Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Football ‘Legend’ Sacked by Manchester United for Calling Female Colleague ‘Love’


A longstanding and well-regarded member of staff at Manchester United, who has worked at the club’s Old Trafford ground for some 30 years, has been fired after putting his hand around a female colleague and calling her “love”.

The common term of familiarity in British English was enough to spark a complaint by a waitress against Manchester United host, Vince Miller, who worked as a steward, singer, and compere to entertain guests during match days for fans enjoying corporate hospitality.
Speaking to the Manchester Evening News, fellow Manchester United colleague Mickey Martin said of the decision to sack the “legendary” 82-year-old Miller: “I think it’s disgraceful and disgusting. All he did was bring a bit of Mancunian warmth to what he was doing by calling someone ‘love’.
“She’s taken offence and reported it. He was asked to resign graciously and offered two tickets in the North Stand for the rest of the season. He refused to accept as it would have made him look guilty.
“Sir Matt Busby would spin in his grave if he knew what had happened. I’ve known Vince for over 40 years. His work as the club has been impeccable. The stars all love him. He’s devastated. All he’s done is bring out the warm Mancunian in him but one of the waitresses was offended.
“Some people in different parts of the country call you ‘duck’, or ‘sweetheart’ or ‘darling’. We say ‘love’. Everybody in Coronation Street says ‘love’. Should they be sacked? I wouldn’t have thought so. I think it’s disgraceful. I really do.”
A spokesman for the Premier League football club, one of the world’s wealthiest, confirmed a complaint had been received about club host Vince Miller, and that he had departed following it. The club said: “As a result of the feedback we received in the Old Boardroom over a period of time, we have changed the offering to supporters in that room and part of that change has meant a change in room host.”
Miller himself is reported to have said he retired with dignity after “29 great years” with the club.

Austria Wants to Exit EU Migrant Redistribution Scheme

Austria should withdraw completely from the European Union’s migrant redistribution programme because it has already taken enough, government ministers have said.

Defence Secretary Hans Peter Doskozil proposed the idea at a cabinet meeting Tuesday morning, with Chancellor Christian Kern agreeing to send a letter to Brussels requesting the country’s withdrawal.
Mr. Doskozil said Austria had already “over-filled” its contribution as migrants continue entering the country via Italy and Greece, meaning it has taken far more than many other EU nations.
Nachrichten.at reports that he pointed to statistics showing that in 2015 and 2016, Italy had to bear “far less of a burden”, accepting 1,998 asylum applications per million inhabitants, while Austria had to process 4,587.
“I believe that Austria has made a sufficient humanitarian contribution,” the minister said, adding that the nation was “one of the most heavily loaded countries” in the EU.
Chancellor Kern agreed, saying Austria had already fulfilled its obligations and would seek an amicable way to escape the agreement.
The comments came as leaders of the Central European Visegrad group rejected the EU’s migrant redistribution policy in protest at suggestions the level of their compliance could affect the EU funds they receive.
The prime ministers of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic said they will not yield under any financial pressure, describing it as an attempt at blackmail.
Brussels wants each EU member state to accept its “fair share” of some 160,000 migrants to ease the pressure on Greece and Italy.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán also said that he was further strengthening his country’s borders in order to seal off the so-called “Balkan route”.
Last month, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz also defended closing the border the deter migrants, saying the move, although initially criticised, had become accepted practice.
Before the route was shut, over a million migrants travelled up through Macedonia and Serbia from Greece to reach wealthier EU nations.


New York Times: "Ethnic" is Problematic Because it "Normalizes" Whiteness

Political correctness is problematic because it normalizes racism aimed at white people and censorship. And this list normalizes the way style guides have moved from being about writing to being about identity politics.
A group of New York Times journalists released a list of racial terms they find “bothersome” Sunday.
NYT’s Race/Related team included terms like”ethnic,” person of color” and “illegal immigrant” among those they found slightly offensive.
John Eligon, the paper’s national correspondent, found “ethnic”a troublesome term because it “normalizes” whiteness.
“What makes a black person ethnic but a white person not? On the one hand, this is the normalization of whiteness – if you are not white, then you are something else,” Eligon explained.
Tell that to Jews, Italians, Greeks, Armenians, etc. Ethnic is most often used to describe a variety of white and non-white groups that are more exotic. It's rarely used to describe black people.
But who cares about reality anyway. Reality has a notorious conservative bias.
Still there's good news. People of color, which briefly became the euphemism of choice, is once again politically incorrect.
Marc Lacey, the national editor, took issue with the term “people of color.” The phrase sounds too close to “colored people,” Lacey said.
“I know it’s now commonplace, and that it’s used with the noblest of intent. But white is a color too so everyone is technically of color, right?” Lacey added.
Great. So white people now qualify for affirmative action?
The group plans to release a list next week, and asked readers to contribute their own thoughts about offensive racial terms.
The New York Times solicits contributions to its censorship list.


Hungary Refuses to Take 5,000 Migrants From Sweden

Hungary has refused a request by the Swedish government to take in 5,000 asylum seekers, and the Swedes want to take the matter to court.

The Hungarian government has long held a position against the redistribution of migrants from other European countries going as far as holding a referendum on the subject last October. But Sweden is insisting that under European Union (EU) Dublin agreement rules, the migrants should be returned to the Central European country where they first registered, Svenska Dagbladet reports.
Swedish Immigration and Justice Minister Morgan Johansson met with EU migration and asylum Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos in Brussels Monday to discuss the issue. After the meeting, Mr. Johansson said: “It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that contracts are kept, and this is our opinion that Hungary did not follow the Dublin rules.”
“We have almost 5,000 cases where people are registered as asylum seekers in Hungary, but Hungary does not receive them when we send them back,” he added, claiming the EU Commission had a “duty” to open a case against Hungary for infringement of the Dublin agreement.
The case is not the first time a country has tried to send back migrants who registered in Hungary. In September last year, the Austrian government attempted to return migrants but were refused at the Hungarian border.
Austrian Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka commented at the time saying: “The European Union is in charge of … Dublin and states or groups of states that permanently break the law have to expect legal consequences.”
According to the Dublin agreement, asylum seekers are supposed to stay in the country where they first applied for asylum. During the height of the migrant crisis in 2015, the majority of migrants who had registered in Greece or Hungary left both countries to travel to Germany and Sweden which provide robust welfare programmes and have more successful economies.
Greece has also found itself in a similar position to Hungary with Germany announcing several months ago that it would seek to send migrants back to Greece starting in March.  The Greek government has already complained that they cannot handle the migrants already in the country and are seeking help from the bloc.
The recent diplomatic row with Turkey could exacerbate issues in Greece following Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asserting the migrant deal between his country and the EU was over, and the political bloc could “forget about” it.

‘Security Risk’: Cologne Cover Up Politician Blocked Deportation of Berlin Attacker

The German state interior minister who turned down the opportunity to deport Berlin attacker Anis Amri nine months before he stole a lorry and crashed it into a Christmas market and killed 12 has been called a “security risk” by parliamentarians, amid calls for his resignation.

Socialist party North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) interior minister Ralf Jäger, who was also the politician responsible for the inadequate police response on the night of the 2015 Cologne New Year’s Eve migrant attacks, reportedly saw security reports on Berlin killer Anis Amri in March 2016. The asylum seeker used the Telegram messaging app to speak in code with contacts in Tunisia, telling them he intended to launch a suicide attack in Germany, according to documents seen by Bild Am Sonntag.
In response to the intelligence, police investigators concluded: “The prognosis is that Amri poses a threat in the sense of a terrorist attack… from the surveillance of its telecommunications, a terrorist attack is to be expected.”
Tunisian Anis Amri is the chief suspect in the Berlin Christmas market attack on December 19 in which 12 people were killed
Anis Amri
Police called to have Amri deported in light of the information but were turned down by his interior ministry, with Jäger himself making clear his opinion that a deportation order was not legally enforceable. At the time of the Berlin attack, Anis Amri was marked for deportation; but despite the fact he was being monitored by the security services, the use of several identities and hold-ups with his paperwork meant he was still free.
Armin Laschet, a North Rhine-Westphalia politician of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, said the papers were “clear proof” that as interior minister, Jäger had failed in his duty. Calling for his resignation, Laschet said: “These new revelations are dramatic. Interior Minister Jäger is a security risk for people all over Germany.”
Several senior German politicians will be interviewed by the NRW parliament on Wednesday to determine how Amri escaped deportation and was able to make his attack. Amongst those called is embattled Interior Minister Jäger.
Ralf Jager remains in post
His failure to urge for the deportation of the Berlin Christmas Market killer is not the first serious migrant security failure to have tainted Jäger’s time as interior minister. As reported by Breitbart London after the mass sexual assaults and thefts that took place in and around the Cologne cathedral square on New Year’s Eve 2015, local police initially took the blame for their failure to take control of the situation and detain criminal migrants who attacked hundreds of young women out enjoying the festivities.
It was later revealed the Cologne chief of police had requested re-enforcements for the night’s patrolling directly from Jäger, who denied any extra officers. Despite this, and leaked documents showing Jäger’s interior ministry had ordered police to cover up the involvement of migrants in the attacks, Jäger managed to hang on to his job while the chief of police was forced out.

White Liberals Attack Brown Islamic Dissidents

by Giulio Meotti
  • "[A] section of the Western left has adopted the ideology of the Salafists, Khomeinists and Islamists. It supports their blasphemy codes, and apologias for murder." — Nick Cohen, The Spectator.
  • "Thus the defenders of liberty are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims!" — Pascal Bruckner, Perlentaucher.
  • "It is putting bounties on the heads of Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, who are opposed to Muslim extremism (...) The document is simply an enemies' list, of the kind that fascists, Stalinists, and other totalitarian thinkers can't help producing." — Lee Smith, Tablet.
  • "Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era?" — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wall Street Journal.
  • Most of the solidarity to French cartoonists under threat has come from even braver -- but ostracized -- Muslim intellectuals.
  • At the time of the fatwa against Salman Rusde, the literary "Left" stood with the Muslim "anger", not with the persecuted writer -- while all around, translators and publishers were being killed and wounded by the Iranian murderers.
  • In the global struggle for the confrontation of ideas between the West and political Islam, too often the Western values are represented by Muslim dissidents and downplayed by the liberals who should be safeguarding them. It is an unpleasant spectacle.
  • "The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men. One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny. But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case". — Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The French daily Le Figaro captured the tragic condition of Muslim dissidents: "Seen as 'traitors' by their communities, they are accused by the elites in the West of 'stigmatizing'".
Le Point called it "the malediction of the dissident": "For the European left, a bright danger threatens humanity. This is not terrorism or religious fundamentalism. But dissident intellectuals in the Muslim world".
This is the meaning of a recent list of fifteen "anti-Islamic extremists," published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Among them are, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament and the most famous dissident from Islamic world, and Maajid Nawaz, a British Muslim who founded the Quilliam Foundation to fight radicalism, and who has been a consultant to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has attacked principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)
Nick Cohen, in The Spectator, explained:
"in the liberal orientalist world view the only 'authentic' Muslim is a barbarian. A battery of insults fires on any Muslim who says otherwise. They are 'neo-conservatives,' 'native informants,' and 'Zionists': they are as extreme as jihadists they oppose, or, let's face it, worse..."
In short, according with Cohen, "a section of the Western left has adopted the ideology of the Salafists, Khomeinists and Islamists. It supports their blasphemy codes, and apologias for murder".
The Wall Street Journal, in an unsigned editorial, attacked the report of the Southern Poverty Law Center: that "as if facing down violent Islamist fanatics isn't enough, Muslim reformers now have to dodge attacks from the American left".
Lee Smith, in Tablet, noted:
"Yet now, the SPLC is putting bounties on the heads of Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, who are opposed to Muslim extremism... The document is simply an enemies' list, of the kind that fascists, Stalinists, and other totalitarian thinkers can't help producing".
Nick Cohen called it "the first fatwa of the white left". But it is not the first. That horrible document belongs to the long "flight of the intellectuals" denounced by Paul Berman: the abandonment of Enlightenment values in the face of threats to freedom of expression.
"It is time to extend our solidarity to all the rebels of the Islamic world, non-believers, atheist libertines, dissenters, sentinels of liberty, as we supported Eastern European dissidents in former times", French writer Pascal Bruckner said. Most of Western liberals are doing exactly the opposite. Not only are they refusing "to extend our solidarity" to these rebels; instead, they are actually targeting them.
The Director of the Middle East-Mediterranean chair at the Ecole Normale Superieure, and professor at Sciences-Po, Gilles Kepel , just published a book, Fracture, in which he blasts "the intellectuals paralyzed by postcolonial guilt" and the "blindness which leads them to minimize the jihadist risk". It is what Kepel in the book calls "Islamo-Leftism" ("Islamo-Gauchisme"), which currently targets Muslim dissidents to exclude them from the debate.
The debate reminds one that during the Cold War, when the Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the author of The Gulag Archipelago, was attacked by fellow writers such as Pablo Neruda, a Nobel Prize for Literature laureate and devout communist.
In 2006, a group of 12 writers put their names to a statement in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, warning against Islamic "totalitarianism". "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism", read the appeal. "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all". Among the 12 promoters, eight came from the Islamic world. Most of the solidarity to French cartoonists under threat has come from even braver -- but ostracized -- Muslim intellectuals. In the global struggle for the confrontation of ideas between the West and political Islam, too often the Western values are represented by Muslim dissidents and downplayed by the liberals who should be safeguarding them. It is an unpleasant spectacle.
And what was Islamo-Leftism doing? Busy targeting them. Timothy Garton Ash, a leftist opinion-maker, has asked how much the success of Ayaan Hirsi Ali depends on her beauty, and has defined her "an Enlightenment fundamentalist": "It's no disrespect to Ms. Ali to suggest that if she had been short, squat, and squinting, her story and views might not be so closely attended to".
Similar criticism against Hirsi Ali came from Ian Buruma, a Dutch "radical chic" journalist transplanted to Manhattan's Upper West Side. Ibn Warraq, another Muslim dissident isolated by the Left, attacked Buruma: "Disgraceful has been Buruma's vilification of human rights activists, especially his attacks on such heroic figures as Afshin Ellian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Buruma achieves his goals in a most insidious manner: hinting and insinuating.
In the German magazine, Perlentaucher, the French author Pascal Bruckner defended Hirsi Ali from the criticism of Buruma and Garton Ash:
"It's not enough that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live like a recluse, threatened with having her throat slit by radicals and surrounded by bodyguards. She -- like the French philosophy professor Robert Redeker who has also been issued death threats on Islamicist websites -- has to endure the ridicule of the high-minded idealists and armchair philosophers. She has even been called a Nazi in the Netherlands. Thus the defenders of liberty are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims! ... It is her wilful, short-fused, enthusiastic, impervious side to which Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash object, in the spirit of the inquisitors who saw devil-possessed witches in every woman too flamboyant for their tastes".
Geert Mak, a Dutch historian, likened the film "Submission", written by Hirsi Ali, and which cost the life of the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, to the Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew". According to Mak's "logic", Hirsi Ali "stigmatized" Muslims as Joseph Goebbels did Jews. Leon de Winter rightly attacked Mak's shameful comparison in a column for Volkskrant newspaper:
"If anything can be compared with the propaganda of Goebbels, these are the decapitation videos and anti-Semitic propaganda of Arab satellite stations in Amsterdam West. Mak turns the world upside down. Anne Frank has been abused enough".
The "Index on Censorship", in an article by the associate director of the magazine, Rohan Jayasekera, has painted Hirsi Ali as a silly girl who had allowed herself to be manipulated by a white man (Van Gogh) in exploitative employment". The Index on Censorship was founded in 1972 by Stephen Spender in response to a plea from Soviet dissidents facing show trials in Moscow, on the principle that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that the international community has a duty to safeguard. What would people have said of his organization if it had blamed those Soviet writers instead of their persecutors?
Two years ago, Hirsi Ali was even uninvited from Brandeis University, one of the cradles of American academic liberalism that was supposed to celebrate her with an honorary degree. 85 of 350 professors at the Massachusetts university refused to host such a speaker on the Third World and Islam. If one reads what Hirsi Ali would have said on campus that day, the leftist fear of Hirsi Ali it is understandable:
"We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged.... I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight. The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect. So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy — punishable by death — to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era?"
Dissident ex-Muslims from the Islamic world, who have fled to the West to escape persecution and sectarism, also see their hosts are "going soft" on their persecutors. A motion in the European Parliament to fund Hirsi Ali's U.S. security failed to reach a quorum of half the deputies in the 785-member body. She was "abandoned to the fanatics" in Europe's shameful capitulation to intimidation and threats.
Directors, actors, producers, writers, and film critics, who usually pontificate on everything and side with any minority, all stood silent when Theo Van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam and threats were made against his brave writer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
In the last few months, we have seen many Western feminists, especially on the "left", standing in defense of burkini. The New York Times ran an article entitled: "At the beach with my burkini". It is the burkini and the veil, that have become symbols of human rights, and not Hirsi Ali and other Muslim feminists who fight against these religious symbols coerced on women. For many feminists and liberals, submission is demanded only by white male Christian westerners. All minorities, such as Islamic dissidents, who face this enemy are considered provocateurs. Submission of women in the Islamic world? Female mutilation such as that suffered by Hirsi Ali? Much better to rally against Dominique Strauss Khan, the French Socialist sexual predator. Hirsi Ali criticized the Western feminist silence:
"The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men. One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny. But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case".
When mullahs in Iran placed a bounty of $2.8 million – recently raised by an additional $600,000 - on the head of a British citizen, the Muslim dissident, Salman Rushdie, for havig written a novel, The Satanic Verses, a large part of London's literary "left" sided with the Ayatollah Khomeini rather than the persecuted writer. The feminist writer Germaine Greer called Rushdie a "megalomaniac, an Englishman with dark skin". Roald Dahl, the best selling author of children's books, defined him a "dangerous opportunist". The king of the literary spy stories, John Le Carré, called Rushdie an "idiot". At the time of the fatwa, the literary "Left" stood with the Muslim "anger", not with the persecuted writer - while all around, translators and publishers were being killed and wounded by the Iranian murderers.
The Algerian writer, Kamel Daoud, in addition to the edicts of Islamic preachers in his country, had to face a far more sinuous menace in France a year ago. Daoud had the courage to break the taboo against criticizing Cologne's sexual attacks. According to Daoud, Europe welcomes immigrants with visas and material sustenance, but without addressing values. What Cologne showed, says Daoud, is how sex is "the greatest misery in the world of Allah".
First, twenty leftist academics launched an appeal in Le Monde, where Daoud was accused of a series of ideological crimes, such as "orientalist clichés", "essentialism", "psychologizing", "colonialist paternalism", which correspond, all together, to an accusation of "racism" and "Islamophobia". Then a book entitled "Kamel Daoud the enquête contre" - signed by Ahmed Bensaada and with a preface of a French journalist, Jacques-Marie Bourget - attacked "these intellectuals in North Africa, who are auxiliaries of the French neo-conservative thinkers" who need "the good negro", a "native alibi". Daoud was accused of being an instrument of "neo-colonialist thought".
"The process of Islamophobia against Kamel Daoud is worthy of the Stalinist era", wrote at Le Figaro political scientist Laurent Bouvet. In the weekly, Le Point Étienne Gernelle attacked "the fools of the regressive left". Rafik Chekkat called Daoud a "native informant", while Olivier Roy, an Islamic scholar, in an article accused Daoud of stigmatizing Muslims: "The machismo and sexual harassment exist all over the world, why isolating this phenomenon among Muslims, instead of trying to counteract all forms? Just because they are Muslims". A great number of articles in the French press attacked Daoud.
The same treatment was reserved for the deputy editor at the time of Italy's largest daily, Il Corriere della Sera, the Egyptian journalist Magdi Allam. He was targeted in an appeal signed by two hundred intellectuals, historians and writers, all belonging to the cultural milieu. Allam has also recently been attacked as a "racist" by the liberal Democratic Party in an Italian town which had wanted to honor him with the honorary citizenship. "They imply that I have a prejudice against immigrants or Muslims and this corresponds to an offense because we speak of racism", Allam said. "I reminded them that I was a true Italian immigrant for reasons of study. They represent me as a terrorist but I am a victim of terrorism and of those who sow intolerance: I have been living under guard escort for 14 years".
This cowardly interdiction of Muslim liberal voices in the West went ahead with Maryam Namazie, another Islamic intellectual of Iranian origin, was "disinvited" from the University of Warwick, in England, because her lecture could "feed the Islamophobia". The liberal press, led by The Guardian, supported the exclusion of Namazie: "Does the withdrawal of an invitation really amount to censorship? Her words have not been banned, the state has not gagged her. Is Namazie's capacity to share her ideas diminished if she doesn't appear in front of 50-odd students? After all, she can still tweet and blog, as she showed over the weekend. If anything, the whole episode has increased her audience".
Duke University students tried to stop the talk of another Islamic dissident, Asra Nomani, author of "Standing Alone". In France, the book of the Egyptian writer, Hamed Abdel-Samad, was taken off the market because, according to the self-censoring publisher, Piranha, it would bring "water to the mill of the extreme right". A Muslim author denouncing "Islamic fascism" was repudiated by the fascist anti-fascist "leftists" because of false "Islamophobia" claims.
Self righteous liberals love "moderate Islam" when it appears under the guise of Tariq Ramadan, whose goal has been summed up by Jacques Jomier: "His problem is not the modernization of Islam, but the Islamification of modernity". But the same liberals target as agents provocateurs those dissidents trying to modernize Islam. The fatwas of the white liberals hit hard as the violent ones of the Muslim extremists.

In Sweden, eating bacon in front of Muslim women is considered a hate crime


A Swedish man is being prosecuted for a “hate crime” after eating bacon in front of Muslim women wearing Islamic supremacist headbags on a train and making so-called  “racist” comments (despite the fact that Islam is not a race).

 SVT  The man is accused of harassing a group of Muslim women with bacon on a commuter train. According to the indictment the man waved a piece of bacon in the faces of the Muslim women and uttered “racist” comments. He is being prosecuted for “racial hatred.”


What life is like in the Caliphate of Birmingham

By Ed Straker

When Muslims are in the minority, they complain about being oppressed.  But the minute they become the majority, they  become real oppressors because of the inherent intolerance of their culture.  Nowhere is this more evident than in many parts of Birmingham, England.
Khalid Masood, 52, the Briton responsible for the deadly attack outside Parliament last week ... had a connection to Birmingham, having moved almost a year ago to this city of 1.1 million, where more than than [sic] one in five residents declare Islam as their religion. ... [T]he police also announced Sunday that they had arrested an unidentified man in Birmingham as part of the investigation of Mr. Masood.
Birmingham was the birthplace of Britain's first suicide bomber, the residence of a financier of the Sept. 11 attacks, and the place where Al Qaeda hatched a plot to blow up a commercial airliner in 2006. When a masked member of the Shabab, the Somali extremist group, celebrated the murder of the soldier Lee Rigby in a 2013 video, he listed Birmingham as the first source of its fighters.
So many Islamist militants have been born in Birmingham – or have passed through – that the Birmingham Mail newspaper once lamented that the city had the dubious distinction of "Terror Central."
Members of Birmingham's Muslim communities acknowledged the linkage between their city and Islamist extremism, which many attribute to poverty and drug abuse that make youths vulnerable to jihadist recruiters.
But poverty and drug abuse don't usually make non-Muslims "vulnerable" to wanting to commit mass murder, do they?  It's funny how only Muslims are "vulnerable" to becoming mass murderers, 99 times out of 100.
Part of Birmingham's allure to prospective militants is its diverse sprawl of Muslim neighborhoods where they can blend in easily, local activists said.
"Blend in easily" is a coded acknowledgment that Muslims generally will not turn in radical Muslims to the police.
In the neighborhoods of Sparkbrook, Washwood Heath and Alum Rock, where many of Birmingham's Muslims live, mosques dot the cityscape, some offering Shariah councils for family matters. After-school madrassas serve a growing demand for parents who want their children to study the Quran. Even state-funded schools often accommodate religious demands, allowing for lunchtime prayer.
This is England!  Also, parts of France, Germany, the Netherlands, and other places that are being colonized.
Birmingham's Green Lane Mosque, a red brick building with a clock tower that was formerly a public library, once had a reputation as an "incubator" of militants, Khalid Mahmood, a local lawmaker, said. Now the mosque seeks to counter them.
When Muslims are admitted in large numbers, the idea of "vetting" them becomes useless; in numbers this large, they take over society and make it their own.  They come fleeing a failing culture and then promptly impose that culture on their new home when their numbers become large enough.  Their new territories become no-go zones for non-Muslims, and they effectively become self-governing with sharia law.
Stop Muslim immigration now.


Europe: Death by a Thousand Cuts

By Fay Voshell

There was a form of torture and eventual execution employed by Chinese authorities from about 900-1905. The formal name is lingchi, meaning death by a thousand cuts. The victim being put to death did not expire immediately, but instead bled to death very slowly and excruciatingly.
Lingchi describes what is happening to Western European nations. They are slowly dying because of Islamist terrorists’ thousand cuts.
But it is clear that, although the nations of Europe receive cut after cut, most of the leaders of those nations, as well as the leaders of the European Union, still will not acknowledge that Europe is being bled to death. That is because they will not or cannot diagnose, much less get rid of, the ideological disease that causes internal bleeding.
They do not comprehend that importing surgeons of death hidden among millions of immigrants is a recipe for national suicide. They also don’t realize that dealing with one wound at a time won’t staunch the hemorrhaging. Examining the latest wound and waiting for it to scab over while the next one is being inflicted will not heal the bleeding body politic.
Nor will the same, tired and futile political placebos offered as palliatives for the latest wound -- like the attack in Great Britain -- actually deal with the underlying problems. Candlelight vigils, lighting up landmarks with the colors of the flag, speechifying and rationalizing terrorist behavior will never, ever deal effectively with the knife wielding inflictors of death and destruction.
Tragically, the European nations just have not exhibited the will to do what needs to be done.
But they must. They simply must.
It was Viktor Orban of Hungary, who in a fiery speech just last year, eloquently defined the problem and the malaise of Europe’s leaders. He realized Europe’s (and thus Hungary’s) national identities would be erased by the influx of foreigners whose ideology was adamantly opposed to the still largely Christian character and identity of Europe. He also recognized that the bureaucracy of the European Union was committed to the eradication of national boundaries and histories, wanting instead a cosmopolitan immigration policy that reinforced an ideology of internationalism.
Orban pointed the finger directly at Brussels:
“If we want to halt this mass migration, first we must curb Brussels. The main danger to Europe’s future does not come from those who want to come here, but from Brussels’ fanatical internationalism. We should not allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We shall not allow it to force upon us the bitter fruit of its cosmopolitan immigration policy. We shall not import to Hungary crime, terrorism, homophobia and synagogue-burning anti-Semitism. There shall be no urban districts beyond the reach of the law, there shall be no mass disorder, no immigrant riots here, and there shall be no gangs hunting down our women and daughters. We shall not allow others to tell us whom we can let into our home and country, whom we will live alongside, and with whom we will share our country. We know how these things go. First, we allow them to tell us whom we must take in, then they force us to serve foreigners in our own country. In the end, we find ourselves being told to pack up and leave our own land. Therefore, we reject the forced resettlement scheme, and we shall tolerate neither blackmail, nor threats.”
Orban made it clear that the Hungarian people have a right to retain their national identity, which was bought with the treasure of blood and revolution in 1848 and once again in 1956. Doubtless recalling the defeat of Hungary by the Ottomans at Varna in 1444 and the subsequent Islamization of the Balkans, he stood up for the Christian inheritance of the Hungarian people. He stated the heritage of Hungary and Europe are worth preserving:
“We adhere to the ancient law, and also measure our deeds by universal standards. We teach our children that their horizon should be eternity. Whether we shall succeed, whether finally we see the building of a homeland which is free, independent, worthy and respected the world over -- one which was raised high by our forebears from 1848, and for which they sacrificed their lives -- we cannot yet know. We do know, however, that the current European constellation is an unstable one, and so we have some testing times ahead. The times in which we live press us with this question, which is like a hussar’s sabre held to our chest: ‘Shall we live in slavery or in freedom?’ The destiny of the Hungarians has become intertwined with that of Europe’s nations and has grown to be so much a part of the union that today not a single people -- including the Hungarian people -- can be free if Europe is not free. And today Europe is as fragile, weak and sickly as ‘a flower being eaten away by a hidden worm.’”
In what was probably the most important part of his speech, he pointed out Brussels had a politically correct list of forbidden sentiments. He said that speaking the truth about what is happening in Europe is stifled:
“Europe is not free. Because freedom begins with speaking the truth. Today in Europe it is forbidden to speak the truth… It is forbidden to say that those arriving are not refugees, but that Europe is threatened by migration. It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and terror to our countries. It is forbidden to point out that the masses arriving from other civilizations endanger our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to point out that those who arrived earlier have already built up their own new, separate world for themselves, with its own laws and ideals, which is forcing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe. It is forbidden to point out that this is not an accidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a preplanned and orchestrated operation; a mass of people directed towards us. It is forbidden to say that in Brussels they are concocting schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them here among us. It is forbidden to point out that the purpose of settling people here is to reshape the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, and to reengineer its ethnic foundations. — thereby eliminating the last barrier to internationalism: the nation-states. It is forbidden to say that Brussels is now stealthily devouring more and more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels many are now making a plan for a United States of Europe — for which no one has ever given authorization.”
Could one find a more succinct summary of what is happening because of Brussels’ commitment to globalism, which is essentially a supranational order that encourages and even requires the extinction of individual nations such as Hungary and other nations within the EU?
He concludes nations must fight for their identities:
“The question upon which the future of Europe stand or falls is this: Shall we be slaves or men set free -- That is the question. Answer me! Go for it, Hungary; go for it Hungarians!”
As for the nation most recently afflicted by yet another deep terrorist cut; namely, Great Britain, she would be wise to take Orban’s advice. She should regain the British lion’s roar.
Perhaps Prime Minister Theresa May could start by calling out the Muslim mayor of London for saying that Britain must get used to terrorism as a regular part of daily life. Perhaps she could advise deporting imams and others who are advocating death and destruction for British “infidels.” Maybe a new political agenda could include surveillance of mosques whose leaders believe all non-Muslims deserve death. Certainly, she could advocate beefing up police and armed forces and push for severe penalties for those who would dare to attempt to take down her and the entire British government.
Maybe words like “treason” and “sedition” could come back into use and the penalties for such behavior enacted swiftly and promptly. Certainly, the evil people intent on inflicting yet more cuts to the body of England should be dealt with severely.
Meanwhile, the British must strengthen their resolve to retain their national identity and history -- a history that was shaped by Christianity in a thousand beneficial ways. Britain was and still largely is a Christian nation. The battle she faces in order to retain her identity is largely spiritual in nature.
Unless Britain and other oppressed and afflicted European nations take strong steps to preserve their identities and are willing to strike back with force against radical Islamist terrorism, they will continue to be tortured and eventually bleed to death -- just as Orban predicted.


Monday, March 27, 2017

FAKE NEWS: No, Trump Never Handed Merkel a NATO Invoice

You might think that the media would feel some shame considering the amount of times it ran with a fake story only to learn that it was a lie. But the fake news media feels no shame.
Germany slams 'intimidating' £300bn White House bill - The Times
Donald Trump branded 'international embarrassment' after handing made-up Nato invoice to Angela Merkel - The Independent
Trump Reportedly Handed Merkel a $374 Billion Invoice for NATO - Slate Magazine
Trump handed $300 billion-plus NATO 'invoice' to German chancellor: report - The Hill
Angela Merkel's White House Visit Was Way More Awkward Than We Knew - Esquire
Donald Trump 'Handed Fake £300bn Nato Invoice To Angela Merkel' - Huffington Post UK
Trump's awkward meeting with Angela Merkel just got more cringeworthy - ThinkProgress
Trump handed Merkel 'outrageous' NATO bill: report - POLITICO.eu
One problem. It never happened. Sean Spicer denied it. But the media insists that he's never to be believed. Then Merkel's government denied it.
A spokesman for the German government on Monday denied media reports that U.S. President Donald Trump handed a multibillion-euro invoice to Chancellor Angela Merkel when they met in Washington earlier this month.
“Reports that President Trump had presented the federal chancellor with a kind of bill with a concrete billion sum are not true,” spokesman Steffen Seibert said at a press conference.
The story never passed the smell test. If President Trump were going to stage something like that, he would have done it on camera. But the media is eager to repeat any story that is negative without doing any fact checking. And then it pretends to be outraged about fake news.

Praising Merkel’s Approach, UN Demands Europe Punish ‘Delinquent’ Poland, Hungary for Refusing Migrants

Calling for harsh sanctions on European Union (EU) nations refusing to welcome migrants, UN Human Rights Council Advisor Jean Ziegler said Germany’s open borders response to the crisis set a ‘great example’.

Ziegler, who sits on the UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee, argued that EU countries with restrictive policies on migrants are “violently trampling on refugees’ human rights”, Der Tagesspiegel reports.
He called on the European Commission to suspend payments to countries trying to minimise the migrant influx, highlighting Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Slovakia as “delinquents”.
“If the EU were to suspend the solidarity payments to the Eastern European countries for 14 days the barbed wire fences, the prisons, and the terrible camps would be gone,” he told the German newspaper.
The UN advisor pointed to Chancellor Merkel as the leader he believes to have done and said the right things in response to a tidal wave of migrants heading for Europe.
“Germany has been exemplary on refugee issues”, he said, referring to the nation’s acceptance of and massive public spending on well over a million asylum seekers  — two-thirds of whom are estimated to be illiterate.
“The hospitality, even in conservative Bavaria. The support in the cities and villages, which is still ongoing. That too is great,” Ziegler added.
In his interview with Tagesspiegel, published Sunday, the former UN commissioner also lashed out at President Donald J. Trump, describing his having become president of the U.S. as “a permanent nightmare”.
However, Ziegler said Trump’s presidency has highlighted what he sees as positive aspects of American society.
He praised “the totally spontaneous mobilisation of ‘the resistance’, and the women’s movement,” speaking of supposed grassroots movements which are reported to have close links to globalist billionaire George Soros.
A survey last week showed that a large majority of young people in the Visegrad group nations, the four countries upon which the Swiss former MP demands punitive measures be imposed, are totally opposed to the idea of being forced by Brussels to take migrants.
Security fears play a major role in Central and Eastern European nations’ reluctance to host migrants as their citizens have seen how crime rates have soared in places like Germany and Austria, which welcomed large influxes.
Of those surveyed, the Visegrad group members had a 60 to 70 per cent agreement that migrants made their country less safe and less secure.

Austrian National Found Guilty of Terror-Related Crimes

An Austrian court has found a man guilty of terrorism-linked charges for spreading Islamic State group propaganda, and sentenced him to prison. The court in the western city of Linz convicted the Austrian national for “participation in a terrorist organization.” The man, who is not being identified in accordance with Austrian privacy laws, has been given an 18-month prison sentence, three months of which are suspended. The man was accused of spreading videos of radical Islamic preachers and beheadings prepared by IS. The court was told Monday that police started investigating him after he hung an IS flag from his balcony several years ago. He acknowledged interest in IS but denied being part of the group.

‘The Working Class Have Spoken’: Punk Legend Johnny Rotten Praises Brexit, Trump, and Farage


British cultural icon and punk rock godfather John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) has hailed the “joy” of populist, anti-establishment movements across the West.

Mr Lydon backed Brexit, claimed President Donald J. Trump was unfairly smeared by the “left wing” media, and said he wanted to shake “fantastic” Nigel Farage’s hand for taking on elites.
Speaking on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, the Sex Pistols frontman praised how the former UKIP leader led a flotilla of pro-Brexit fishermen in the so-called “Battle of the Thames” – when they faced off with a group of pro-EU millionaires and celebrities.
“After that up-the-River-Thames argument he had with Bob Geldof, I wanted to shake [Nigel Farage’s] hand because it was silly beyond belief.
“Where do I stand on Brexit? Well, here it goes: the working class have spoke, and I’m one of them, and I’m with them,” he said.
The punk icon also said the unconventional outsider President Trump was a type of punk rock politician who was being unfairly attacked by the media establishment.
He dubbed Mr. Trump “a complicated fellow”, adding: “As one journalist once said to me, is he the political Sex Pistol? In a way.
“What I dislike is the left wing media in America are trying to smear the bloke as a racist, and that’s completely not true.
“There are many, many problems with him as a human being but he’s not that, and there just might be a chance something good will come out of this situation because it terrifies politicians. This is a joy to behold for me.”
When host Piers Morgan described Mr. Trump as “the archetypal anti-establishment figure”, Mr. Lydon said: “Dare I say, a possible friend.”
John Lydon on ITV’s Good Morning Britain (Credit: ITV)
The former Sex Pistols singer is famous for singing the 1977 anti-establishment hit ‘God Save the Queen’, which brands the royal family a “fascist regime”.
However as he has grown older, his views have mellowed somewhat. Lydon recently revealed he is in fact quite fond of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Speaking to the music website The Quietus last week, he said: “I will sorely miss her as a human being on planet Earth. It is not her fault she was born into a gilded cage. I don’t know about the ‘reign’ part, but long may she live.”
He also clarified the song was “about a political situation and the demand for obedience to a monarchy I don’t believe in”.
Mr. Lydon also revealed that he appreciates tradition and royal events, and said he “loved the pageantry” of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding in 2011.
“Oh, when the planes flew over the palace? It reminded me of World War Two and all those films, and how grim it was fighting Nazis. For me, it was a reintroduction to history, lest we forget,” he added.
The punk rocker has supported Brexit for some time, and last year said he was glad the “working classes had risen up against the Tories” and were “taking back the country” with the vote to leave the European Union.
In 2013, he also defended former Prime Minister Margret Thatcher, saying he thought those celebrating her death were “loathsome”.

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

by Douglas Murray
  • Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by?
  • Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim?
  • Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?
The Canadian government suffers from many things. Among them is bad timing.
On Thursday of last week, the Canadian Parliament voted through a blasphemy law specifically designed to protect Islam. As Al-Jazeera was happy to report on Friday, the previous day's vote condemned "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination." The non-binding motion that the Parliament passed also requested that a Parliamentary committee should launch a study to look at how to "develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia". The motion passed by 201 votes to 91.
It is just as well for those 201 Canadian legislators that they were debating all this in their distinguished national Parliament rather than the mother of all Parliaments. For had these legislators been in the House of Commons in Westminster, their thoughts may have taken on a sharper focus.
For one day earlier, the British House of Commons lived through an example of rampant Islamism rather than "Islamophobia". And although nobody in Westminster decided to turn into a crazy Muslim-hating bigot, they did manage to see what a hateful Muslim bigot could do when armed with the simple weapons of a knife and a motor vehicle.
The Canadian Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who introduced the motion in Canada, proclaimed that the introduction of a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Canada was needed because "We need to continue to build those bridges among Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this." Hours before she said that, one of Khalid's co-religionists was using a bridge built more than a hundred and fifty years earlier for a very different purpose.
Khalid Masood of Birmingham chose to use an older bridge to drive at high speed into crowds of Londoners and tourists. On his rampage, he managed to injure people from 11 countries. He succeeded in killing Kurt Cochran, an American on holiday in London with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. He also killed Aysha Frade, a British national of Spanish and Cypriot descent who had been walking across Westminster Bridge to pick up her two young daughters from school. He also killed Leslie Rhodes, a 75-year old retired window-cleaner, described by a neighbour, who sat at his bedside in hospital as he died, as "the nicest man you ever met."
After this carnage, so similar to the vehicle attacks in recent years in Germany, Israel and France, the 52-year old Khalid Masood ran at the Houses of Parliament and stabbed to death Police Constable Keith Palmer, 48. As all this unfolded, the Houses of Parliament in Westminster were put into lockdown. As with the Islamist attack on the Parliament building at Ottawa in 2014, the assailant got disturbingly close to the very centre of power in the land before being shot dead.
After deliberately driving a car into crowds of people in London last week, Khalid Masood crashed the vehicle into the fence surrounding Parliament, and stabbed a police officer to death. (Image source: Sky News video screenshot)
So, we come to the central problem of what the Canadian Parliament did at the same time that the British Parliament was being assaulted. What are we allowed to say about this? Or at least what would we be allowed to say in Canada?
So far, we know that the perpetrator of the London attack was a 52-year old convert to Islam who appeared to have been influenced by Wahhabism, but whose particular aims or intentions remain, for the time-being, unknown. Unlike the murderers of British soldier Lee Rigby in 2013 (one of whom carried on his person a note to his children with numerous Quranic references explaining why he was doing what he was doing, and why it was right) Khalid Masood appears to have left no note. Nor has any suicide-video yet emerged.
But it is not unreasonable to speculate that he was motivated or inspired by ISIS. The group has claimed his attack for their side of the terror ledger and the style of the attack certainly conforms to the type called for by the group. But beyond this, what are we allowed to say? Or what would we be allowed to say in Canada?
Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by? The question must linger. It must be hovering over the mind of many a Canadian journalist as they ponder the terrorist attacks that have previously taken place in their country and wonder how they would go about reporting an attack such as that in Westminster last week.
Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim? Would they be allowed to say that he was a convert? Would they be allowed to mention the Wahhabi point? Or would this tread into the realm of the "Islamophobia". Let us assume that they would be allowed to mention these things in print. Would they be allowed to go any farther? Would they be allowed to ponder in opinion columns or quote people in reportage who said that Masood and indeed ISIS had not got their ideas from nowhere? Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion, which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?
History suggests that when the law makes it illegal to tell the truth, a reliable portion of people can be called upon to lie. So it has been in the past. And so it will be with Canada. So it would be anywhere once the law became an opponent of truth rather than the protector of it.
Thanks to the Canadian Parliament and their lack of curiosity about a deeply opaque but ambitious word ("Islamophobia"), the Canadian press and public will have to stop certain inquiries into the truth about the events of our time. Who -- apart from the good legislators of Canada -- could possibly believe that the world will benefit from such censoring? And at such a time as this? To adopt a well-known expression: those whom the gods would destroy they first make ignorant.

No Truth Please, We're British: Killing the messenger after the London attacks

After last Wednesday's deadly attack outside London's Houses of Parliament, the left-wing British media expressed outrage – not at the appalling way in which Islam and Islamic terrorism have transformed life and sown death throughout the Western world, but at the purported moral depravity of those who dare to connect the dots.
In the Guardian, Jon Henley and Amber Jamiesen sneered at Marine Le Pen for “linking the London attack to migrant policy, despite the attacker being British.” (My emphasis.) They smeared as “xenophobic” Nigel Farage's argument “that the London attacks proved Donald Trump’s hardline immigration and anti-Muslim policies were correct.” The Independent's Maya Oppenheimer censured Farage's comments, too, countering his critique of multiculturalism by saying he'd “failed to mention the fact many of the victims of the attack were in fact foreigners themselves.” (My emphasis again.) Needless to say, the issue wasn't Britishness vs. foreignness; it was Islam. But to say so was verboten. As Theresa May said (in what already seems destined to become an immortal statement), “Islamist terror” has nothing do with Islam.
Islam is a religion of hate. But when that hate manifests itself in jihadist terror, the proper leftist move is to turn away from the reality of that hate – which last Wednesday sent several innocent people to a hospital or a morgue – to the purported “hate” of decent, law-abiding individuals who have had quite enough of murderous jihadist hate. Instead of acknowledging that a large minority (if not an outright majority) of British Muslims support sharia law in the U.K. (and that more than a few privately applaud terrorism), you're supposed to invoke the fantasy of a Britain in which all citizens, infidel and Muslim, share the same values and live together in harmony – except, of course, for the horrid Islamophobes, who, simply by mentioning the Islamic roots of Islamic terror, are exploiting terrorism, dishonoring its victims, and subverting social harmony.
And so we had the Guardian editorial on the terrorist attack, which cast the reality-deniers as good guys who believe in “standing together” and the truth-tellers as voices of “cynicism.” While praising MPs for their readiness “to emphasise the need for solidarity,” the editorial deplored Farage and UKIP leader Paul Nuttall, who “renewed their baseless and disgraceful campaign to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain.” The paper's Nesrine Malik agreed. When she first heard of the attack, she wrote, a “familiar knot” appeared in her stomach. Why? Because of the horror of mass slaughter? Because, yet again, innocent people had lost their lives to jihad? No. Because she realized that she'd once again have to brace herself “for a predictable battle to separate fact from hysteria, plead for a sense of proportionality and entreat the hurt and the angry not to generalise.” For Malik, as for her paper's editors, the real bad guys aren't the terrorists: they're people like Tommy Robinson (who “was at the scene stirring hate while the shock was fresh”) and Nigel Farage (who was “spewing predictable bile”).
The “right wing,” charged Malik, had plainly been “waiting in the wings, almost grateful that the imaginary fears it had been trying to provoke had become real ones.” (My emphasis yet again.) Now try to make sense of that: Robinson and Farage are selling “imaginary fears,” but on Wednesday those “imaginary fears” became “real ones.” Never mind that the “fears,” far from being products of anyone's imagination, are based on a very real experience of terrorist acts in which thousands of very real people have died. “There was no respect for the dead, dying and grieving, there was just an opportunity,” wrote Malik. On the contrary: it's Malik and her ilk who show less for the dead victims of Islamic terrorism than for the reputation of Islam. For Malik, Robinson and Farage are part of a “hate industry” that, she maintained, has grown with each of “the three Islamic terror attacks in London since 2005.” You'd think the fact that London had been subject to three Islamic terror attacks since 2005 would make it clear what the real “hate industry” is.
The same kind of thinking was on display at the Independent, where an outraged Holly Baxter denounced Robinson for saying that Muslims “are waging war on us,” that they've been doing so “for 1,400 years,” and that “Muslims make up only 4 per cent of the UK population, look at the continued chaos and destruction they cause, what do you think it will be like with 20 per cent?” For Baxter, Robinson's statement was a disgusting display of hate, and proved that “London needs a Muslim mayor now more than ever” – for at a time when ISIS is pushing the idea of a war between Islam and the West, “[t]he existence of a Muslim mayor of London symbolically destroys that narrative from the outset.” No, the existence of a Muslim mayor of London – one who has defended terrorists, shared platforms with radical imams, blamed terrorism on the West, and sought to punish anti-Islam speech – shows just how successful Islam has been in that war.
Critics of Islam, complained Baxter, are “racists” who should “at least have the common decency to admit it’s all a far-right careerist exercise rather than anything to do with 'protecting the innocent.'” Sunny Hundal made the same argument in another piece for the Independent: “No wonder the far-right was so quick to capitalise on the Westminster terror attack – it relies on atrocities for support.” That “far-right,” he seethed, was like a pack of “jackals circling their prey.” Get that? In this picture, the jackal isn't the terrorist – it's the critics of his guiding ideology. Maintaining that Islam's critics “hate the very idea of cosmopolitan communities” (no, they hate barbarism), Hundal called on Londoners to learn from the spirit of the Battle of Britain: “Keep Calm and Carry on.” But there's a big difference between now and then. During World War II, Brits named their enemy. Everyone openly recognized Nazism as a monstrous ideology. And the media didn't respond to German bombings in the East End by slandering Churchill as a “Naziphobe.”

Sunday, March 26, 2017

With Month Until Vote, Populist Leader Marine Le Pen Addresses Thousands at Lille Rally

Front National leader Marine Le Pen blasted globalism and Islamism in a major campaign rally Sunday, remarking that the European Union was destined to collapse because ordinary people were no longer interested in keeping it alive.

Speaking to a crowd of thousands in Lille Le Pen said of the European project, which celebrated its 60th birthday this week and has lurched from crisis to crisis in recent years: “The European Union will die because the people do not want it anymore… We will change for another Europe, the European idea harmed by the federalists will re-energize itself, re-invigorate itself in the Europe of the people and of … the nations”.
On her nation’s continued membership of the EU and the Euro currency union, Le Pen remarked “the French will have the last word”.
Calling for France to “reconnect with the greatness of our country”, Le Pen said the Republic would “regain her independence, the rule of law, the sweetness of freedom”.

Getty images
The Front National leader also launched attacks against her main opponents in her speech. Of her left and centre-right opponents, Le Pen is most likely to be facing down liberal Emmanuel Macron in the second round of voting after May 23rds vote.
Blasting his globalist outlook, Le Pen said: “I want more France”.
Raising a laugh from the audience Le Pen called Macron the “Jean-Claude Van Damme of politics”, remarking “you don’t understand most of what he says, but what you do understand is frightening”.
Speaking on immigration, Le Pen focussed particularly on the French overseas territory of Guiana, which she recently visited. Remarking that years of successive French governments had ignored the significant levels of migration to the 84,00 square kilometer slice of South America, Le Pen vowed to: “appoint a Minister of State for Overseas France and the Sea who, in Guiana, will tackle the fight against immigration, insecurity, [and promote] economic development”.
The thousands in the lively crowd contrasted sharply with a similar rally held by main rival for the presidency Emmanuel Macron on La Reunion on Saturday. Although the polls presently show the left-wing former banker slightly ahead of Le Pen’s Front National, Macron failed to fill the stadium for his appearance and the audience was seen to dwindle over the course of his speech, reported Le Figaro.

Getty images
Le Pen’s rally comes just days after her return from Russia, where she met with President Putin and called for Western nations to join with Russia to defeat the Islamic State. Speaking with Mr. Putin, Le Pen said as ISIS terrorists killed six Russian soldiers at a military base in Chechnya: “the fight against terrorism can only be truly effective if the largest nations stand side by side and join forces.”

Putin responded in his remarks, saying: “We must open our eyes to this threat and join forces to fight terrorism”.