roles. British Prime Minister Theresa May, cricket lover who likes James Bond movies, survived a no-confidence vote, 200 to 117, called by fellow Conservative MPs, in December 2018, and counterattacked against a critical, if not insulting, remark by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission. PM May differs temperamentally from Britain’s previous woman PM, Margaret Thatcher, but like her predecessor May has mastered the art of “handbag politics.” Thatcher’s strong presentation of British policy in 1984 led French President Francois Mitterrand to describe her as having “the eyes of Caligua and the lips of Marilyn Monroe.” Theresa May at the EU summit meeting on December 13, 2018 strongly rebuked Juncker in a robust conversation for stating that her demand for changes in the Brexit negotiations were “nebulous imprecise.” May did not use her handbag but exchanged heated words with Juncker, making her position “crystal clear.”
Other women provide the headlines. Nancy Pelosi, 78 year old shrewd political operator and fundraiser, was approved by her Democratic colleagues to resume her speakership of the House of Representatives. Meghan Markle, former TV actress now Duchess of Sussex, said to be obsessed with Givenchy and Audrey Hepburn, and hitherto involved with a variety of charities and UN advocate for Women’s Political Participation and Leadership, has risen to her new royal role. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany four times announced she would cede her position as leader of her Christian Democratic party and step down as Chancellor when her term ends in 2021. She will be replaced by another woman. Interestingly, a woman for first time was selected as Director of the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.
If women are still the subject of social discrimination and of inequality, change is occurring in an unexpected way. One interesting sign of this is found in recent historical publications and films which feature, in open, direct fashion, lesbian sex scenes, as well as interest in the life of Sappho, born 2,600 years ago on the island of Lesbos, now the village site of 3,000-4,000 women visitors every year. Some of the films deal with well-known historical characters, usually discussed in the past with less than full frankness. One such film is Colette based on the life of the prolific writer, author of Claudine novels, in the early 20th century, and of Gigi in 1944. A flamboyant example of the modern woman, Colette wrote about and lived a bisexual life, with both author and character wearing men’s clothing.
Lesbianism is also at the center of films of other relationships, one the 18thcentury romance between Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough and Queen Anne, with Sarah competing with a lady in waiting for love of the Queen. A third film illustrates the liaison between well-known British writers, Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf. The liaison is an example of the jest that upper class British intellectuals in the 20th century lived in squares in Bloomsbury, London, but loved in triangles.
There are also increasing allusions to former same sex relationships. Two in particular have become more prominent. One is Anne Lister, 19th century landowner, honored with a plaque in July 2018 by a church in York, England, who dressed as a man and had a string of overlapping female lovers. Often referred to as the “first modern lesbian,” her plaque is bordered with rainbow colors in recognition of lesbian history. She is the central figure in a BBC TV named Gentleman Jack, Lister’s nickname.
A more well-known figure is Lizzie Borden who in 1892 was tried and acquitted of murder. According to legend, Lizzie took an axe to give her mother 40 whacks, then gave her father 41 more. The apparent motive, asserted in new documentaries, was her desire to live with the family maid.
Interestingly, irrespective of the lesbian theme, films in 2017 starring women were box office hits, and movies in the last five years starring women earned more than film starring men. Apparently, it is good business to have feminine leads, though women accounted for only a quarter of major characters.
This recent concentration on lesbian personalities is the outcome of changing cultural sensibility on sexual issues, but also of other factors, particularly the revulsion against the growing evidence of abuse of women by predatory males in prominent positions. More mainstream, are indications that business boards are making progress, if only slight improvement, toward gender parity. Yet the conclusion must be that still more needs to be done to improve gender diversity in senior positions. Policy makers must no longer be chasing rainbows, watching clouds drifting by.
Police raided a mosque and several other buildings in Berlin on Tuesday morning in an operation into suspected terrorism financing, prosecutors said. State criminal police, intelligence officers as well as special police forces took part in the raids, which included the As-Sahaba mosque in the Berlin neighborhood of Wedding.
One of the main suspects was identified as Ahmad A., an imam at the mosque who preaches under the name of Abul Baraa.
The 45-year-old is suspected of sending money to an Islamist fighter in Syria "for purchasing military equipment to carry out terrorist criminal acts," prosecutors said on Twitter.
The As-Sahaba mosque is under surveillance by Germany's domestic intelligence agency and is considered an important meeting point for members of Germany's radical Salafist scene, according to the Berliner Morgenpost newspaper.
The mosque was founded in 2010 by the German-Egyptian Islamist Reda Seyam, who is accused of taking part in a terror attack in Bali, according to the paper. He later left Germany to travel to Syria to become the "education minister" for the militant "Islamic State" (IS) group.
Ustaz Abdulfattah Adeyemi, a renowned Islamic scholar and founder of Baynakum Family Counseling Center has told women that their husbands are meant to be shared with other women.
The cleric said this in a paper entitled: “Charity, a path to Jannah,” which he presented in Abuja during the inauguration of Sisters of Jannah, a Muslim women’s charity organisation.
Charging women to be magnanimous in sharing their husbands, Ustaz admonished them “not to deny their husbands polygamy,” but should only pray that the husbands treat all equally in any action taken. He regretted that some married women were “so over-protective” of their husbands, thereby denying the men their wishes of having more wives, describing such as “ungodly.”
He urged housewives to “stop being unnecessarily jealous of their husbands’ relationships outside.”
According to him, the faithfulness of men can only be known after their death, saying some men father children outside their marriages, only for their secrets to be uncovered after their death.
He blamed wives for the men’s actions.
Ustaz said, “Let me tell you that ... your husband is not your property; ...If you want your husband 100 per cent, then you are a thief; you are going beyond the 25 per cent that is yours; the remaining 75 per cent belongs to other ladies.
"Men are not stupid, the men are even becoming smart. . . if you think you are too smart, men are smarter. Let us fear Allah, as much as possible."
Ustaz said women were the reasons most polygamous homes fail, saying they should have a change of heart.
“Whenever you see polygamy that is not successful, it is because of a woman. It is women that are the enemies of women. . . It is two women that are both diabolical because of a man. We men are the Angels that Allah sends to help women.”
Speaking on the topic: “Islam and Feminism”, founder and chancellor of Islamic Online University, Dr. Bilal Philips, (well known preacher of hate, originally from Jamaica, currently in Canada, banned from UK, Denmark and The Phillipines) challenged Muslim women to seek knowledge so as to better their understanding of things. He said he was speaking on the topic to clarify the distinction between western feminism and feminism within the context of Islam.
“These distinctions need to be made in order for Muslim women to understand where they should focus and stay within the modern path, so as not to go to the extreme and break the laws of Sharia.
Cherif Chekatt: Strasbourg Christmas market attacker supported Isis, says father as fifth victim dies
The father of the gunman who embarked on a deadly shooting spree at a Christmas market in Strasbourg has said his son was an Isis supporter, as officials said a fifth person had died from their wounds.
Abdelkrim Chekatt said Chérif Chekatt, 29, believed the Islamic terror group was “fighting for a just cause”.
Five people were killed and 12 others were wounded in the gun attack on Tuesday. The Paris prosecutor's office said a Polish national became the fifth victim on Sunday.
His parents and two brothers were among seven arrested as police investigated whether others were involved in the attack. The four family members have since been released “due to the lack of incriminating evidence at this stage”, the Paris prosecutor’s office said.
Speaking to the TV channel France 2, Abdelkrim Chekatt denied knowing his son was planning the shooting and said he had tried to discourage his extremist beliefs.
Isis’s propaganda wing has described Cherif Chekatt as a “soldier”, but French authorities say there is no evidence the group was involved in the attack. The country’s interior minister, Christophe Castaner, said Isis’s claim of responsibility was “totally opportunistic”.
Investigators are trying to determine whether he had accomplices in the Christmas market attack.
The three other people arrested, who are not family members but were close to Chekatt, remain in custody.
His father said he went to police of his own accord on the night of the shooting spree. He claimed he had offered to “reason with” his son to convince him to give himself up if police found him. If he had known his son was planning a deadly rampage, he would have “denounced him, and he wouldn’t have killed or been killed”, Mr Chekatt added.
At a conference held in Berlin on “Islam in Germany” (Deutsche Islam Konferenz), sponsored by the Ministry of the Interior, on November 28 and 29, and attended by both Muslims and non-Muslims, a buffet offered a variety of foods. Of the thirteen different foods on offer, twelve were halal or vegetarian options. Exactly one was non-halal — blutwurst, a sausage made of pork products. All of the foods at the buffet, German government officials explained, were clearly marked, so that no Muslim might by mistake help himself to the non-halal offering.
But Muslim outrage was nonetheless whipped up by the inclusion of that single non-halal offering. A Turkish-German journalist, Tuncay Özdamar, wrote on Twitter: “What signal does Seehofer’s interior ministry want to send? A little respect for Muslims, who don’t eat pork, is needed.”
This became An Outrage Against Muslims That Required An Apology. The Ministry of the Interior promptly did so, contrite over its apparently inexcusable non-halal error, explaining that the food selection had been designed for the “diverse religious attendance” at the German Islam Conference. It apologised “if individuals felt offended in their religious feelings.”
But the Ministry was wrong to do so. If Muslims are to be integrated successfully into Germany which, after all, was a main point of the conference, they should have been able to tolerate a single non-halal offering. Their outrage was itself outrageous.
The Ministry should instead have issued the following statement:
“The buffet at the Conference on Islam in Germany contained 13 dishes. Only one was non-halal. All the dishes were clearly marked. It did not, and does not, seem unreasonable to us that there be one such dish, which was intended to satisfy the tastes of the German non-Muslim attendees, including representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, at the conference. We believe that any outrage about this is unacceptable, and we reject, and deplore, the demand by some for an apology.”
Of course instead of that forthright and uncompromising reply, we had the Ministry’s expression of regret at having caused offense to Muslims. This is, after all, Angela Merkel’s Germany, where the Muslim appetite for apologies is never sated, but always whet.
Obviously, we’re about to celebrate the birth of Our Saviour Jesus Christ. We know where he was born —in an inn’s stable in Bethlehem—but do you know the answers to the following questions regarding the births of famous people?
1) Which famous television personality (former politician, former news anchor, former game show host, former talk show host) was born near Karl Marx’s grave, but a few hundred feet deeper down than the communist philosopher is buried, on the thirteenth of February in AD 1944?
2) Which famous President of the U.S.A. was born hard by one of today’s delicious Bourbons?
3) Which lead vocalist of a famous rock band was born in the city that gave its name to the Angora wool shorn from Angora rabbits, the long-haired Angora goat (the source of mohair), and the Angora cat?
4) Which famous Emperor and conqueror of the land between the two rivers was born on the sixth day of Hekatombaion in the city whose ancient Greek name means stone and where a famous Curse Tablet was found in AD 1986?
5) What is the name of the person who was born (circa 1810 BC) in the city that is described in Genesis 10:10 as being founded by Nimrod and who is assumed to have been the first to codify a system of laws, one of which we quote to this day as “an eye for an eye?”
6) The Browning Auto-5 was manufactured by a firm based in this city, the city of Pippin, and The Hammer was born here also. By what name is The Hammer more usually known to us today and who did he hammer?
7) The imperial family of an empire lived in relative luxury in this city for round about a year. It was also the administrative centre of the home province of “the mad monk” who helped to cause their downfall, but what was the name of the chemist who created the first valid periodic table of the elements in AD 1869 and who was born in this city?
8) Rambam, probably the most famous Jewish philosopher ever, was born in this town that put up with only its Roman bridge across its dividing river until the construction of the San Rafael Bridge in the mid-twentieth century. What was the great thinker’s real name?
9) This mathematician who is reputed to have said that God created the best of all possible worlds and who simultaneously with, but separately from, Newton invented calculus, was born in this city that is also famous for hosting Friedrich Schiller when he wrote his poem "Ode to Joy". What is the name of this famous polymathic mathematician?
10) This author was born in the city known as The Abode of Clouds. She has been charged with sedition for her misguided vocal support for the violent Mohammedan separatists in a province of her home country. What is her name?
(11) Name all the places where the people in the previous ten questions were born.
There will be answers to every part of this quiz after the New Year.
There will be a small prize for the first person, drawn at random, who correctly answers all, or the most, questions and emails me their answers to
You may email your answers to each section as you finish it or save them all up and email me the lot when the quiz is complete, but don’t lose your answers in the meantime if you choose to do the latter.
Even if you don’t manage to answer every question, or think that you might have got some wrong answers, do still join in and send me your entry—you might still win.
A man has appeared in court accused of buying a knife, balaclava and ‘explosive pre-cursors’ including chemicals, more than 8,000 matches and a number of fuses, while planning a Christmas terror attack in the UK. Iranian Fatah Mohammed Abdullah, 33, from Arthur’s Hill in Newcastle, is also alleged to have searched online for components, including a pressure cooker, to make an explosive. He was accompanied by three police officers in the dock at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on Saturday.
Adbullah, who represented himself, was arrested on Tuesday last week after more than a hundred police officers carried out a raid on a home in Newcastle last week.
The suspect wore a grey tracksuit, sported dark stubble and sat with his hands clasped behind his neck for most of the hearing. He faces one count of engaging, between April 9 and December 11, in the preparation of an act of terrorism, contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
Asked if there was anything he wanted to say Abdullah replied: ‘I just want to go home.’ The court heard he came to the UK from Iran in 2005 and was granted leave to remain in 2010. District Judge Kwame Inyundo remanded Abdullah in custody to appear at the Old Bailey on January 14.
Pulling down the makeshift camp at Calais had to be done, for the good of the French being threatened in Calais. The fault here is with those breaking the law with their makeshift camp, not with the French authorities who dare to enforce it.
So what can be done? Extreme circumstances have prompted extreme responses, with one French intellectual, Professor Christian Moliner, even suggesting a parallel Muslim state should effectively exist in France, so that any Muslims who wished to do so could follow sharia law, in order to prevent civil disturbances.’He said that if this did not come about, there could be a civil war in France.
Moliner, an author on Islam, stated: ‘We can never convert the 30 per cent of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia law to the merits of our democracy and secularism.
“We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name.’’
This suggestion by Professor Moliner is madness. It shows how unhinged the Muslim invasion of Europe has made people. Were the French to meet the demands of those Muslims in France — by his own calculation, at least two million of them — who want to live under the Sharia, then a parallel state within France, run according to the Sharia, would be created. That means millions of people would be outside the French legal system. Family law would presumably allow for polygyny, would include the right of a husband to beat a “disobedient’’ wife; would permit a husband to divorce his wife by uttering the triple-talaq; would give a daughter only half the inheritance rights of a son. The criminal law would include barbaric punishments, including amputations for robbery and stoning for adultery, that in the advanced West we rightly cannot countenance. Instead of religious freedom, apostates from Islam could be subject to execution. As for freedom of speech, those wishing to live under this legal regime would be able to punish “blasphemy,” which should shut down any public criticism of Islam or of Muhammad.
There is a better way. That is for the French state to reassert itself, to change the rules before the Muslim population gets even bigger. The government can put an end to Muslim immigration; it has a right to decide whom it will allow to enter and settle, and whom it wants to keep out. It need not be defensive about recognizing the unprecedented menace of Muslim immigrants. It has a responsibility to draw conclusions from, rather than ignore, its experience of large-scale Muslim immigration. Despite the great openness the French initially displayed toward Muslims, and the continuing generosity of the French state, such immigration hasn’t worked out. A determined and sustained effort should be made to deport all illegal Muslim migrants. Those who are dual nationals, if found to have supported terrorist groups, should be stripped of their citizenship. The French need to recognize that an undeclared war is being waged by Muslims in France against France. Once this is understood, a legal framework sufficient to the task can be created. Of course, this assumes that the French authorities will come to their senses in time. Ideological surrender born of despair, which is what Christian Moliner counsels with his Sharia proposal, should not be an option.
Even Left-wingers belatedly acknowledge the scale of the problem. Veteran politician Jean-Louis Borloo, a former minister, was this year tasked by President Macron to research and write a report on the burgeoning problem of the Parisian suburbs.
As well as recommending that €5 billion be spent, he stressed the need for ‘national reconciliation’, especially in districts facing up to the withdrawal of French identity and community, which in turn fuels xenophobia.
How can the French have “national reconciliation” with Muslims, whose Qur’an teaches them to regard themselves as the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims as “the most vile of creatures”? With Muslims, who are taught to wage violent Jihad against Infidels in over 100 Qur’anic verses, and to “strike terror” in their hearts? With Muslims, who are told to never take Christians and Jews as friends? When, as Borloo says, Muslims withdrew from a French identity and the French community, what should the French have done? They didn’t will it; the Muslims did. Why should the “best of peoples” have to reconcile with the “most vile of creatures”? And if the French feel a justified anger after all the sums that have been and are still being spent on ungrateful and hostile Muslim migrants, happy to pocket still more of French taxpayers’ money (and another 5 billion euros, as suggested by Jean-Louis Borloo, will be pocketed, but not change Muslim hearts and minds), it is wrong to call this “xenophobia.”
France has, after all, been open to the world. It has welcomed millions of other, non-Muslim migrants — refugees from the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, Portuguese workers in the 1950s, Italian miners throughout the 20th century, and more recently, Latin Americans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Christians from black Africa and the Caribbean, Hindus, Buddhists, even Americans — without any of those migrants causing the problems that arise with Muslim immigrants, not just in France, but all over Europe.
Having had the good fortune to spend much of my working life reporting from around the world, and Africa in particular, I adore melting pots of different cultures, languages and races.
And I have almost always been treated with kindness and respect in Muslim countries.
In Muslim countries, there is no doubt who rules; the resentment Muslims feel in Infidel lands is absent. When sure of their position, as “the best of peoples,” they have no need to prove their superior status to a visiting journalist. And why not show a little “kindness” and feigned “respect” if the result is good coverage? These are, after all, people well-versed in the art of taqiyya.
Yet, frankly, the time I spent in Paris has convinced me of the difficulty of achieving genuine integration between these defiant, troubled inner-city Muslim communities and mainstream French society.
Indeed, the only person to shake my hand during my visit was the rabbi. Everyone else offered me their wrist, not wanting to touch hands with an infidel — someone unclean.
As a metaphor for what is happening in the French capital, it couldn’t be more sad — or more troubling.
Indeed. How can one expect or plan for “national reconciliation” with people who won’t even shake your hand because, as an Infidel, you are regarded as unclean? People who think it amusing to pretend to shoot down French helicopters, people who are happy to violate French laws, to openly deal in drugs and stolen goods, to threaten the forces of order, who enter Saint-Denis only in groups of four? And these people, beneficiaries of so much that the French state provides, add to this largesse the sums they make by trafficking in drugs, or by robbing French people on the street, or burglarizing their homes, at the same time complain that it is they who are being harassed for no apparent reason. It is not Muslims, but Unbelievers, who are afraid to walk the streets, and not just in Saint-Denis.
In this now-deleted Report From Hell, realism briefly broke through, and left Andrew Malone, a veteran journalist, thoroughly alarmed about what he experienced in Saint-Denis and what he fears is still to come. What’s to come is even more, and even bigger, Muslim ghettos in France, though these “ghettos” are not forced on Muslims, but rather created by them, as their violent behavior drives out Christians and Jews from whatever area Muslims settle in, in numbers sufficient to make that area their own. It is in those areas that they create an economy based on government benefits and crime, including the drug trade, and — carried out in “French” areas of Paris — street robberies and house burglaries. And it is in Seine-Saint-Denis that jihadis have planned attacks, and after carrying them out, hidden from the police, as did those who were responsible for the mass murders at the Bataclan nightclub.
This report from Saint-Denis is a cautionary tale. The French need to make up for their own earlier optimistic misunderstandings of Islam, that some still cling to, with their dreams of “national reconciliation,” and to understand that a silent invasion has taken place in their country, as in much of the rest of Europe. There is still time, using laws now on the books and laws not yet on the books, to reduce the threat in France to manageable proportions. But first you have to recognize, rather than deny, that threat.
Andrew Malone’s forthright observations on the Muslim “ghetto” of Seine Saint-Denis are a good place to start. But it is not at all a good sign that the Daily Mail deleted his report under pressure, with promises to restore it that never came to fruition. That incident in itself is an indication that the crisis in France, as well as in Britain and Europe as a whole, may be too far advanced now to address adequately.
A Report From Hell: Seine Saint-Denis (Part Three)
by Hugh Fitzgerald
The French police do not engage in “harassment,” as the Muslims complain; there is only the occasional attempt of a frazzled and frightened gendarmerie to discourage the drug dealers, the thieves, the criminals of all kinds, including terrorists on the run, who find their refuge in Saint-Denis. So menacing are the Muslim gangs that the French police now must enter Saint-Denis with at least four policemen in each squad car.
Riots erupted in February last year after a young black man was allegedly sexually assaulted with a baton by police officers.
Migrant camps, set up in tents along the Seine in this area of Paris, were destroyed by the police in May, with the occupants who didn’t get away taken for processing in detention centers after a raid.
And what were the French to do? Should they simply have allowed these miserable illegal camps to remain in the very heart of Paris, right along the Seine? With the open trafficking in drugs, the garbage piling up, the human stench, too, not only from an absence of toilets — in the middle of a city that lives by tourism, they had to do something.
Yasser Lout of CCIF (Group Combating Islamophobia in France) said attacks and harassment of innocent Muslim communities had ‘risen considerably since the terrorist attacks’, even though many of the victims of the 2015 Paris outrage were Muslims.
“Mosques have been firebombed, and Muslim centers daubed with pigs’ blood. New powers for the security services make house searches and arrest easier, especially when suspects are targeted because of their ‘physical [Arab] appearance’, said Mr Louati.
One would like to have examples provided of “innocent Muslim communities” that have suffered “attacks and harassment” in France. I have searched up hill and down dale and have found no attacks on such “innocent communities,” but rather, a few isolated incidents — three blank grenades flung on the ground outside a mosque, a single bullet hole in the same mosque fired at night when no one would be present, several shots fired at an empty prayer hall, pigs’ heads placed outside several mosques. These are, of course, deplorable, but there was no physical injuries to anyone. No “communities” under attack. No murders of Muslims. Nothing like what has happened at Charlie Hebdo, or at the HyperCacher, or at the Bataclan, in Paris, or in Toulouse outside a Jewish school, or in Nice, along the Promenade des Anglais, or in a church in Normandy.
The influx of migrants into Saint-Denis has been made worse because of a crackdown at Calais which has seen the infamous Jungle camp — used by migrants as a base to try to reach England — demolished and thousands of inmates dispersed.
One group I met comprised migrants trying to reach Britain who told me they were originally from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ghana, which may be troubled but are hardly war-torn. I also met men from Afghanistan.
Andrew Malone notes that the French helped prevent migrants from reaching England by demolishing their camp at Calais, thereby “making worse” the “influx” of migrants to Saint-Denis. What should the French have done? Left all those Muslims to continue disrupting local life from the hideous camp they constructed in Calais, which the French rightly call the “Jungle”? Left them undisturbed so that they could continue to engage in drug trafficking and petty crime from their roost in the Jungle, and from which they keep trying to smuggle themselves, inside lorries, into England? The French police were doing the British a favor, by destroying that camp for criminals intent on entering the U.K.
‘We will stay here until we can get to Britain,‘ I was told. ‘In London they will give you a home; here, they just let you sleep in a park. I will make friends there and find a girlfriend.’
And why do these people want to get to England? Because they think — they’ve heard through the Muslim tam-tam — that the benefits are even better there than in France. That’s what their movements are all about — finding the most generous welfare state, helping themselves to every benefit on offer, supplementing that with money made from crime. No, in London “they will not give you a home” — at least not yet, but it’s an understandable mistake, given how much Muslims do receive. As for finding a “girfriend” — well, there’s always Rotherham. Is that what Malone’s Muslim informant had in mind, as I suspect? Not exactly a desirable kind of immigrant. He says nothing about wanting to contribute to Great Britain. He wants a free house. He wants a girlfriend. That’s the extent of his vision.
Why should Canada extradite anyone to a prosecutocracy?
The United States is not, by Canada’s standards, in criminal matters, a society of laws
by Conrad Black
The last week has been an auspicious one in displaying the judicial and legal deficit of the United States compared to this country. The arrest and bail of Meng Wanzhou has been handled with exemplary fairness. The United States should be supported by all civilized countries in the imposition of sanctions on Iran until Iran believably and verifiably renounces nuclear weapons, or miraculously bootstraps itself into being a country that can be trusted to have them. The agreement the United States largely negotiated, signed by France, Germany, the U.K., China and Russia as well as Iran, provides a porous inspection system and requires Iran to wait 10 years before completing a military nuclear missile program. In the meantime, it is free to retain fissile material, develop missiles and warheads capable of carrying a nuclear payload, but not actually to deploy nuclear weapons. This was an insane arrangement and the Trump administration is right, both legally and in terms of the strategic interests of all civilized countries, to withdraw from it and impose sanctions on those who do not observe American sanctions on Iran. It has received no recognition for this, but with Iran and with North Korea, the Trump administration is the last hope of nuclear non-proliferation. Most of the other nuclear powers have rolled over like poodles and enjoyed trading with an Iran briefly re-enriched by President Obama’s release of $150 billion of Iranian assets the United States had frozen, and the full resumption of Iranian oil exports.
In this framework, it was reasonable for the United States to request the detention of Meng as the finance director (and daughter of the founder) of China’s largest private company, the telecom giant Huawei, for sanctions violations. Given the existing treaty with the United States, Canada was right to detain her, and has been right to ignore, apart from normal diplomatic niceties, any pressure from the United States and China to influence the operation of Canadian courts. The fact that the United States and China are the world’s two most powerful countries should not be, and as far as can be judged, has not been, taken into account by the Vancouver court where Meng’s bail hearing occurred. Her personal history, the circumstances of the case, and the quantum of bail posted make the verdict — grant bail at $10 million — perfectly sensible. Even if Meng contrived to flee the country, the Americans have made their point about the sanctions on Iran.
A larger and more complicated question is that we should not have an extradition treaty with the United States at all. The manipulation of the plea bargain system, where prosecutors charge someone, catechize him to make fraudulent allegations of wrongdoing against someone targeted by a prosecutor, in exchange for non-prosecution or a light sentence, and with a guaranty of immunity from perjury charges, has produced America’s North Korean levels of prosecution success: a 99 per cent conviction rate, 95 per cent of those without a trial. The Bill of Rights’ Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Constitutional Amendment guaranties of a grand jury to avoid capricious prosecution, due process, no seizure of property without just compensation, access to counsel, prompt justice and reasonable bail, were all put to the shredder decades ago while the Supreme Court sat in perfect inertia, even before every nomination to its bench became a fierce struggle between exponents of a literal interpretation of the text of the Constitution, and those who wish to expand its meaning to give greater authority to the executive branch in response to modern conditions. The United States is not, by Canada’s standards, in criminal matters, a society of laws at all. It is a prosecutocracy and a carceral state which has six to 12 times as many imprisoned people per capita as other comparable wealthy democratic countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. We should revoke the extradition treaty and cease to send people compulsorily to any country with an inadequate assurance of due process for the accused. As long as there is the Canada-U.S. treaty, we must honour it, as we have with Meng, whatever China (where the concept of rights scarcely exists), says about it. But we were right to bail her.
This brings us to the current mighty legal imbroglio in the U.S. government. The supporters of the president are solid and none of this controversy is moving the needle in the polls, despite the wall-to-wall smear campaign of most of the national media. And the president’s enemies are so numerous and transported by hate that they cannot accept the legitimacy of his election, and seem determined to try to remove him from office at any cost. Donald Trump attacked the entire political establishment, including both party establishments, the political media, and the political activities of Hollywood and Wall Street. He and his supporters believe he is conducting a crusade against the corrupt elites that flat-lined the economy, produced a pathetic semi-isolationist foreign policy, allowed America’s pocket to be picked in trade and in the Western Alliance, authored the greatest financial crisis in 80 years, and waged perpetual war in the Middle East, mainly to the advantage of the Iranians, with several countries disintegrating, creating a mighty humanitarian crisis with millions of desperate refugees. His enemies are repelled by his boorishness and believe he is the source and agent of corruption, and not they.
The largely unrecognized result of the mid-term elections is that now the issue can be forced by both sides at the same time. The Russian-Trump campaign collusion narrative has collapsed, there is no evidence for it and it is a dead pigeon. In its place is the suggestion that two women who claim to have had consensual sexual encounters with the president more than 10 years ago tried to blackmail him, so Trump’s former lawyer claims, as part of his plea bargain over other matters, that Trump told him to pay them off in what he knew to be a violation of campaign financing laws. Thus did the future president supposedly commit crimes.
This is insane — a person can contribute to his own campaign, and these payments were no more related to his campaign than if he had bought mouth-wash or a new suit to enhance his chances of election. The Democrats have given notice that they will shut down the House of Representatives investigations of the Clinton campaign, and the Republicans, having strengthened their position in the Senate, have said they will expand those investigations there. The former FBI director, James Comey, whom Trump fired, told the House judiciary committee last week 245 times that he did not remember matters that had arisen three years ago, and told an audience in New York a day later that it was a necessity to defeat Trump in the next election. (The Democratic line is that his biases did not influence his conduct.) Hillary Clinton, Comey, former intelligence directors John Brennan and James Clapper, and Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch and others have lied to federal officials or Congress and/or are enmeshed in the fake Steele dossier and the falsely justified domestic surveillance (FISA warrants) of the Trump campaign. All of them are sitting ducks legally. If the Democrats try to indict or impeach Trump on the spurious bunk about campaign finance, that entire party will commit suicide.
It is the immoveable object and the irresistible force, and it appears to be inexorable, and may start with a partial government shut-down over border security next week. It is almost impossible for the Democrats to win this battle, but they may be stupid enough to try. Those who think it has been a tawdry business up to now will learn that this has been a mere sorbet before what’s coming.
Canada may not be exciting, but it is a society of laws. The United States is a jungle and the war of the jungle beasts is reaching its climax. The American facade of Norman Rockwell and Walt Disney is being demolished; but America has never lost the genius of the spectacle. The world will not have seen an extravaganza on such a scale as this since the Russian Revolution. This will have a happier outcome — Donald Trump is a strange cat but he’s no Stalin.
Further down the street, there was a flurry of activity. A woman was surrounded as she opened a huge bag full of phones, shoes, sunglasses and handbags — clearly stolen from tourists or Parisians. The goods were quickly sold and the crowd melted away.
Unemployed or underemployed Muslim migrants (and there are many) who are legal can count on a cornucopia of benefits provided by the French state, including free or subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, family allowances, and unemployment benefits. Even illegal ones manage to receive some of these benefits, such as free medical care through Aide médicale d’État.
Police have reportedly admitted the area is a ‘no-go’ zone, and will only drive through the areas armed and four to a vehicle….
The appalling attacks in November 2015 by home-grown Islamic State killers shone a pitiless spotlight on the problems that can grow out of immigrant ghettos.
These are not ”immigrant ghettos,” but “Muslim ghettos” (which include Muslims born in France).
The carnage started close to the Stade de France, the national sports stadium, which is in Saint-Denis, where some of the killers sought refuge after the attacks.
One hundred and thirty people died in a single night of violence involving suicide bombings and Kalashnikov fire around bars, cafés and venues, including the Bataclan concert hall.
Five days after the attacks, the suspected mastermind was run to ground in an apartment by hundreds of security officers….
‘The terrorists had rented rooms with no questions asked, and were left to get on with their crimes.’…
There are around 350 known jihadists living in Saint-Denis, while 1,700 are believed to have returned to France after fighting for IS in Syria, with 15,000 terrorism suspects in France.
In Saint-Denis itself, there is a record number of mosques — 160 official ones, and many more unofficial — compared with 117 Catholic churches and 60 Protestant. Yet it is the unauthorised mosques — set up in basements and garages — that the authorities fear the most.
The radicalisers use these hidden places of worship to influence the young and impressionable,’ said a veteran police officer who has worked in Saint-Denis for more than two decades.
He added: ‘Salafists (followers of an extreme form of Islam) impose the rule of religion, so we can have very little influence. These radicalisers are the ones who motivate the young towards terrorism.’
Much of the money-raising activity comes from drug-dealing by gangs, many of them Muslim. At one high-rise block of flats not far from where I was staying, the scale of the operation was evident.
Like a department store, different drugs are sold on different floors. Moroccans and North Africans sell hashish for ten euros a bag on the third floor….
At this point, I told one of the men I was a journalist and asked whether we could have a chat.
A chunky character in a red Ellesse sports shirt, he was relaxed, smiled at me and said politely to me in English: ‘No — go.’ I went.
Most blocks seemed to have the same operation, with youths guarding the front doors, ‘spotters’ on the streets opposite for signs of police or other gangs, and the drugs held and sold inside.
Rabbi Yisroel Belinow, 50, is either a fool or very brave. As I walked near a mosque, I saw him looking out of his window. His home was firebombed in 2009, and a kosher restaurant next door burned down….
‘The problem is people coming to France and wanting to change it. And it’s worse because they want to force people to change. I know I look different. The hatred is obvious — people spit when you walk past….
‘It wasn’t always like this. In the beginning, [French people] wanted to help. The charity these people [recent migrants] were shown was tremendous. But you wake up and realise pretty soon that this works one way only. Many people have left.’…
Women suffer the most. Not far from the drug dealers outside the station, I visited a women’s refuge set up by Ghada Hatem, a senior gynecologist, who says almost one in five of her patients have been victims of female genital mutilation (FGM) — the barbaric ritual of cutting the sexual organs of young women….
Sarah Oussekine, who has an Algerian background and who runs a group called the Voix d’Elles Rebelles (Voice of the Female Rebels) in Saint-Denis, says: ‘When you ask girls why they are starting to wear the headscarf — and many more are — they tell you it is an act of faith, but actually when you dig deeper, they have to wear it to stay safe.’…
These Muslims, legal and illegal, are battening on whatever benefits the suicidally generous French state gives them, to which they add the considerable sums they make by crime, including dealing in drugs of every type (from marijuana to heroin), and stolen goods, like those of that woman who “opened a huge bag full of phones, shoes, sunglasses and handbags — clearly stolen from tourists or Parisians.” In Andrew Malone’s account, Saint-Denis is one vast thieves’ den. It has also harbored terrorists, who fled there after the attacks on the Bataclan nightclub.
Cherif Chekatt the gunman on the run since he killed three people at Strasbourg's popular Christmas market was shot and killed by police in the Neudorf area of the city.
Police sources have told French media that Chekatt was shot dead during the operation that took place just after 9pm.
Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said: "At 9pm a local police unit spotted a man wandering in the street who matched the individual who had been hunted since Tuesday night. At the moment he was stopped the individual turned to face police and opened fire. Police responded and neutralized the gunman."
A video was widely shared on Twitter claiming to show members of the pubic in Neudorf applauding French police after news spread that Chekatt had been found and killed.
Over 700 police and specialist anti-terror officers had joined the hunt to find the suspect who was a hardened criminal and known to authorities for having been radicalised to an extremist form of Islam.
While there were fears he may have fled into neighbouring Germany French police concentrated their searches on the Neudorf and Meinau areas, where Chekatt grew up.
Just before reports emerged that police had tracked down the suspect France's Interior Minister Christophe Castaner announced that the city's famed Christmas market would reopen again on Friday. Security around the market would be boosted with the number of access points reduced and shoppers subject to more checks.
"We can't give in to fear because life, the festivities, our culture, the joy, of which this Christmas market is a symbol, must win through," said Castaner.
At least a Christmas market will be a handy place to find candles.
Jihadist Psychopath: How he is charming, seducing, and devouring us
Jamie Glazov's book shows how Jihad Denial is allowing Military Jihad, Stealth Jihad (via mass immigration), and Institutional Jihad (the takeover of institutions by Islamic supremacists) to destroy the West. No, he is not Islamophobic.
by Phyllis Chesler
In Andrew Roberts’ new biography of Winston Churchill, Churchill: Walking With Destiny, he describes Churchill as a young soldier and war correspondent on the border of then-India and Afghanistan, fighting the Pathans. There, Churchill found that ‘a rigid form of Islam kept the Afghan people in the grip of miserable superstition... (which) stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism.’”
On the North West Frontier and soon again in Sudan, Churchill saw “Islamic fundamentalism up close...It was not unlike the political fanaticism that he was to encounter forty years later. None of the three British Prime Ministers of the 1930s... had ever personally encountered such extremism in their personal lives and they were tragically slow to discern the nature of Nazi ideology. Churchill had fought against fanaticism in his youth and recognized its salient features earlier than anyone else.”
Author Jamie Glazov was born in Soviet Russia to dissident parents who published and circulated “samizdat.” Glazov himself obtained a Ph.D in history and he has a similarly keen and Churchillian sense of the overwhelming and imminent danger posed by totalitarianism and fanaticism—and therefore by Islamic Jihad. In his new book Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us, Glazov clearly and powerfully exposes the nature of Islamic Jihad and Jihad Denial in America, which he views, correctly, as a form of psychological suicide.
I am on record having challenged what I’ve called “psychiatric imperialism,” the non-clinical use of clinical diagnoses to explain an entire culture or ideology. However, we are long past that minute before midnight and Glazov’s analogy of a psychopath with a Jihadist achieves an eery resonance. The analogy more or less works.
Although I have been covering Islamic terrorism for the last eighteen years, Glazov’s book still has the power to make my blood boil. He is masterful when he describes well-known Jihad attacks in America that were quickly “spun” as having nothing to do with Islam, or with Muslim terrorist organizations.
The Jihadist who shouted “Allahu Akhbar” and who pledged loyalty to ISIS or who studied with Anwar Al-Awlaki, is always described as a lone, mentally ill, self-radicalized, economically impoverished and racially oppressed man, a one-off, certainly not a new kind of soldier in an old kind of war against the infidel, the apostate, the West, and the “wrong” kind of Muslim.
What’s worse: Immediately following a genuine, full-blown, unmistakably Jihadist attack (in Jerusalem, Mumbai, Bali, Nice, Paris, Boston, or New York City), what seems to terrify most Westerners is the possibility that innocent Muslims will be blamed and attacked. This has rarely happened but this virtue-signaling (no, we are not racists, yes, we are very politically correct), an attitude which by now is an obsession, usually overwhelms any analysis of the Jihad attack itself.
Glazov gives us many such examples. Here’s one. The first Somali Muslim police officer ever hired in Minneapolis shot and killed an unarmed woman “for incomprehensible reasons.” The police officer said that he’d been nervous and admitted his pronounced lack of respect for women in general. The female mayor of Minneapolis said nothing about what can happen when incompetent or poorly trained officers are hired in order to satisfy multiculturalists. “Instead, she stressed that after this shooting, Islamophobia would not be tolerated.”
Another Glazov example: After the Jihad bombing of the Boston Marathon, the city decided to hang posters against Islamophobic harassment—but not against Jihad terror.
This is galling, unbelievable—but it is even more unbelievable that most people do not know this, have not connected these dots, and do not want to hear about it. Too upsetting.
Glazov clearly exposes the three forms of Jihad that now threaten the West and the world. Military Jihad, Stealth Jihad (via mass immigration), and Institutional Jihad (the takeover of institutions by pro-Jihad and Islamic supremacists). What has allowed this to proceed apace is what Glazov terms: Jihad Denial.
The American media, professoriate, and government, first under George W. Bush, then under Barack Obama, engaged in Jihad Denial after 9/11, (2001), after the Fort Hood Jihad (2009), after the Boston Marathon Jihad (2013), after the San Bernardino Jihad (2015), after the Orlando Jihad (2016), and after the NYC Halloween truck Jihad (2017).
The Brooklyn-born-and-bred Linda Sarsour, who self-identifies as a Palestinian-American, was part of a group that persuaded the ACLU to successfully close down police surveillance of the Patterson New Jersey mosque where the Halloween truck Jihadist regularly prayed. Eight people were murdered and many more injured— a small price to pay in the fake war against racism. True: There is no iron-clad guarantee that this attack could have been prevented even with surveillance and yet, without it, the attack was certainly not prevented.
Glazov shocks and enlightens by documenting how many Jihad attacks—in our country and on our watch—might have been stopped had President Obama not discontinued surveillance and fired all the key administration officials who were not psychologically disabled by Jihad Denial. Such Denial is a psychological syndrome which automatically “paints all concerns about Jihad as Islamophobia, racism, and bigotry.”
I forgot that President Bush “gave in to the self-destructive Jihad Denial agenda, dutifully announcing that Islam was a ‘religion of peace,’ and that it had no connection to Islamic terror in general or to 9/11 in particular.”
I forgot how outraged I was by President Obama’s opening statements and actions. Thankfully, Glazov reminds me. Obama refused to use the word “Islam” or “Jihad;” even as Jihad attack after Jihad attack was clearly perpetrated by Muslims who said they were obeying Islamic law; and had ties to certain mosques, mullahs, and/or terrorist groups, both here and abroad.
Righteously, virtuously, stealthily, the Obama’ administration shut down crucial surveillance of individuals, community networks, and mosques. It banned reviews of the social media accounts of suspected Jihadists.
Glazov reminds me that Obama actually appointed members of the Muslim Brotherhood to his administration and insisted that President Mubarak allow Muslim Brotherhood leaders to occupy front row seats when he spoke in Cairo in 2009.
“See no Islam/Hear no Islam” is now a “mass psychosis” in the West. Those who dissent are treated as pariahs: blasphemers, traitors, and racists.
“Islamophobia.” How many times can we note that Islam is not a race—that it is a totalitarian ideology which claims religious status. How often can we insist that Islam has a magnificent history, in terms of art and science, and that Islam is a religion of peace—when the facts do not bear this out? How can we claim that in the past, Muslims lived ever so peacefully with pagans, HIndus, Sikhs, Bahai, Buddhists, Christians, and Jews? This is not the case and Glazov makes that clear too. Those infidels who wished to live were converted by the Islamic sword; all others were slaughtered, enslaved, taxed, impoverished, or exiled.
According to Glazov, the “See no Islam/Hear no Islam” is now a “mass psychosis” in the West. Those who dissent are treated as pariahs: blasphemers, traitors, and racists. They are, accordingly, exiled (Oriana Fallaci), silenced or dis-invited (Bruce Bawer), sued (Elizabeth Sabaaditch-Wolfe), death threatened (Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali), forced to live in hiding or with 24/7 protection (Lars Hedegaard, Lars Vilks, Magdi Allam), jailed (Tommy Robinson), and sometimes, murdered (Theo Von Gogh).
Still, why would a sane Westerner need to deny reality? Drawing on a variety of psychiatric and psychological sources, Glazov has some answers.
First, it is psychologically very difficult for people to believe that evil truly exists and that we may be unable to abolish it. Those who think we can and who try to do so are delusional. It is hard to accept that one is not in control and at the mercy of larger, hostile forces. Harder still (unless you are an Israeli), to understand that such a war, also known as the “situation,” may be a long war and one that we and our children will have to fight in order to survive and defend our way of life, imperfect though it may be.
Many people under siege, or under a psychopath’s influence, find it easier to blame themselves or to pity the poor psychopath. Surely if we improve our own behavior and help the psychopath-victim, all will be well.
According to Glazov, and to some other psychoanalytic theorists, Jihadists are psychologically “empty.” They have something akin to an “attachment disorder” due to their having been severely neglected in childhood. I found that Bin Laden was a prime example. His father had 57 children and his mother was forced to flee when he was an infant. He was known as the “son of the slave woman.” He burned for paternal attention and affection which was never forthcoming. Therefore, a Jihadist feels alive and powerful only when he or she can “dominate” and paralyze others in order to destroy them.
Perhaps I was most shocked by something I did not know, namely, that, according to Glazov, under Obama the rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan made it impossible for them to to survive. In fact, Obama’s new rules were “suicidal” for soldiers and on his watch, “U.S. casualties skyrocketed with over 70 percent of the more than two thousand American deaths in Afghanistan occurring after the (pro-Muslim, pro-Taliban) rules were implemented.”
Glazov—remember, he is the son of Soviet dissidents—sees Jihad Denial as “catastrophic.” He likens it to a “Cold War scenario in which the FBI was searching for communist spies but was simultaneously not allowed to ask them anything about communism. Even worse, imagine the FBI having to deny the existence of its enemy during the Cold War while asking the KGB for advice on how to deal with the enemy that supposedly doesn’t exist?”
His book is persuasive.
It is tragic—and not his fault—that Glazov, the Editor of FrontPage Magazine, must so often cite authors whom he has published and/or, with some exceptions, rely mainly on sources that are all defamed as “conservative” and “Islamophobic.” However, what this means is that Glazov is correct about what one is allowed to write in the liberal/left-stream media which has perfected and enacted Jihad Denial. Only “conservative” authors are clear about the Islam in Islamic Terrorism—the subject of a forthcoming book by my dear colleague, Ibn Warraq.
Glazov begins his book with a “warning.” He clarifies that the thesis of this book is “not that all Muslims are psychopaths. Rather, this book’s focus is on the Jihadist Psychopath, on those Muslims who follow him and the violent commands of Islam, and on those inside our own camp who are aiding and abetting the enemy... (this) is not about all Muslims.”
However, this is a book about the war being waged against the West, which means against Israel, against Christianity, against women, and against freedom. Rather than deny this is so; rather than blame ourselves and look for ways to appease the self-described Victim/Killer; according to Glazov we must name the enemy, expose his lies, and fight to win. Surrender is not an option. I will let Glazov have the last, stirring words:
“We still have a small window of opportunity in which we might resist the Jihadist Psychopath—and liberate ourselves from his deadly and ruthless grasp.
The sudden death of the unutterable nonsense of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government, announced as it was in the hand-off to the Southern New York U.S. Attorney of the shabby fruit of Michael Cohen’s plea bargaining, has divided onlookers into three communities of opinion.
The true believers in the collusion canard are left slack-jawed, like the international Left after the announcement of the Nazi-Soviet Pact: an immense fervor of faith is instantly destroyed; it is the stillness of a sudden and immense evaporation.
The professional Trump-haters, the Democratic Party assassination squads in the Congress and media, like disciplined soldiers, have swiveled with parade ground precision and resumed firing after a mere second to reload, at the equally fatuous nonsense about illegal campaign contributions. Disreputable, contemptible myth-makers and smear-jobbers though they are, they deserve credit for fanaticism, improvisation, and managing in unison to sound half plausible in the face of the crushing defeat they have suffered and the piffle and pottage they are left to moralize about.
Third, and slowest to respond, so sudden has been the change of the whole Trump-hate narrative, are those who never wavered from the requirement of real evidence of something before they would endorse the drastic act of impeaching and removing the nation’s leader. Some feel betrayed and some vindicated, but sensing no need for instant response, unlike the Trump-haters who are scrambling to try to cooper up some credibility for continuing their assault on the president, the third group is preparing with only deliberate speed to counter-attack the assassins-by-impeachment with their full and now overpowering armament of facts and law.
The Trump-haters can make a strong case that the president is an obnoxious public personality—that he is boastful, exaggerates constantly, sends out silly tweets with grade two typographical errors in them and gets into ill-tempered slanging matches with half the people with whom he comes into contact. To a great many, he is just refreshingly puncturing official self-importance.
But whatever anyone thinks of Trump, there are two points his enemies will have to face: he won the 2016 election and that can only be undone by the 2020 election, and high office-holders can only be impeached and removed from office by high crimes and misdemeanors as prescribed by the Constitution.
We may assume that the tactical battlefield commanders of the impeachment squad are now Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the incoming chairmen of the judiciary and intelligence committees. As of now, they are merely alleging criminal offenses that may not secure removal from office by the Republican Senate, but could lead to the conviction and imprisonment of the president after he has finished his term, in two or six years.
To appreciate the absurdity of this, remember that the impeachable and indictable offense the Democrats have in mind is that Michael Cohen, a lawyer in the midst of the inherently corrupt plea bargain catechism classes, trading extorted and false evidence against the president with a guarantee of immunity from perjury charges, for a lighter sentence, asserts that Trump ordered him to pay off women who claimed to have had sexual relations with him over 10 years ago for their silence, to enhance his chances of election.
To evaluate the probative quality of this evidence and the gravity of such charges, we must remember that Cohen has been charged with lying to Congress, has pleaded guilty to various acts of fraud, that the women were trying to blackmail then-candidate Trump and were breaching non-disclosure agreements, that Trump paid Cohen’s legal bills, that a person can contribute to his own campaign, and that the jurisprudence is that such payment are not campaign expenses anyway. That was the finding in the John Edwards case, where there was a child out of wedlock. Here, the facts of what actually happened between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal are disputed, and the wording of the relevant statute could just as well be interpreted as meaning that a candidate who buys mouthwash or gets a haircut or a new suit, is equally trying to enhance his likelihood of election.
Up to a point, Nadler and Schiff, egregious, obsessive Trump-haters and mud-slingers as they are, can only be accused of doing their jobs, or at least carrying out their self-assigned mission to bring down the president. Their accomplices in this foredoomed mission to self-immolation do not have the excuse of carrying out their misconceived duty. All the televised useless idiots with talking heads seem not to realize that they are now giving voice to ideas and outcomes that are so impossible and nonsensical, they are insane.
While Mueller could be represented to the malicious and the credulous as possibly having or being in the process of obtaining real evidence of cooperation by the Trump campaign with the Russian government to affect and falsify the results of the U.S. presidential election, at least the offense being alleged and which they sought to prove, would be, if it had happened, a very serious matter that would have justified the removal of the president. This was what Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and all its immense army of media jabbering puppets claimed. It was obvious at every stage to any serious person that this was extremely unlikely, but if it had actually happened, the alarms and accusations would have been justified and vindicated, and skeptics like me would have had to recant.
When that phantasmagorically impossible mission failed, without missing a newscast the president’s enemies opened fire with the new theory. This is that a confessed criminal and accused liar could prove that the president committed crimes when he paid his legal bills, including, with or without his specific knowledge, inducements to two women not to violate agreements to keep private their own contested recollections of innocuous sexual encounters with the president ten years before the election.
The theory further holds that these supposedly criminal violations of election financing laws could cause a two-thirds majority of the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate to remove the president from office, or at the least, that a prosecutor who patiently waited until the president left office could then send him to prison for this conduct.
I was even astounded at the reaction of the Trump-haters who had been citing the Steele dossier as incontrovertible evidence of his “treason” (Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, and many others), when they had to deal with the fact that it was a smear-job commissioned and paid for and shopped to the media by the Clinton campaign. Without breaking their strides, they called this inconvenient fact “a talking point” (Washington Post), and altered the dossier’s status to “campaign information,” (Hillary Clinton).
This latest display of sangfroid is even more remarkable and ethically disturbing. All of them knew that the Russian collusion claim was defamatory fiction, and no one with an IQ in double figures or higher could believe that the election finance crime theory generated by putting the screws to a low-life like Cohen could seriously inconvenience the president. The Democrats are now on suicide watch. It is not too late to recognize that however much they may hate Trump, and however objectionable he may be to some reasonable people, he is the president and only the voters or a medical catastrophe or the passage of his constitutional term will remove him. That is as it should be.
The country noticed that the same James Comey whose bias didn’t affect his judgment, didn’t remember 245 times in his testimony last week, and then told a New York audience of the absolute necessity of defeating Trump at the next election. If the Democrats use their new majority in the House to send this campaign-finance clunker for a Senate trial, as they shut down the existing investigations into the Justice department and Clinton campaign (which will be taken up by the Senate), they will destroy themselves. That, too, is as it should be.
The disappearance of most currently visible Democratic federal politicians and opinionated journalists would be a welcome national enema. But the self-destruction of a great political party would be a gruesome and destabilizing event. Somewhere in there must be some trace of the political DNA that from Alfred E. Smith to Hubert H. Humphrey, and intermittently since then, rendered magnificent and irreplaceable service to the nation and the world.
As Christmas approaches, the thoughts of Democrats should be of resurrecting themselves, not of crucifying an enemy so maddeningly invulnerable to their murderous rage.