Archive for the ‘Democrat’ Category

Race Relations and Law Enforcement

February 20, 2015

From here:

By Jason L. Riley

Editorial Board Member, Wall Street Journal

JasonLRiley

Jason L. Riley is an editorial board member and a senior editorial page writer at the Wall Street Journal, where he writes on politics, economics, education, immigration, and race. He is also a FOX News contributor and appears regularly on Special Report with Bret Baier. Previously, he worked for USA Today and the Buffalo News. He earned a bachelor’s degree in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 30, 2015, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

Thomas Sowell once said that some books you write for pleasure, and others you write out of a sense of duty, because there are things to be said—and other people have better sense than to say them. My new book, Please Stop Helping Us, falls into that latter category. When I started out as a journalist 20 years ago, I had no expectation of focusing on race-related topics. People like Sowell and Shelby Steele and Walter Williams and a few other independent black thinkers, to my mind at least, had already said what needed to be said, had been saying it for decades, and had been saying it more eloquently than I ever could. But over the years, and with some prodding from those guys, it occurred to me that not enough younger blacks were following in their footsteps. It also occurred to me that many public policies aimed at the black underclass were just as wrongheaded as ever. The fight wasn’t over. A new generation of black thinkers needed to explain what’s working and what isn’t, and why, to a new generation of readers. And the result is this book, which I hope will help to bring more light than heat to the discussion of race.

The book is not an autobiography or a memoir, but I do tell a few stories about growing up black and male in the inner city. And one of the stories involves a trip back home to Buffalo, New York, where I was born and raised. I was visiting my older sister shortly after I had begun working at the Wall Street Journal, and I was chatting with her daughter, my niece, who was maybe in the second grade at the time. I was asking her about school, her favorite subjects, that sort of thing, when she stopped me and said, “Uncle Jason, why you talk white?” Then she turned to her little friend who was there and said, “Don’t my uncle sound white? Why he tryin’ to sound so smart?”

She was just teasing, of course. I smiled and they enjoyed a little chuckle at my expense. But what she said stayed with me. I couldn’t help thinking: Here were two young black girls, seven or eight years old, already linking speech patterns to race and intelligence. They already had a rather sophisticated awareness that, as blacks, white-sounding speech was not only to be avoided in their own speech but mocked in the speech of others.

I shouldn’t have been too surprised by this, and I wasn’t. My siblings, along with countless other black friends and relatives, teased me the same way when I was growing up. And other black professionals have told similar stories. What I had forgotten is just how early these attitudes take hold—how soon this counterproductive thinking and behavior begins.

New York City has the largest school system in America. Eighty percent of black kids in New York public schools are performing below grade level. And a big part of the problem is a black subculture that rejects attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to academic success. Black kids read half as many books and watch twice as much television as their white counterparts, for example. In other words, a big part of the problem is a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in second grade.

Another big part of the problem is a reluctance to speak honestly about these cultural shortcomings. Many whites fear being called racists. And many black leaders have a vested interest in blaming black problems primarily on white racism, so that is the narrative they push regardless of the reality. Racism has become an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, be they social or economic. If you disagree and are white, you’re a bigot. If you disagree and are black, you’re a sell-out.

The shooting death of a young black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, last year touched off a national discussion about everything except the aberrant behavior of so many young black men that results in such frequent encounters with police. We talked about racial prejudice, poverty, unemployment, profiling, the tensions between law enforcement and poor black communities, and so forth. Rarely did we hear any discussion of black crime rates.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men in the U.S., and around 90 percent of the perpetrators are also black. Yet for months we’ve had protesters nationwide pretending that our morgues are full of young black men because cops are shooting them. Around 98 percent of black shooting deaths do not involve police. In fact, a cop is six times more likely to be shot by someone black than the opposite. The protestors are pushing a false anti-cop narrative, and everyone from the president on down has played along.

Any candid debate on race and criminal justice in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. Blacks constitute about 13 percent of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 they committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault, and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. So long as blacks are committing such an outsized amount of crime, young black men will be viewed suspiciously and tensions between police and crime-ridden communities will persist. The U.S. criminal justice system, currently headed by a black attorney general who reports to a black president, is a reflection of this reality, not its cause. If we want to change negative perceptions of young black men, we must change the behavior that is driving those perceptions. But pointing this out has become almost taboo. How can we even begin to address problems if we won’t discuss them honestly?

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The Left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and poverty, but back in the 1940s and ’50s, when racial discrimination was legal and black poverty was much higher than today, the black crime rate was lower. The Left wants to blame these outcomes on “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

Some insist that our jails and prisons are teeming with young black men due primarily to racist drug laws, but the reality is that the drug laws are neither racist nor driving the black incarceration rate. It’s worth remembering that the harsher penalties for crack cocaine offenses that were passed in the 1980s were supported by most of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem, who at the time headed the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Crack was destroying black communities and many black political leaders wanted dealers to face longer sentences. In other words, black legislators in Washington led the effort to impose tougher drug laws, a fact often forgotten by critics today.

When these laws passed, even their opponents didn’t claim that they were racist. Those charges came later, as the racially disparate impact of the laws became apparent. What’s been lost in the discussion is whether these laws leave law-abiding blacks better off. Do you make life in the ghetto harder or easier by sending thugs home sooner rather than later? Liberal elites would have us deny what black ghetto residents know to be the truth. These communities aren’t dangerous because of racist cops or judges or sentencing guidelines. They’re dangerous mainly due to black criminals preying on black victims.

Nor is the racial disparity in prison inmates explained by the enforcement of drug laws. Blacks are about 37.5 percent of the population in state prisons, which house nearly 90 percent of the nation’s inmates. Remove drug offenders from that population and the percentage of black prisoners only drops to 37 percent. What drives black incarceration rates are violent offenses, not drug offenses. Blacks commit violent crimes at seven to ten times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of blacks being picked on by cops who are “over-policing” certain neighborhoods. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the 911 calls originate.

If liberals want to help reverse these crime trends, they would do better to focus less on supposed racial animus and more on ghetto attitudes towards school, work, marriage, and child-rearing. As recently as the early 1960s, two out of three black children were raised in two-parent households. Today, more than 70 percent are not, and the number can reach as high as 80 or 90 percent in our inner cities. For decades, studies have shown that the likelihood of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, dropping out of school and other bad social outcomes increases dramatically when fathers aren’t around. One of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken in this regard concluded that black boys without a father are 68 percent more likely to be incarcerated than those with a father—that overall, the most critical factor affecting the prospect of young males encountering the criminal justice system is the presence of a father in the home. All other factors, including family income, are much less important.

As political scientist James Q. Wilson said, if crime is to a significant degree caused by weak character, if weak character is more likely among children of unmarried mothers, if there are no fathers who will help raise their children, acquire jobs, and protect their neighborhoods, if boys become young men with no preparation for work, if school achievement is regarded as a sign of having sold out—if all these things are true, then the chances of reducing the crime rate among low income blacks anytime soon is slim.

Many on the Left sincerely want to help the black underclass. The problem is that liberals believe bigger government is the best way to help. But having looked at the track record of government policies aimed at helping the black underclass, I’m skeptical.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s commencement speech at Howard University. Johnson had signed the Civil Rights Act a year earlier and would sign the Voting Rights Act two months later. And he used the speech to talk about what the government should do next on behalf of blacks. These two laws marked merely the end of the beginning, he said:

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society—to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. . . . But freedom is not enough. . . . You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. . . . The next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights [is] . . . not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

But what if Johnson was mistaken? What if there are limits to what government can do beyond removing barriers to freedom? What if the best that we can hope for from our elected officials are policies that promote equal opportunity? What if public policy makers risk creating more problems and barriers to progress when the goal is equal outcomes?

The civil rights struggles of the mid-20th century exemplified liberalism at its best. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawed racial discrimination in employment and education and ensured the ability of blacks to register and vote. All Americans can be proud of these accomplishments. But what about the social policy and thinking that arose from the ruins of Jim Crow? Good intentions aside, which efforts have facilitated black advancement, and which efforts have impeded it?

In 1988, right around the 25th anniversary of the Great Society, Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer published a book called the The Limits of Social Policy. Glazer analyzed Great Society programs from the perspective of someone who believed that government action was the best way to improve the lot of blacks. But his assessment humbled him. He concluded that in many ways, the Great Society programs were causing just as many problems as they were solving—that good intentions aren’t enough.

Unlike Nathan Glazer, many policy makers today are still riding high on good intentions. They don’t seem particularly interested in reconsidering what has been tried, even though 50 years into the war on poverty the result isn’t pretty. While gains have been made, significant racial disparities remain in some areas and black retrogression has occurred in others. The black-white poverty gap has widened over the past decade and the black poverty rate is no longer falling. The black-white disparity in incarceration rates today is larger than it was in 1960. And the black unemployment rate has, on average, been double the white rate for five decades.

Confronted with these statistics, liberals continue to push for more of the same solutions. Last year, President Obama announced yet another federal initiative aimed at helping blacks—an increase in preschool education, even though studies (including those released by his own administration) have shown no significant impacts in education from such programs. He said that he wants to increase reading proficiency and graduation rates for minority students, yet he opposes school voucher programs that are doing both. He continues to call for job-training programs of the sort that study after study has shown to be ineffective.

Fred Siegel, an expert on urban public policy, has written extensively about the liberal flight from evidence and empiricism that began in the 1960s. The Left, wracked by guilt over America’s diabolical treatment of blacks, decided to hold them to different standards of behavior. Blacks, Siegel writes, were invited to enter the larger society on their own terms. Schools, which had helped poor whites, ceased incorporating poor blacks from the South into the mainstream culture. Discipline as a prerequisite for adult success was displaced by the authentic self-expression of the ill-educated. Blacks were not culturally deprived but simply differently-abled—more spontaneous and expressive and so forth. Liberals tried to improve conditions for blacks without passing judgment on antisocial black culture. And this sort of thinking continues to this day. Walter Williams once wrote that he’s glad he grew up in the 1940s and ’50s, before it became fashionable for white people to like black people. He received a more honest assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, he says, than black kids today are likely to receive from white teachers and employers who are more interested in being politically correct.

After George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, President Obama explained the black response to the verdict this way. Blacks understand, he said, that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to that history. In other words, Obama was doing exactly what the Left has been conditioning blacks to do since the 1960s, which is to blame black pathology on the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

This is a dodge. That legacy is not holding down blacks half as much as the legacy of efforts to help. Underprivileged blacks have become playthings for intellectuals and politicians who care more about revelling in their good intentions or winning votes than advocating behaviors and attitudes that have allowed other groups to get ahead. Meanwhile, the civil rights movement has become an industry that does little more than monetize white guilt. Martin Luther King and his contemporaries demanded black self-improvement despite the abundant and overt racism of their day. King’s self-styled successors, living in an era when public policy bends over backwards to accommodate blacks, insist that blacks cannot be held responsible for their plight so long as someone, somewhere in white America, is still prejudiced.

The more fundamental problem with these well-meaning liberal efforts is that they have succeeded, tragically, in convincing blacks to see themselves first and foremost as victims. Today there is no greater impediment to black advancement than the self-pitying mindset that permeates black culture. White liberals think they are helping blacks by romanticizing bad behavior. And black liberals are all too happy to hustle guilty whites.

Blacks ultimately must help themselves. They must develop the same attitudes and behaviors and habits that other groups had to develop to rise in America. And to the extent that a social policy, however well-intentioned, interferes with this self-development, it does more harm than good.

This concept of self-help and self-development is something that black leaders once understood quite well, and at a time when blacks faced infinitely more obstacles than they face today. Asked by whites in 1865 what to do for freed blacks, Frederick Douglass responded: “I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! . . . If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength . . . let them fall! . . . And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!” Douglass was essentially saying, give blacks equal opportunity and then leave them alone.

Booker T. Washington, another late 19th century black leader who had been born a slave, once said that it is important and right that all privileges of the law be granted to blacks, but it is vastly more important that they be prepared for the exercise of these privileges.

Douglass and Washington didn’t play down the need for the government to secure equal rights for blacks, and both were optimistic that blacks would get equal rights eventually, although neither man lived to see that day. But both men also understood the limits of government benevolence. Blacks would have to ready themselves to meet the challenge of being in a position to take advantage of opportunities once equal rights had been secured. The history of 1960s liberal social policies is largely a history of ignoring this wisdom.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

    Advertisements

    Pope says Copts in Libya were murdered “for sole reason of being Christian,” blames arms traffickers

    February 19, 2015

    From Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch:

    FrancisdovesFrancisdovecrow

    Maybe Pope Francis said something about the people who actually did kill these Christians, and why they did it, in some other part of his homily that isn’t reported here, but I couldn’t find any such reference in any news account. The jihad murderers who murdered these Christians declared: “And we will conquer Rome by Allah’s permission, the promise of our prophet, peace be upon him.”

    In response, the Pope decries the evil in the heart of man, which is unarguably the root cause of all this, and apparently says nothing about Islamic jihadists or the doctrines of jihad that gave rise to these murders, but instead excoriates…arms traffickers. So apparently if we just had more restrictions on the sale of weaponry, there would be no jihad — since after all, as the Pope has explained, “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.” A little gun control, and all will be well.

    The idolatry of the papacy that afflicts the contemporary Roman Catholic Church has made these fatuous delusions into semi-official church policy. Then liberal bishops who don’t care about the Pope go along with the liberal zeitgeist, because that’s their true religion. Bishops in the United States routinely obfuscate and deny the root causes of Muslim persecution of Christians, and work to prevent any honest discussion of these issues in their churches and church organizations. They are abdicating their responsibility to tell the truth, make their people aware of what is happening, and prepare them for what is coming. Catholic publications (such as the hopeless Aleteia) tag along, spreading the fog of falsehood and deception and secure that in doing so, they’re obeying the Holy Father.

    Another problem here is the prevailing tendency within the Church to confuse charity with niceness. Far too many people think they’re being charitable when they’re ignoring or glossing over unpleasant truths. But in reality it is never charitable, or worthwhile in any way, to deny the truth. Looking around at all the strictly enforced head-in-the-sand action, one could reasonably get the impression that “Islam is a Religion of Peace” is a new dogma of the Catholic Church, to be believed upon pain of excommunication. (As for me, as their old friend Martin L. once said, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”) This cult of flaccid niceness and denial is leading to a persecution of the Church on a scale never seen before, as Christians who were kept in ignorance and complacency by their leaders are led to the slaughter.

    What if Islamic State jihadis do enter Rome and the Vatican? Is that so far-fetched, given that they’re in Libya now? And if they enter the Pope’s apartments, will he explain to them how they are misunderstanding Islam as they are leading him away to be beheaded?

    “Pope celebrates Mass for the 21 Copts killed in Libya, ‘for sole reason of being Christian,’” Asia News, February 17, 2015 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

    Vatican City (AsiaNews) – “We offer this Mass for our 21 Coptic brothers, whose throats were slit for the sole reason of being Christian”. This is how Pope Francis began his homily at Mass this morning at Casa Santa Marta.

    “Let us pray – he continued – for them; that the Lord welcome them as martyrs, for their families, for my brother Tawadros, who is suffering greatly.” A thought, the latter, which already yesterday afternoon had pushed Francis to call the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Tawadros II, to express its deep sympathy for the pain of the Coptic Church for this barbaric murder.

    Continuing his reflection, the Pope returned to condemn the arms trade, “of death”. Francis was inspired by the biblical passage on the Great Flood to say that “man is capable of destroying all that God has done.” The Pope noted with regret that man, “seems to be more powerful than God”, because he is capable of destroying the good things that God has made.

    Pope Francis pointed out that in the first chapters of the Bible we find many examples – Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel – in which man reveals his wickedness. “An evil that lurks in the depths of the heart”.

    The Pope noted some people would urge him not to be so negative, but – he continued – “this is the truth. We are also capable of destroying fraternity: Cain and Abel in the first pages of the Bible. They destroy fraternity. This is where wars begin. Jealousy, envy, so much greed for power, to have more power. Yes, this sounds negative, but it is realistic. You only have to pick up a newspaper, any newspaper – left-wing, center, right-ring … whatever. And you will see that more than 90% of the news is news of destruction. More than 90%. We see this every day”.

    Pope Francis then asked the question: “What is happening in man’s heart?”. He said Jesus reminds us that “from within, out of the heart of man, comes evil.” Our “weak heart is wounded”. He observed that man always “desires autonomy”: “I do what I want and if I want to do something, I will! So, if I want to make war, I will!

    “Why are we like this? Because we are capable of destruction, that’s the problem. There are wars, arms trafficking … ‘But, we are businessmen!’ Yes, but of what? Of death? And there are countries that sell weapons, are at war with one side but also selling weapons to them, so that the war continues. A capacity for destruction. It’s not coming from our neighbors: it’s coming from us! ‘Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’. Everyone has this seed within, this possibility, but we also have the Holy Spirit who saves us! We must choose, in the little things”.

    Pope Francis went on to warn against using gossip or slander against our neighbor: “Even in parishes and associations”, “jealousy” and “envy” can push people to go to their pastor to speak ill of others. He warned: “This is evil and we all have this ability to destroy”. As Lent begins, the Church “invites us to reflect on this”. Pointing to today’s Gospel where Jesus rebukes the disciples who are arguing among themselves about having forgotten to bring bread. The Lord tells them to “watch out, guard against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod”. He gives the example of two people: Herod who “is bad, a murderer, and the Pharisees who are hypocrites.” In doing so, Jesus reminds them of when he broke the five loaves and urges them to think of the Salvation, of what God has done for all of us. Pope Francis went on to note that “they did not understand, because their hearts were hardened by this passion, by this evil need to argue among each other and see who was guilty of having forgotten the bread”.

    Pope Francis said we have to take the Lord’s message “seriously”. “There is nothing strange in this, these are not the words of a Martian”, “man is able to do so much good”, he continued citing the example of Mother Teresa, “a woman of our time”. All of us, he said, “are capable of doing good, but we are also all capable of destruction; destruction great and small and even within our own family. [We are capable of destroying] our children”, not allowing them to grow “in freedom, not helping them to mature; cancelling out our children”. We are capable of this and this means that we need to constantly “meditate, pray, discuss things with each other, so as not to fall into this evil that destroys everything”:

    “And we have the strength, Jesus reminds us. Remember. He says to us today: ‘Remember. Remember Me, I shed my blood for you; remember Me, I have saved you, I have saved you all; Remember Me, I have the strength to accompany you on the journey of life, not on the path of evil, but on the path of goodness, of doing good to others; not the path of destruction, but the path that builds: builds a family, builds a city, builds a culture, builds a home and much, much more”.

    The Pope concluded: “We ask the Lord, today, before the beginning of Lent for this grace: to always choose the right path with his help and not be misled by temptations down the wrong path.”

    In related news:

    papal protection

    papal protection

    The current Poope is not only an Idolatrous cretin, but also a muslim-enabling criminal himself.

    Islam can be easily studied and known in its entirety, by anyone. It will never change!

    So, when Western people won’t educate them *selves* about islam because our culture defers all thinking to those “authorities” we PAY to do our thinking and research for us, while they secretly know full-well that the salesmen in charge will always sell us all out, they ARE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT INFANTILE DELINQUENT TRAITORS TO RATIONALITY AND CIVILIZATION!

    It should never be allowed by backwards people to be considered “illegal” to accuse these criminals (muslims) of their crimes, allegedly because the painful truth might offend them or hurt their feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!

    No problem was ever solved by ignoring it, and nobody is doing even these muslims any favours, by indulging their historic lies that islam is a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) or a “race” (much less one of poor oppressed “People Of Colour”)!

    Pretending there is NOT a Muslim problem but only a white racist problem accepting diversity, is criminally negligent TREASON.

    Re:

    “What if Islamic State jihadis do enter Rome and the Vatican? Is that so far-fetched, given that they’re in Libya now? And if they enter the Pope’s apartments, will he explain to them how they are misunderstanding Islam as they are leading him away to be beheaded?”

    ONE CAN ONLY HOPE (“pray”) FOR THAT VERY RESULT TO OCCUR – SOON!

    Leftist Gangsters HAVE ALWAYS Supported Islam

    February 13, 2015

    From here:

    The Left and Islam Apologetics

    By Stephen Schwartz

    Originally published under the title, “Famous Communists and Islam.”

    Leftist sympathy for despotic Islamic forces challenging the West dates back to Papa Bear.

    For some time, an argument has been made that the liberal left, in refusing to examine the problems of Islam, has betrayed its Enlightenment roots. That is, while secular, feminist, and protective of free speech in dealing with its Western peers, the liberal left has been accused of abandoning its heritage in its quest for political correctness regarding Muslims.

    In truth, however, the left has a distinguished background of courting Islam as a weapon against Western capitalism. Its most representative figures from the past did so frankly, as the following rehearsal of their statements demonstrates.

    Karl Marx supported the Ottoman empire, then accused of atrocities against Christians and non-Turkish Muslims. In 1853, as the Crimean War pitting Russia against Turkey began, Marx wrote,

    It is not to be denied that Turkey, the weak state, has shown more true courage, as well as more wise statesmanship, than either of her powerful allies [Britain and France] . . . we may justly attribute the delays and hesitation shown in the manoeuvres of Omer Pasha [Latas] to the paralyzing and temporizing influence of Lord Redcliffe and M. [Edmond] de la Cour, [British and French ambassadors to Turkey] over the Divan [the Ottoman court]. At the moment when [Omer Pasha Latas] was opening the campaign, they procured orders to be sent to him to delay the beginning of hostilities. . . . If there be a general war, it will not be the fault of Turkey, but next to Russia, of France and England. They might have prevented it infallibly, but they did not.

    Omer Pasha Latas was a brutal and corrupt Ottoman functionary hated especially by Balkan Muslims.

    Thus was a pattern established: defend Muslim autocrats, blame the West.

    Lenin was so excited by the defeat of Russia by Japan in 1904, the failed Russian revolution of 1905, the 1906 constitutional revolution in Persia, and the 1908 Young Turk revolution in the Ottoman empire, that he wrote,

    In Persia, Russian counter revolution played and continues to play what amounts to a decisive role, while in Turkey the revolution was at once confronted with a counter-revolutionary coalition of the powers, Russia at their head. True, the general tone of the European press and of the diplomatic statements would appear to contradict this. If we are to believe these statements and the semi-official press, there is universal ‘sympathy’ with regenerated Turkey, a universal desire to see her constitutional regime strengthened and developed, general praise for the ‘moderation’ of the bourgeois Young Turks. All these fine words, however, are typical of the base bourgeois hypocrisy of Europe’s ‘present-day’ reactionary governments and present-day reactionary bourgeoisie.

    Once again: Muslims as manipulated victims, the West at fault, and repudiation of Western sympathy for modernization of Muslim societies.

    After the Bolshevik Revolution, Muslims under Russian rule were granted a special status. The Communist International held the 1920 Baku Congress of Peoples of the East in which Muslim delegates called for struggle against the West with Russian support. There, a Bolshevik intellectual, Karl Radek, declared,

    We appeal, comrades, to the warlike feelings which once inspired the peoples of the East when these peoples, led by their great conquerors, advanced upon Europe. We know, comrades, that our enemies will say that we are appealing to the memory of Genghis Khan and to the memory of the great conquering Caliphs of Islam . . . when the capitalists of Europe say that a new wave of barbarism threatens . . . we answer them: Long live the Red East, which together with the workers of Europe will create a new civilization under the banner of Communism!

    These declarations shouldn’t surprise us. When anti-imperialism is the concept and purpose that defines a movement, it will naturally find allies in radical Islam, which presents itself precisely as a creation of colonial oppression.

    Stephen Schwartz, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is executive director of theCenter for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, DC.

    Diversity

    February 13, 2015

    Diversity(HT to Sheik Yer’Mami, over at Winds of Jihad)!

    Liberals may secretly know and admit that there is really only one human “race,” albeit many different breeds.

    I know it’s a difficult concept for them to accept, but there’s really only two “cultures” or “creeds” among them all:

    Civilization (where people agree to not attack thereby innocent others first) and Crime (where they pretend they have a false right to do anything they want TO others, as long as they pretend they’re doing it FOR them – for their own good).

    And pretending the different breeds automatically think differently, or are entitled, through tradition (habit) to inherit a crime-creed like islam, is the very definition of that “racism” meme the leftist criminals always slander the civilized people with.

    😉

    LIBERAL IDOLATERS DIVIDE THE WORLD INTO TWO IDEAL IDEAS: OPPRESSED minorities, AND majority OPPRESSORS; the oppressed can do no wrong, because their crimes will always be viewed as reactions against oppression (regardless of actual cause and effect) and the oppressors – which includes all Western society – can never do anything right, and their attempts to do so will always be seen as cringing, less than optimal repayments covering their crimes!

    And, although Blacks and Whites are on exact, equal par worldwide, liberal racists will support them as “minorities” here in the West, until, that is, they have succeeded in their obvious plans to import enough non Whites here to supplant us all; but by then, it will be far too late.

    ;-(

    …….

    As Nikola Bijeliti put it:

    When our leaders talk about “diversity,” they always mean “fewer White people.”

    When they say “Diversity is our greatest strength,” they mean “White people are our greatest weakness.”
    Diversity means chasing down every last White person.

    Diversity is a codeword for White genocide.
    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

    Have you ever noticed that all of the “Director of Diversity” positions in colleges and corporations are staffed by black women or some other victim group?

    Apparently white people can’t know anything about diversity.

    …….

    Multiculturalism is being promoted in every White country on the earth, and ONLY in White countries.
    The purpose of multiculturalism is to turn every White country into a non-White country. Under international law, that constitutes genocide. Any White person who opposes this is called a racist.
    But White people are now coming to realize two things:
    That multiculturalism is a codeword for White genocide.
    That anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

    How & Why Obama Destroys the Middle Class

    February 3, 2015

    FOIA request reveals ‘shadow’ work permit system not authorized by law adding millions to labor force

    By Thomas Lifson

    In a stunning report based on data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, The Center for Immigration Studies has revealed that the Obama administration has been flooding the United States with work permits not authorized by law for millions of people.

    Government data reveal that about 5.5 million new work permits were issued to aliens from 2009 to 2014, above and beyond the number of new green card and temporary worker admissions in those years. This is a huge parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the limits set by Congress that inevitably impacts opportunities for U.S. workers, damages the integrity of the immigration system, and encourages illegal immigration.

    On the one hand, the Obama administration drives down wages, particularly for the lower end of the education spectrum, while on the other hand it blames capitalism and Republicans for the rise in income inequality.  It is a hypocritical con game of the highest order.  Marxist Hegelians call it “heightening the contradictions.”  It is not a new game; in fact, it is one that communist agitators have used for a century and a half.  But it has never, as far as I know, been played by a United States president before.Ryan Lovelace notes in NRO’s The Corner:

    The remarkable number of work permits granted by the federal government to law-breaking aliens better explains how all net jobs growth since 2007 has gone to immigrants.

    The sheer numbers found by the CIS are spectacular:

    Approximately 1.8 million new work permits were issued to aliens with temporary visas or those who entered under the Visa Waiver Program. Of these, about 1.2 million (67 percent) had a visa status for which employment is not authorized by law. For example, more than 470,000 work permits were issued to aliens on tourist visas and 532,000 were issued to foreign students. More than 156,000 were issued to dependents of students and guestworkers, all in categories not authorized for employment by law.

    In addition, 963,000 new work permits were issued to aliens who have been granted permanent status or have a status that will lead to a green card. These are primarily refugees (418,000), fiancés of U.S. citizens (164,000), and approved asylum applicants (174,000).

    About 982,000 new work permits were issued in this time period to illegal aliens or aliens unqualified for admission. Of these, 957,000 were aliens who crossed the border illegally (Entered Without Inspection). Inexplicably, 1,200 new work permits were issued to aliens who were denied asylum, were suspected of using fraudulent documents, were stowaways, or were refused at a port of entry.

    A huge number of work permits, 1.7 million, were issued to aliens whose status was unknown, not recorded by the adjudicator, or not disclosed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes the applications. This should be a concern; work permits are gateway documents to driver’s licenses and other benefits, and if the government agency issuing them does not know or will not disclose how the bearer arrived in the country how can others rely on the authenticity of an individual’s identity? It is equally disconcerting if the government does know and chooses not to disclose it.

    You can count on the so-called “civil rights” leaders like Sharpton to completely ignore the impact of millions of job entrants on the wages available to African-Americans.  And you probably won’t be seeing much on the subject on NBC Nightly News, either.

    Bankster Layoffs Hint End Is Near

    January 29, 2015

    From here:

    Remember when George W. Bush damaged his presidency and legacy by arrogantly proclaiming “mission accomplished” on an aircraft carrier as he announced the end of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? He looked foolish when thousands more American soldiers came home in body bags and tens of thousands more were badly injured.

    The reality Bush didn’t understand was that this was only the beginning of a guerrilla war using terrorist tactics. The biased liberal media, of course, never let the American public forget Bush’s mistake. They called him dumb and arrogant.

    The question now is what do you call someone stupid enough to repeat the same mistake as his predecessor? You call him Barack Obama.

    In his State of the Union address, a smug, arrogant Obama just declared “mission accomplished” on multiple fronts. He gloated that the economy is booming and the “fact” that he has defeated ISIS. Obama told Americans the recession is over, that it’s time to move on. He said it’s old news and it’s time to ignore any mention of hard times.

    Really? If Bush was dumb and arrogant for announcing “mission accomplished,” what does that make Obama for repeating the same mistake? Is there a word for stupid squared?

    It’s clear ISIS isn’t defeated. If anything, ISIS is getting stronger every day. The terrorists are laughing in our face as they behead more hostages, capture more territory and actually publicly threaten the president of the United States.

    And the economy? Within days of Obama’s State of the Union “mission accomplished” speech, bad economic news came in droves. Obama’s policies and never ending new regulations are not helping the economy; they are destroying it.

    Only days after Obama’s speech, it was disclosed that 50,000 bank employees were laid off in December (only days before the speech). Yes, I said 50,000 in one month.

    But Wall Street wasn’t alone. EBay announced massive layoffs only days after Obama’s State of the Union — about 7 percent of its workforce.

    American Express just laid off 4,000 employees (about 6 percent of its workforce).

    Baker Hughes announced layoffs of 7,000 (about 11 percent of its workforce) the same week.

    Energy and oil companies announced the layoffs of thousands and predicted 20,000 more could lose their jobs in one North Dakota town by summer.

    Forbes is reporting that IBM will soon announce layoffs of 100,000 employees (25 percent of its workforce), although IBM denies that number.

    Teen clothing retailer Wet Seal just declared bankruptcy and closed 338 stores.

    Retailers like Macy’s and J.C. Penny are closing stores and laying off thousands of employees. Retailers are closing thousands of stores after a poor Christmas shopping season and laying off hundreds of thousands of employees. A poor Christmas shopping season? Funny, but that doesn’t sound like Obama “saved” the economy, does it?

    Durable goods orders in America have literally collapsed.

    Earlier this week, the stock market plunged 500 points on news of disastrous earnings reports from major companies across the U.S. Not only are companies reporting terrible fourth-quarter results, but they are severely downgrading their 2015 sales and profits predictions.

    More terrible news. The entire EU is on the verge of collapse. It just happens to be America’s No. 1 trading partner.

    Recovery? For the first time in history, a majority of public school students in America live in poverty.

    For the first time in history, more businesses are failing each day than opening.

    For the first time in history, there are more people on welfare, food stamps and other handouts than working in the private sector.

    Americans on disability are up by 50 percent.

    Food stamp use topped 46 million for the 38th straight month.

    We have the lowest workforce participation rate in modern history.

    Almost 100 million working-age Americans aren’t working. 

    And 107 million Americans are on some form of welfare. Is it a coincidence that about the same number are unemployed as collecting welfare?

    And all of this “success” and “saving” of the economy was achieved by adding $8 trillion to the national debt in only six years. Obama has exploded the debt by an unimaginable 70 percent.

    The Director of the CBO just called the debt “unsustainable” and predicts we are the verge of fiscal crisis.

    Not surprisingly, economist Robert Johnson reports the wealthiest hedge fund managers and other assorted Wall Street bankers and billionaires fear instability, unrest and riots and are busy buying farms in New Zealand to escape the violence to come.

    Oh, and even if you believe the lie that the economy is doing wonderful, it’s all at the expense of our future. Interest rates are at zero. Raise them even a few points and just the interest on our skyrocketing debt will eat up the entire U.S. budget. Now add in the cost of Obamacare (just revealed at $50,000 per person over the next decade), and all the taxes in the world won’t pay for the interest on the debt. Our economy will be overwhelmed. Like Humpty Dumpty, no one will ever be able to pick up the pieces again.

    The Great Recession isn’t over. We may actually be in the eye of an economic hurricane. Remember, it’s calm and quiet in the eye of a hurricane. It seems like the worst is over. But the worst is yet to come — it’s on the other side of the eye.

    The stats above make it clear there is no recovery. Obama didn’t “save” the economy. He simply lied… again. He just made it up. Obama is proof of the saying “Liars make the best promises.”

    So now you can add to the list of the great lies of all time:

    • “Mission accomplished.”
    • “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”
    • “The shadow of the crisis has passed… Tonight we turn the page…”

    Those words are a testament to the arrogance and stupidity of Obama. Get ready for the second more deadly half of the hurricane.

    Lefty/ muslim-owned Fox News grovels to islam

    January 22, 2015

    The leftiste Mayor of Paris, France, (is there any other kind of Frog politician these days, besides Marine LePen?) threatened to sue Fox News for stating the truth: that France has over 751 muslim sharia no-go zones. Fox News promptly issued an apology, which has been used as fodder by gleeful leftards worldwide to discredit all “islamophobes.”

    And yet the Frog government itself keeps official lists of these “ZUS” (Zones Urbaines Sensitifs) on it’s own website, here.

    From Jihad Watch:

    European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction?

    JANUARY 21, 2015 2:56 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

    The mainstream media is running hard these days with the absurd idea that Sharia no-go zones in Europe are the “Islamophobic” fabrication of Fox News or Steve Emerson. This despite the fact that the New York Times, Newsweek and the New Republic, hardly conservative outlets, have all referred to them. And in this piece, Soeren Kern shows that numerous French analysts have referred to them as well. Will the Mayor of Paris, who has said she will sue Fox News over this, sue all of them also?

    “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction?,” by Soeren Kern, Gatestone Institute, January 20, 2015:

    The jihadist attack on the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine known for lampooning Islam, has cast a spotlight on so-called no-go zones in France and other European countries.

    No-go zones are Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims due to a variety of factors, including the lawlessness and insecurity that pervades a great number of these areas. Host-country authorities have effectively lost control over many no-go zones and are often unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim youth.

    Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism and pose a significant threat to Western security.

    Europe’s no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations.

    The problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist. Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue.

    Consider Carol Matlack, an American writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, who recently penned a story — entitled “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities” — in which she claims that no-go zones are nothing more than an “urban legend” that is “demonstrably untrue.” She then goes on to ridicule those who disagree with her.

    The American cable television channel Fox News has also issued at least four apologies for referring to Muslim no-go zones in Europe, after one commentator erroneously claimed that the entire city of Birmingham, England, was Muslim. Had he simply said that “parts” of Birmingham are Muslim, he would have been correct.

    Despite such politically correct denials, Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.

    What follows is the first in a multi-part series that will document the reality of Europe’s no-go zones. The series begins by focusing on France and provides a brief compilation of just a few of the literally thousands of references to French no-go zones from academic, police, media and government sources that can easily be found on the Internet by doing a simple search on Google.

    Fabrice Balanche, a well-known French Islam scholar who teaches at the University of Lyon, recently told Radio Télévision Suisse: “You have territories in France such as Roubaix, such as northern Marseille, where police will not step foot, where the authority of state is completely absent, where mini Islamic states have been formed.”

    French writer and political journalist Éric Zemmour recently told BFM TV: “There are places in France today, especially in the suburbs, where it is not really in France. Salafi Islamists are Islamizing some neighborhoods and some suburbs. In these neighborhoods, it’s not France, it’s an Islamic republic.” In a separate interview, Zemmour — whose latest book is entitled, “The French Suicide” — says multiculturalism and the reign of politically correct speech is destroying the country.

    French politician Franck Guiot wrote that parts of Évry, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, are no-go zones where police forces cannot go for fear of being attacked. He said that politicians seeking to maintain “social peace” were prohibiting the police from using their weapons to defend themselves.

    The Socialist mayor of Amiens, Gilles Demailly, has referred to the Fafet-Brossolette district of the city as a “no-go zone” where “you can no longer order a pizza or get a doctor to come to the house.” Europe 1, one of the leading broadcasters in France, has referred to Marseille as a “no-go zone” after the government was forced to deploy riot police, known as CRS, to confront warring Muslim gangs in the city. The French Interior Ministry said it was trying to “reconquer” 184 square kilometers (71 square miles) of Marseille that have come under the control of Muslim gangs.

    The French newspaper Le Figaro has referred to downtown Perpignan as a “veritable no-go zone” where “aggression, antisocial behavior, drug trafficking, Muslim communalism, racial tensions and tribal violence” are forcing non-Muslims to move out.Le Figaro also reported that the Les Izards district of Toulouse was a no-go zone, where Arab drug trafficking gangs rule the streets in a climate of fear.

    Separately, Le Figaroreported that large quantities of assault rifles are circulating in French no-go zones. “For a few hundred dollars you can buy Kalashnikovs,” political scientist Sebastian Roché said. “The price of an iPhone!”

    The newspaper France Soirpublished poll results showing that nearly 60% of French citizens are in favor of sending the army into troubled suburbs to restore order.

    The newspaper Le Parisien has called parts of Grigny, a township in the southern suburbs of Paris, a “lawless zone” plagued by well-organized Muslim gangs, whose members believe they are “masters of the world.” The weekly newsmagazine Le Point reported on the spiraling Muslim lawlessness in the French city of Grenoble.

    The French magazine L’Obs (formerly known as Le Nouvel Observateur) has reportedon the deteriorating security situation in Roubaix, a city in northern France that is located close to the Belgian border. The magazine reported that local citizens are “exiled within their own country” and want to create their own militia to restore order because police are afraid to confront Muslim gangs.

    In August 2014, the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles (Contemporary Values)reported that “France has more than 750 areas of lawlessness” where the law of the French Republic no longer applies. Under the headline “Hell in France,” the magazine said that many parts of France are experiencing a “dictatorship of riffraff” where police are “greeted by mortar fire” and are “forced to retreat by projectiles.”

    Separately, Valeurs Actuellesreported on the lawlessness in Trappes, a township located in the western suburbs of Paris, where radical Islam and endemic crime go hand in hand. “Criminals are pursued by Islamic fundamentalists to impose an alternative society, breaking links with the French Republic,” according to local police commander Mohammed Duhan. It is not advisable to go there, he says, adding, “You will be spotted by so-called chauffeurs (lookouts for drug traffickers) and be stripped and smashed.”

    Valeurs Actuelles has also reported on no-go zones in Nantes, Tours and Orléans, which have turned into “battlefields” where the few remaining native French holdouts are confronted with “Muslim communalism, the disappearance of their cultural references and rampant crime.”

    A graphic 20-minute documentary (in French) about the no-go zone in Clichy Montfermeil, a suburb of Paris, can be viewed here. At around the 3-minute mark, the video shows what happens when French police enter the area.

    A policeman uses a shotgun to try to keep an attacking gang at bay, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy Montfermeil. (Image source: Dailymotion video screenshot)

    A 1.5 hour documentary (in French) produced by France’s TF1 about Muslim gangs in Parisian no-go zones can be viewed here. A 50-minute documentary (in French) produced by France’s TV3 about the no-go zones of Clos Saint-Lazare in northern Paris can be viewed here. A 45-minute documentary (in English) about the no-go zones of Marseilles can be viewed here.

    A four-minute video of the most dangerous neighborhoods of France in 2014 can be viewed here. A three-and-a-half-minute video of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Greater Paris Metropolitan Area can be viewed here. A two-minute video of a no-go zone in Lille can be viewed here. A five-minute video about life in the suburbs of Lyon can be viewed here.

    A Russian television (Russia-1) documentary about no-go zones in Paris can be viewed here. The presenter says: “We are in Paris, the Barbès quarter, a few minutes from the famous Montmartre. Finding a European here is almost a mission impossible. Certain Paris streets remind one of an oriental bazaar.” He continues: “The Paris banlieues have become criminal ghettoes where even the police dare not enter.” Hidden cameras record widespread lawlessness and drug dealing in the area.

    A 120-page research paper entitled “No-Go Zones in the French Republic: Myth or Reality?” documented dozens of French neighborhoods “where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings.”

    Some of the most notorious no-go zone areas in France are situated in the department of Seine-Saint-Denis, a northeastern suburb (banlieue) of Paris that has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in France. The department is home to an estimated 600,000 Muslims (primarily from North and West Africa) out of a total population of 1.4 million.

    Seine-Saint-Denis is divided into 40 administrative districts called communes(townships), 36 of which are on the French government’s official list of “sensitive urban zones” or ZUS.

    Seine-Saint-Denis — also known locally as “ninety-three” or “nine three” after the first two digits of the postal code for this suburb — has one of the highest unemployment rates in France; more than 40% of those under the age of 25 are jobless. The area is plagued with drug dealing and suffers from some of the highest rates of violent crime in France.

    In October 2011, a landmark 2,200-page report, “Banlieue de la République” (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the French state, and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law. The report said that Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and instead are immersing themselves in radical Islam.

    The report — which was commissioned by the influential French think tank, L’Institut Montaigne — was directed by Gilles Kepel, a highly respected political scientist and specialist in Islam, together with five other French researchers.

    The authors of the report showed that France — which now has 6.5 million Muslims (the largest Muslim population in European Union) — is on the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society.

    The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers, who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law.

    The research was primarily carried out in the Seine-Saint-Denis townships of Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil, two suburbs that were ground zero for Muslim riots in the fall of 2005, when Muslim mobs torched more than 9,000 cars.

    The report described Seine-Saint-Denis as a “wasteland of de-industrialization” and said that in some areas, “a third of the population of the town does not hold French nationality, and many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity.”

    Another township of Seine-Saint-Denis is Aubervilliers. Sometimes referred to as one of the “lost territories of the French Republic,” it is effectively a Muslim city: more than 70% of the population is Muslim. Three quarters of young people under 18 in the township are foreign or French of foreign origin, mainly from the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa. French police are said to rarely venture into some of the most dangerous parts of the township.

    The southern part of Aubervilliers is well known for its vibrant Chinese immigrant community along with their wholesale clothing and textile warehouses and import-export shopping malls. In August 2013, the weekly newsmagazine Mariannereportedthat Muslim immigrants felt humiliated by the economic dynamism of the Chinese, and were harassing and attacking Chinese traders, who were increasingly subject to robberies and extortion. The situation got so bad that the Chinese ambassador to France was forced to pay a visit to the area.

    In response, the Socialist mayor of Aubervilliers, Jacques Salvator, suggested that the violence could be halted if Chinese companies would agree to hire more Arabs and Africans. The Chinese countered that Muslims do not work as hard as the Chinese, that they are more demanding, and that they complain too much, according to Marianne.

    After local officials refused to act in the face of increasing Muslim violence, the Chinese threatened to “call on the Chinese mafia” for protection. Muslims responded by launching a petition to have the Chinese expelled from the area.

    Also in Aubervilliers, the magazine Charlie Hebdoreported in 2012 that the town hall was obligating non-Muslim men who want to marry Muslim women to convert to Islam first, even though France is ostensibly a secular republic. One such man, Frédéric Gilbert, a journalist, was told:

    “You can convert in any mosque in three minutes. All you need do is to repeat ‘with conviction and sincerity’ this sentence: ‘I recognize that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet,’ and the Imam will agree that you have converted to Islam.’”

    In a story entitled, “When Town Hall Mayors become Imams,” Charlie Hebdo wrote:

    “In other words, Moroccan law prevails over French law in cases of mixed marriages and the same situation pertains with regard to other former French colonies such as Tunisia and Algeria as well as with Egypt.”

    According to the newspaper Le Parisien, the practice of “false conversions” to Islam is widespread because most non-Muslim grooms prefer fake conversions rather than to suffer “administrative complications.”

    In 2014, Le Figaropublished the contents of a leaked intelligence document that warns about the imposition of Islamic Sharia law in French schools in Muslim ghettoes. The 15-page document provides 70 specific examples of how Muslim radicals are taking over ostensibly secular schools throughout the country. These include: veiling in playgrounds, halal meals in the canteen, chronic absenteeism (bordering 90% in some parts of Nîmes and Toulouse) during religious festivals, clandestine prayer in gyms or hallways. The report details how “self-proclaimed young guardians of orthodoxy” are circumventing the March 2004 law banning religious symbols in French schools. In Marseille, a high school principal testified that some of her students pray with such fervor that they have “blue foreheads.”

    A video showing a radical Islamic rally in Saint-Denis can be viewed here. A video showing radical Muslims commandeering a French bus amid screams of “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is greater!) can be viewed here. A series of eight videos documenting Muslim street prayers in Paris can be viewed here. (Street prayers have now been outlawed.) A series of 25 videos documenting the Islamization of France can be viewed here.

    In July 2012, the French government announced a plan to reassert state control over 15 of the most notorious no-go zones. The crime-infested districts, which the French Interior Ministry has designated as Priority Security Zones (Zones de Sécurité Prioritaires, or ZSP), include heavily Muslim parts of Amiens, Aubervilliers, Avignon, Béziers, Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Montpellier, Mulhouse, Nantes, Nice, Paris, Perpignan, Strasbourg, Toulouse and many others. The number of ZSPs now stands at 64; a complete list of ZSPs can be found here.

    Meanwhile, a 13-minute Hungarian television documentary (with English subtitles) about no-go zones in Paris can be viewed here. The presenter interviews a French crime reporter named Laurent Obertone, who is the author of a bestselling new book entitled, “La France Orange Méchanique” (France: A Clockwork Orange).

    In his book, Obertone writes that France is descending into a state of savagery and that the true magnitude of crime and violence across the country is being deliberately under-reported by politically correct media, government and police.

    In the documentary, Obertone states: “The French elite became outraged when [former French President Nicolas] Sarkozy referred to [Muslim] immigrants attacking police as ‘mobs’.”

    The Hungarian presenter then asks: “What if we went to the suburbs?” Obertone replies: “I do not recommend this. Not even we French dare go there anymore. But nobody talks about this in public, of course. Nor do those who claim, ‘long live multiculturalism,’ and ‘Paris is wonderful!’ dare enter the suburbs.”

    See also: SAVAGE MUSLIMS DESTROY PARIS

    It is ongoing. On Thursday, the Islamist group Boko Haram (which translates as “Western education is forbidden”) is believed to have murdered  up to 2000 people in Nigeria. These crimes, far greater in scale than those in Paris, received only a fraction of the attention.

    In the 35 years since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, at least a million people have been killed in tens of thousands of jihad attacks, religious civil wars or wars between predominantly Muslim countries.

    In France, a form of dissimilation (to borrow a term from phonetics) is taking place. About 40 per cent of young Muslims are unemployed and thousands have embraced radical Islam as a form of social retaliation.

    Surveys have found that between 16 and 21 per cent of respondents in France hold positive views of Islamic State. Given that France has more than five million Muslims, the social catchment of sympathy for jihad is about one million people.

    This explains why France has 751 special security zones, an endless sequence of violent incidents involving young Muslim men, anti-Semitic incidents have become routine and Muslims represent 60 per cent of the prison population. Two of the three jihad killers in Paris had served time in prison.

    =====

    Update:

    http://vladdisblog.blogspot.ca/2015/05/fox-news-endorses-sharia-at-phoenix.html

     

    ALL MUSLIMS CALL FOR OUR DESTRUCTION

    January 16, 2015

    Duke University is now a willing complicit accessory enabling the criminal call for our destruction!

    Franklin Graham slams Duke University for it’s endorsing the muslim call to prayer:

    Franklin Graham

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. (TNS) — Evangelist Franklin Graham took to Facebook to blast Duke University after the school announced a Muslim student group will chant a weekly call-to-prayer starting Friday.

    Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, urged people to withdraw their support of Duke until the policy is reversed.

    “As Christianity is being excluded from the public square and followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their Sharia Islamic law, Duke is promoting this in the name of religious pluralism,” Graham wrote on his Facebook page.

    The Duke Muslim Students Association said they would do the three-minute chant, called the “adhan,” to announce the start of their weekly prayer service.

    “The collective Muslim community is truly grateful and excited about Duke’s intentionality toward religious and cultural diversity,” Imam Adeel Zeb, Muslim chaplain at Duke, said in a statement.

    –Adam Bell
    The Charlotte Observer

    And Canadian muslim leader Tarek Fatah recently told the Toronto Sun that, “at least when living among non-Muslims, we should avoid praying for their defeat at the hands of Muslims. I wanted to encourage Muslims entering the mosque to join those Muslims who renounce jihad, denounce Islamist terror and stand by the right of free expression, even of people who insult our Prophet.”
    That prayer is: “O Allah, pour patience upon Muslims, strengthen their feet and give them victory over ‘Qawm -el Kafiroon’ (Non-Muslims).

    “O Allah, give victory to our brothers the Muslims, the oppressed, the tyrannized and the ‘Mujahedeen’ (those who fight jihad against non-Muslims)”.

    Qur’an suras 2.286, 9.33 and very likely 3.147 are cited, at least part of the last hot salat quote can be found there.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/13/muslims-shouldnt-pray-to-defeat-non-muslims?token=e5e8e02832b59cd70fda38a730aefa35

    Obama to Communize Internet next month!!!

    January 3, 2015

    From here:

    Obama’s FCC to vote on “net neutrality” in February!

    Obama wants to control everything.

    Federal regulators looking to place restrictions on Internet providers will introduce and vote on new proposed net neutrality rules in February, Federal Communications Commission officials said Friday.

    President Obama’s top telecom regulator, Tom Wheeler, told fellow FCC commissioners before the Christmas holiday that he intends to circulate a draft proposal internally next month with an eye toward approving the measure weeks later, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency’s deliberations are ongoing. The rules are meant to keep broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast from speeding up or slowing down some Web sites compared to others.

    FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart declined to comment on Wheeler’s communications with his colleagues, but confirmed the February timetable, which ends weeks of speculation as to when the FCC would make its next move.

    It’s still unclear what rules Wheeler has in mind for Internet providers. Analysts and officials close to the agency say that momentum has been building recently for far more aggressive regulations than Wheeler had initially proposed. Advocates of strong net neutrality, including President Obama, have urged the FCC to begin regulating Internet service providers using the same law it uses to oversee telephone companies — Title II of the Communications Act. Industry advocates have resisted that call, saying the FCC should continue to lightly regulate Internet providers under Title I of the act.

    Many policy experts widely assumed the new rules would be introduced in the early part of the year after the FCC missed its initial December target. The agency is scheduled to hold its monthly meeting on Feb. 26.

    The timing indicates Wheeler does not see the need for more public input on the benefits and drawbacks of using Title II, as earlier reports suggested. It also implies the FCC will not be able to avoid a showdown with Congress over net neutrality. Republican lawmakers are expected to introduce legislation this month to preempt any FCC rule on the subject.

    Lib hit by decades of reality still doesn’t get it

    January 1, 2015

    Quite possibly the most racist article you will ever read (!)

    From here and here:

    Confessions of a Public Defender

    Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014

    Inmate
    Still liberal after all these years.

    I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

    I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

    As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

    The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

    Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

    When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

    A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

    At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

    PublicDefender

    Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

    Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

    The cellie who knows the law.

    The risks of trial

    The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

    Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

    Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

    Black witnesses can also sway the jury.

    Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

    The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

    If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

    Upset

    This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

    My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

    NoRemorse

    No fathers

    As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

    WheresDaddy

    Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

    Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

    The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

    Christians

    The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

    Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

    The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

    If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

    Marijuana

    From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

    Stats

    At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

    I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

    My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

    However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

    I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

    ======SO, WHAT’S MY TAKE ON ALL THIS, YOU ASK?=======

    Re: “I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t.”

    …and:

    “Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.”

    As a liberal, the writer is clearly also a masochist – always trying to pretend to be able to “control” his fears, BY causing (or in this specific case, enabling) those same worst-case scenario mistakes and problems which cause the very pains he fears the most.

    He is determined to coddle as victims, and thereby enable these criminals’ crimes, despite the obvious truth that their entitled intransigence is the result of previous liberals’ coddlings, and not only (if at all) due to race. Even the dumbest person, regardless of race, can be taught self-interested empathy – but not when they are told they are entitled to reparations for historic wrongs done to a group of people who, while maybe similar to them, weren’t them (slavery).