Saturday, March 25, 2017

A Little Bit Is Better Than Nada/Sometime You Want the Whole Enchilada

I don't know that I agree with Andrew Klavan's assertion that it would have been better for the Republicans to pass something, anything, re health care than to have passed nada, thereby being stuck with Obamacare for the time being. (Personally, I think it would have been better to come up with something better, having had, after all, more than half a decade to do so.) However, Klavan's piece gives me an excellent excuse to post one of my favourite movie theme songs. In case you're trying to place it, it's from that 1996 Kevin Costner golf movie (four words which, in and of themselves, explain why it was not a hit), Tin Cup.

And doesn't the above-quoted line from the song below perfectly capture the pickle the Republicans got themselves in with their now-failed Obamacare-lite bill?

Some Harsh Truths About the UK's Islamic Future--and Ours

This--a cogent analysis by Andrew J. McCarthy, a longtime expert on the subject of terrorism and jihad--is exactly the sort of thing that may soon be branded "Islamophobic" and therefore illegal in Justin "The Totalitarian Squish-Brain" Trudeau's Canada's. So you best read it now, while you still can.

McCarthy's conclusion: while Muslims are as "diverse" as can be, Islam, sad to say, is not. And its ways of perceiving the world and its own place in it are entirely incompatible with Western thinking:
There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.
Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western. 
Like the conversion of [London jihadi terrorist Khaled] Masood, the conversion of Birmingham has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance. 
As Soeren Kern relates in a comprehensive Gatestone Institute report on Islam in Britain, the metamorphosis of Birmingham, along with several other U.K. population centers, signifies this resistance. When the Islamic presence in a Western community reaches a critical mass, Islam’s hostility to Western mores and demands for sharia governance result in non-Muslim flight. Marriages between Muslims resident in the Western community and Muslims overseas tend to result in childbirth rates and household growth that dwarfs that of the indigenous population. Arranged, intra-familial, and polygamous marriages, endorsed by Islamic mores, drastically alter the fabric of communities in short order. Birmingham, in particular, has been ground zero of “Operation Trojan Horse,” a sharia-supremacist scheme to Islamize the public schools. 
Kern repeats an account of life in “inner-city Birmingham” by the wife of a British clergyman, first published by Standpoint in 2011. She explained how the neighborhood in which she’d lived for four years had become a “police no-go zone,” in which the large number of newly arrived Somali immigrants now approached that of Pakistanis already resident. Then she recalled her husband’s encounter with an immigrant who had just arrived from Belgium — on an EU passport, like an increasing number of Muslims these days. The migrant was surprised when the clergyman asked why he had chosen to move into their neighborhood. Finally, he replied, “Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.”
Best place to be "pure Muslim" in Canada?

It's a toss up, really. Some say Toronto; others say Montreal. You can be certain, though, that in Justin's Trudeaupia, a realm addicted to fairy tales, bromides and virtue signaling of the most frantically aggressive variety (why, the frenzied way it's done here almost qualifies it as an Olympics-worthy sport), we will have more than a few "no-go zones" and "sharia-supremacist schemes" in our future.

Friday, March 24, 2017

The Entity Formerly Known as CAIR-CAN "Welcomes Passage" of M-103

Its enthusiasm for the con job motion knows no bounds, hence this:

Strong majority of parliamentarians confront systemic racism and discrimination 

(Ottawa – March 23, 2017) The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a prominent civil liberties and advocacy organization, welcomes the passage of a parliamentary motion in the House of Commons today condemning Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and discrimination. 
A strong majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) — by a margin of 201 – 91 — voted in favour of Motion 103 which further recommends that parliament study these troubling phenomena in our communities. 
“Today, a majority of our federal elected representatives stood up to confront hatred in all its forms, and decided not to let fear and misinformation influence their decision-making,” says NCCM Executive Director Ihsaan Gardee. 
“This is a win for all Canadians in affirming our collective well-being. We continue to hear from fellow Canadians that we all must work together to promote inclusive communities where everyone feels welcome. The passage of Motion 103 is a critical piece in that puzzle,” says Gardee. 
Motion 103, put forward by Ms. Iqra Khalid, MP for Mississauga – Erin Mills, was the subject of an organized smear campaign in which detractors spread false information about what the motion could potentially do, including that it would shut down free speech. Such claims were forcefully debunked by prominent groups such as the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 
“This motion will not prevent legitimate and genuine criticism, which is a cornerstone of our cherished democratic rights and freedoms,” says NCCM Communications Director Amira Elghawaby. 
“It has been clear that many Canadians are still learning about Islamophobia,” adds Elghawaby. 
“Many fellow Canadians fully realized how potentially harmful the fear and marginalization of Muslims could be after the horrific terrorist attack against the Quebec City mosque. This motion reminds all of us, in particular our elected officials, to address fear and suspicion of the ‘other’ and understand how Islamophobia impacts people’s day to day lives,” says NCCM Board Chair Kashif Ahmed. 
“Hatred can certainly lead to violence. It can also lead to discrimination, exclusion, and the violation of human rights. We look forward to the federal government’s leadership on tackling these challenges,” says Ahmed.
In other words, we can look forward to more Liberal useful idiocy in the service of the NCCM's "jihad?-what jihad?" agenda.

The Madness of M-103 Began With an Utterly Insane E- Petition

Conservative MP Erin O'Toole gives us a history lesson re the motion's origin. Apparently, it all began with E - Petition 411, which "came to the attention of Members of Parliament in October 2016 when the leader of the NDP surprised the House and tried to seek unanimous consent to table this petition."

FYI, the petition, which, in essence, gives Islam a jihad-ectomy (deft surgery, indeed), reads as follows:
Petition to the House of Commons
Whereas:
  • Islam is a religion of over 1.5 billion people worldwide. Since its founding more than 1400 years ago, Muslims have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization. This encompasses all areas of human endeavors including the arts, culture, science, medicine, literature, and much more;
  • Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and
  • These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.
We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.
It should be noted that this tissue of nonsense, obfuscation and outright lies, which sounds like something that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood's PR division, was presented to Parliament well before the Quebec mosque attack, the pretext for rushing through M-103.

Sadly for the the Brits and Western Civ as a Whole, Theresa May Gets Ensnared By Some Slippery Semantics

Is what happened in London the other day due to something that ends in an "ic" or an "ist"? The British PM insists it's the latter:
Ms May replied that she believed it was not right to use the term, suggesting that such ideology was  “perversion”. 
“I absolutely agree, and it is wrong to describe this as ‘Islamic terrorism’,” she said. 
“It is ‘Islamist terrorism’, it is a perversion of a great faith.”
A few "unperverted" words of  wisdom from the "great faith" may provide a clue as to where Ms. May went wrong (dead wrong, truth be told).

And, to be clear, an Islamist is merely someone Islamic who is into sharia and heeding the religious obligation to wage jihad on infidels until such time as they feel themselves to be subdued and agree to pay a tax (called the jizya) to their overlords.

How "Diversity" Works In the Multiculti-Besotted, Denial-Ridden West

Daniel Greenfield nails it: "The victims are diverse. The killers are Muslim."

M-103: Sounds Even Worse as Reported By Al Jazeera

This sounds ghastly (my bolds):
Canadian politicians have passed a motion that condemns Islamophobia and requests that the government recognise the need to "quell the public climate of fear and hate". 
The non-binding motion, which condemns "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination", passed on Thursday among a divided parliament.  

It tasks a parliamentary committee to launch a study on how the government could address the issue, with recommendations due in mid-November.   
The study should look at how to "develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia," the motion says.
Beware of leftists looking to perfect society via "whole-of-government" approaches. Such efforts always--always!--end badly.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Tick...Tick...Tick...

Despite most Canadians being solidly against M-103, that "anti-Islamophobia" motion, our odious Liberal government has up and passed it, of course. And lest you think that, as a mere "motion" the thing has no teeth (or fangs), Anthony Furey swiftly shoots down that one:
Sure, it’s not an actual bill that proposes, say, endorsing sharia law, as some of its less circumspect critics allege. But it does call for a heritage committee study to look at the issue and then report back with a recommendations that could be used to create legislation within 240 days. The clock is now ticking. 

"Dear Jew-Hating Imams"

The Toronto Sun's Lorrie Goldstein pens a cheeky letter to the frenzied, imploring 'em to "try decaf".

I have a hunch that it's going to take more than that to get them to lay off the Jew-hate, Lorrie. (Like, say, some mellowing weed and/or mega-doses of heavy duty meds and/or lots and lots of Merlot.)



Update: Also in the Toronto Sun--Farzana Hassan says "Liberals needs to learn Islamophobia is a loaded word."

Update: Another way to help boost the mood of the moody--puppies! (Too bad the over-heated imams believe that having a pet dog is out of the question.)

Three Signs the the UK Still Doesn't Get It Re the Jihad (and Is Therefore Doomed)

First sign: the London cop who was supposedly "guarding" Parliament and who was knifed to death by the jihadi was not carrying a gun. In other words, he was entirely defenseless--a sitting duck, if you will. By comparison, when a gun-toting jihadi stormed Canada's House of Commons in 2014, he was quickly picked off and killed by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, a man who was not a police officer (the position is largely ceremonial) but who had a loaded weapon in his drawer.

Second sign: In his initial statement about the attack, acting Deputy Commissioner Mark Rowley, who is described as "Scotland Yard's top anti-terror officer," confirmed the number of those who had been killed and injured when the knifer, after killing the defenseless policeman, got in a truck and mowed people down on Westminster Bridge. Soon afterward, Rowley made a point of saying, "We must recognize now that our Muslim communities will feel vulnerable at this time, given the past actions of right-wing extremists."

Excuse me, acting DC Rowley. 40 infidels going about their business on a sunny day in London town have just felt the violent wrath of a chap said to be "inspired" by "Islamists," and Muslims are feeling vulnerable?

Gee, just imagine how the rest of the infidels are feeling.

Third sign: last night on the BBC, the newsreader kept saying that the attacker might have been inspired by the "so-called" Islamic State (the Beeb's regular way of referring to it, apparently).

Meaning what? That ISIS and jihad aren't really Islamic? That heeding the jihad imperative embedded in core Islamic holy texts is--what?--an aberration of an otherwise entirely peaceful religion?

Sounds to me like the Beeb, like the acting DC, is more concerned about protecting the "feelings" of "vulnerable" Muslims (so-called) than it is about telling the truth.



So you mean to say that not only was there a well-known "weak spot" at Parliament, the police assigned there weren't even armed?

The Brits need to get their act together, and quickly.

Update: Robert Spencer thinks that the Brits harping on "tolerance" post-attack is sheer madness:
Scotland Yard obliquely acknowledged that it was a jihad attack. In a statement, it said: “Officers – including firearms officers – remain on the scene and we are treating this as a terrorist incident until we know otherwise.” A “terrorist” incident means jihad. It wasn’t the IRA. There are no other significant terrorist groups operating today in the UK. This statement from Scotland Yard makes it very likely that this was a jihad attack, and yet another repudiation of the British government’s policy of appeasing and accommodating Islamic supremacists and jihadists while hounding and persecuting foes of jihad terror, and banning foreign ones from the country.
Yet in her own response to the attack, UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: “The British people will be united in working together to defeat those who would harm our shared values. Values of democracy, tolerance and the rule of law. Values symbolised by the Houses of Parliament. Values that will never be destroyed.” 
To speak about “tolerance” with several people dead at the hands of an Islamic jihadist in London is to signal that it will be business as usual in Theresa May’s Britain: nothing will be done to confront the ideology that incites its adherents to violence and hatred. This is clear because “tolerance” is never asked of Islamic supremacists who take to the streets of London to preach the ultimate victory of Sharia; the only people ever accused of “intolerance” are those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. 
As Bob Dylan said: “Toleration of the unacceptable leads to the last round-up.” And it’s coming in Britain. The London jihad attack was yet another harbinger of that.