Displaying posts published in

June 2017

What Sharia Prescribes: Same as the Ten Commandments? by Nonie Darwish

Islam was created 600 years after Christianity not to affirm the Bible, but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them.

It is hard to read Islamic law books without concluding that Islamic values are essentially “a rebellion against the Ten Commandments”.

Islam violates the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” when Allah commanded Muslims to kill Allah’s enemies, and in the process, kill and be killed in jihad if they are to be guaranteed heaven.

Accepting a parallel legal system would effectively nullify actual freedom for many of the people possibly forced to use it, and the ability to receive equal justice under law. Sharia is the reason there is a death warrant out on this author, on Salman Rushdie and others, for apostasy.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, of the “Ground Zero mosque”, once again wrote a deeply inaccurate article reprimanding Americans for their supposedly “right-wing caricature” of Islamic law, sharia, which he insists is not a threat to American law. In his recent article “The silly American fear of sharia law”, he denied that sharia is incompatible with US laws and the constitution. Oh, really?

Imam Rauf tries to blame sharia’s amputation and stoning on Biblical Law:

“Sharia is not about amputations and stoning. These extreme punishments carry over from earlier, biblical law” and “Within the history of Islam, they have rarely occurred. What Islamic law does prescribe are the same do’s [sic] and don’ts of the Ten Commandments.”

Imam Rauf’s article is, to say the least, misleading — especially regarding the Ten Commandments. Sharia is not only incompatible with Western legal system but is the direct opposite of Western values; it has violated all ten of the Ten Commandments.

Islam was created 600 years after Christianity not to affirm the Bible, but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them. It is hard to read Islamic law books without concluding that Islamic values are essentially “a rebellion against the Ten Commandments.”

Islam has little respect for human life — of either Muslims or non-Muslims. To begin with, Islam violates the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” Sharia punishes sins against Allah, such as blasphemy and apostasy, with execution. This is while it prohibits prosecuting Muslims who kill apostates, and also parents and grandparents who kill their offspring. Allah commands Muslims to kill Allah’s enemies, and in the process, kill and be killed in jihad if they are to be guaranteed heaven.

“Surely Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their belongings and in return has promised that they shall have Paradise.106 They fight in the Way of Allah, and slay and are slain. Such is the promise He has made incumbent upon Himself in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Qur’an.107 Who is more faithful to his promise than Allah? Rejoice, then, in the bargain you have made with Him. That indeed is the mighty triumph.” (9:111)

The concept of adultery and loyalty in marriage is totally different. Loyalty is expected from the woman under penalty of death, but men have a lot of room in that regard, the result of the rights of polygamy and temporary marriage for Muslim men. Thus, in Islam, the concept of marriage as a covenant of loyalty between one man and one woman does not exist.

Colleges Pledge Tolerance for Diverse Opinions, But Skeptics Remain After protests shut down events hosting conservative speakers, schools reassess approach to free speech By Douglas Belkin

A string of protests on college campuses that shut down events hosting conservative speakers has prompted universities around the country to pledge more tolerance for diverse opinions, but skeptics say they’ll believe it when they see it.

Johns Hopkins University announced Thursday a $150 million effort to “facilitate the restoration of open and inclusive discourse.”

The University of California, Berkeley, where protesters halted speeches by conservatives Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, is debating bringing in conservative faculty to broaden the spectrum of political discourse on campus.

About a dozen schools have signed on to a new doctrine from the University of Chicago that puts free speech above concerns about political correctness.

“I think there’s a lot of embarrassment on campuses, so some kind of statement from the top might have good-sounding words but actions speak louder than words,” said Jack Citrin, a professor of political science at Berkeley. “I’d like to see what happens the next time [conservative intellectuals] Charles Murray or Ayaan Hirsi Ali try to speak on a campus.”

Dr. Citrin is a member of the Heterodox Academy, a consortium of about 900 academics that aims to broaden the diversity of opinions on campus. This week the group released its second university rankings, which aim to measure just how well the most elite schools in the nation are faring in that regard.

The organization says its members come from across the political spectrum. The largest group (25%) consider themselves moderates, according to an internal poll of their members posted on their website.

Harvard University, which has repeatedly been in the crosshairs of free-speech advocates, was 103rd out of 106 schools in the Heterodox ranking.

Heterodox, which weighs schools’ regulations as well as the ratings of other first-amendment groups, cited Harvard’s history of censoring outside speakers, a blacklist on private clubs, fraternities and sororities, and a laminated “social justice” place mat handed out to students before winter break in 2015. The aim of the place mat was to help students prepare “for holiday discussions on race and justice with loved ones.”

Striking the balance between protecting both students and the First Amendment isn’t easy, said Ari Cohn, a director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He called it “advanced citizenship.”

But he also condemned university leaders for “wanting to have their cake and eat it too.” He pointed to the commencement address delivered by Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust in May.

“If some words are to be treated as equivalent to physical violence and silenced or even prosecuted, who is to decide which words?” she said.

A week later, Mr. Cohn said, the answer became clear: Harvard would decide. CONTINUE AT SITE

Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way

Election 2016: Late in 2016, we created a stir by suggesting that Donald Trump was likely right when he claimed that millions of noncitizens had illegally voted in the U.S. election. Now, a study by a New Jersey think tank provides new evidence that that’s what happened.

Last November, just weeks after his Electoral College win that gave him the presidency, then President-elect Donald Trump tweeted, “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

The reaction was angry and swift, with the left accusing him of being an “internet troll” and of hatching a “Twitter-born conspiracy theory.”

At the time, we noted that a group called True The Vote, an online anti-voter-fraud website, had claimed that illegals had cast three million votes last year. The media and left-wing groups immediately portrayed True The Vote as a fringe group with little credibility.

The only problem is, a study in 2014 in the online Electoral Studies Journal made a quite similar claim: In the 2008 and 2010 elections, they said, as many as 2.8 million illegal noncitizen votes were cast, “enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes and congressional elections,” said the study, authored by Jesse T. Richman and Gushan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

The bombshell was this: “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”

It got little coverage in the mainstream media, and what coverage it did get was almost entirely dismissive.

Now comes a new study by Just Facts, a libertarian/conservative think tank, that used data from a large Harvard/You.Gov study that every two years samples tens of thousands of voters, including some who admit they are noncitizens and thus can’t vote legally.

The findings are eye-opening. In 2008, as many as 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the election. In 2012, as many as 3.6 million voted, the study said.

In 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there were 21.0 million adult noncitizens in the U.S., up from 19.4 million in 2008. It is therefore highly likely that millions of noncitizens cast votes in 2016. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Antithesis of Obstruction Trump did not obstruct a valid FBI investigation; he demanded the exposure of a false one. By Andrew C. McCarthy

The “collusion” narrative was a fraud, plain and simple. We know that now. Hopefully, it won’t take another six months to grasp a second plain and simple truth: Collusion’s successor, the “obstruction” narrative, is a perversion.

The Left loves narrative. The ever-expanding story manipulates time, space, and detail to fit a thematic framework. Political narrative has some surface appeal, but it is deeply flawed. It obscures plain and simple truth.

So let’s stick with the plain and simple: The essence of obstruction is to frustrate the search for truth. Its antithesis is to demand the exposure of fraud.

Donald Trump’s political enemies are trying to build an obstruction case on the antithesis of obstruction: the president’s insistence that the collusion fraud be exposed.

Over a period of weeks, Trump came to understand what was being done to him. His exasperation was evident in his every bull-in-a-china-shop turn. An ardently pro-law-enforcement candidate, he came to office believing the FBI was in the fraud-exposure business. He thus could not comprehend why then–FBI director James Comey would not assure the public of what Comey was privately assuring both the president and the public’s representatives in Congress, namely: The notion that the president was a suspect was false. Implicitly, the narrative that Trump had colluded with Putin to steal the election was false.

To be clear, the Russia investigation is not a fraud. The Trump collusion narrative is. Russia did try to interfere in our election, as it always does. And there were associates of Trump’s who had business with Russian interests. Nothing unusual about that either. No one had shadier business with Kremlin cronies than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The difference is that the Clintons did collude in the Russian regime’s acquisition of American uranium assets. There is no evidence that Trump colluded in Russia’s election meddling. To stoke suspicions to the contrary was fraudulent.

The president justifiably believed this cloud of suspicion was grievously harming his fledgling administration. Despite both the dearth of collusion evidence and Comey’s acknowledgment — in non-public Capitol Hill briefings — that Trump was not a suspect, congressional Democrats continued to peddle the collusion narrative. The narrative became the rationale for “The Resistance.”

After the flame-out of the “Electoral College has destroyed democracy” storyline, the Left moved on to “collusion” as the Original Sin that rendered Trump illegitimate. Thus, Democrats rationalized, it was imperative to deny cooperation with Trump on any matter of governance — the approval of executive officials needed to run the government, the confirmation of judges, the Obamacare collapse, tax reform, Syria, debt ceiling, Afghanistan, jihadist attacks in the U.S. and Europe. Anything. The point of the collusion narrative was to delegitimize Trump in the public mind; cooperating with him, treating him as the legitimate president of the United States, was out of the question.

From Trump’s perspective, it was inconceivable that someone as sophisticated as Jim Comey could not see what was happening, how the cloud of suspicion enveloping Trump was damaging his administration. Over time, Comey’s explanations for why he needed to remain silent publicly made less and less sense to the president.

The rationale that it would ultimately serve Trump well if the FBI went about its business and cleared him in the normal course was a presumptuous elevation of the bureau’s work over the rest of the government’s. What, after all, is the normal course? The FBI had been investigating for months and months. Not only had it found no collusion; it had signed on (with the CIA and NSA) to an Obama-engineered report that not-so-subtly suggested a cui bono theory of Trump collusion in Putin’s machinations.

It wasn’t just the failure to dispel suspicions about Trump; the bureau appeared to be fueling them.


It often has been observed that philosophy really got going when people started thinking seriously about the distinction between appearance, on the one hand, and reality, on the other. Plato is full of meditations on this theme, from the stick that appears bent when half submerged in a bowl of water to the texture and real significance of our experience of the everyday world.https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/22/potemkin-progressivism/

The moral is: things are not always as they seem.

Alas, it is one thing to enunciate that moral in the abstract, quite another to take account of its operation on the ground.

Grigory Potemkin famously exploited our habit of innocence about appearances when he deployed a series of fake villages along the banks of the Dnieper River. His aim was to soothe his erstwhile lover Catherine the Great with the illusion of general prosperity as she floated past the smart-looking façades. After she passed, the ensemble would be hastily disassembled, moved down river, and reassembled to greet the Empress anew.

There is a lot of Potemkin in the current ululations of the Left. Thousands upon thousands of unhappy females congregate on the Washington Mall to prance around in their vagina costumes and pussy hats while whining about Donald Trump.

Is the behavior of today’s Left just a façade, or is could it be indicative of something more substantive and troubling behind the door?

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) jumps up and down on the floor of the House warning about Trump’s possible “collusion” with the Russians. The siege machines of the mainstream media wheel themselves into place to repeat, elaborate, fantasize about what Schiff and his anti-Trump colleagues dream about, hurling little spit balls of accusation and innuendo over the walls of the public’s incredulity.

Hollywood, the academy, the “arts community” join hands to chant their anti-Trump mantras, hoping for deliverance from the awful truth of the election of 2016. Their aim? A sartori, a nirvana in which no one had ever heard of Donald Trump but only the pants-suited deliverer of their dreams.

Everywhere there is talk of “resistance,” disruption, unrest, even impeachment. This, even though the thing being resisted is the result of a free, open democratic election and the call for impeachment is not in response to any evidence of a crime, much less a “high crime or misdemeanor” to propel such a proceeding.

And now we have Robert Mueller, bosom buddy of James Comey, as special counsel. Like Santa Claus, he is making his list and checking it twice, filling his sleigh with Obama and Clinton attack dogs, and preparing to make his round-the-town journey to distribute presents to every deserving boy and girl Democrat. He has his verdict. All he needs now is a tort, and that’s what those salivating Obama-and-Clinton terriers are for: digging, digging, digging. There has to be something, somewhere that they can pin on Trump!

Looked from the outside, you might think that the “progressive” Left were on the march, that they were a rising force, voice of the people, popular-sentiment-against-entrench-interests,” etc., etc.

That may be the appearance. The reality is that Republicans control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 67 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, and 33 Governorships, their largest number since 1922.

Just the other day, we were treated to the most expensive House race in the nation’s history as money from Hollywood, Manhattan, and Martha’s Vineyard poured in to back Jon Ossoff, the great white hope to shatter the juggernaut of Republican victories. The Dems picked the one really soft-spot in Georgia (Trump had taken it by only 1 percent in 2016) and spent at least $23.6 million to defeat Karen Handel, a weakish candidate but a Republican and therefore a possible scalp. It was supposed to be a “referendum on Trump.” And maybe it was. But the referendum did not go the way the Democrats hoped it would and Handel offed Ossoff 52 percent to 48 percent. By my count, that makes the special election score since November 9: Republicans 5, Democrats 0.

So there are grounds for thinking that the hysteria on the Left is just so much infantile caterwauling: they did not get the all-day sucker they were promised so they are going to sit down in the middle of the floor and wail and wail and wail. Litigate, too, no doubt, but even that will be conducted in tantrum tones.

I think that conclusion is mostly right. And I believe that Trump would be well advised to leave the Democrats in their bawl room, their boudoir (French for “room for pouting in”) while he gets on with the business of running, and improving, the country, which, by the way, he is doing very well.



Gene mutation extends life by a decade. In a study of American male Jews over the age of 100, University of Haifa researchers have discovered a genetic mutation that affects the growth hormone receptor gene. Men with this mutation live on average 10 years longer than those without it. http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Health-and-Science/Change-in-gene-adds-a-decade-to-the-lives-of-men-only-497162

Azerbaijan deputy PM has heart surgery in Israel. (TY Hazel) Abid Sharifov, Azerbaijan’s deputy Prime Minister, was flown to Israel after his doctors determined his heart condition was life-threatening. Surgeons at Haifa’s Rambam Medical Center unblocked an artery and fitted Sharifov with a pacemaker and defibrillator.

EU loan for flu vaccine trial. The European Investment Bank has granted a 20 million Euro loan to Israeli biotech BiondVax to fund the Phase III trials of its Universal Flu Vaccine.

Wrist-wearable heart monitor. (TY Dror) Israeli startup CardiacSense has developed a smartwatch heart monitor which is almost as accurate as an ECG machine. Its revolutionary heart arrhythmia detection measures blood pressure using a PPG (photoplethysmogram). Then touch the wristband to get an ECG.
https://www.cardiacsense.com/ https://www.youtube.com/embed/sBfn4_MrJ6Y&t=52s?rel-0

Chief of Police donates bone marrow to save a life. Meir Pulver spends his days protecting Israel’s population. He is Chief Superintendent of Israel’s Police Force. Thanks to Israeli charity Ezer Mizion he donated bone marrow to save the life of Chana, and give her the chance to see her seven grandchildren grow up.

Longer-lasting treatment. I’ve reported previously (here) on the deutetrabenazine treatment for Huntington’s disease from Israel’s Teva. But the reason it is so effective is because Teva replaced some of the hydrogen atoms with the heavier isotope deuterium, so that more of it can resist stomach acids and reach the intestines.

US approval for spinal treatment software. I reported previously (July 31) on the Mazor X guidance systems for spinal surgery from Israel’s Mazor Its latest module X Align has just received US FDA approval, allowing surgeons to create a 3D alignment plan that simulates the impact of proposed surgery on the patient’s posture.

Two kibbutzniks founded a NASDAQ biotech. Israelis Dror Ben-Asher and Ori Shilo founded the biotech RedHill BioPharma – named after the earth-red hill that the kibbutz overlooked. Now their company is successfully trialing treatments to cure Crohn’s disease, Helicobacter pylori, stomach cancer and much more.

Soft suit exoskeleton for stroke patients. Israel’s ReWalk has unveiled its prototype for a soft suit exoskeleton, to enable many of the millions with lower limb disabilities to walk upright. Initially, the new “Restore” suits will be used to assist stroke survivors, followed by multiple sclerosis patients.

Competition to diagnose cervical cancer. (TY Eli) I reported previously about Israeli startup MobileODT (was MobileOCT) that uses smartphones to detect cervical cancer. Now Intel is offering a $50,000 prize to the best algorithm and Artificial Intelligence that can diagnose cancer from MobileODT’s smartphone images.

Barak’s ‘slippery slope’ Ruthie Blum

In an interview Wednesday with Tim Sebastian — host of the program ‎‎”Conflict Zone” on German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle — former Israeli ‎Prime Minister Ehud Barak was at his worst. Not only did he fail at his initial ‎attempt to field Sebastian’s hostile questions; he ended up using the rhetoric of ‎Israel’s sworn enemies to answer them.‎

Sebastian, who was in Israel and the Palestinian Authority this week to record ‎a series interviews pertaining to the anniversary of the Six-Day War (or, as the ‎DW website referred to it, “50 years after Israel captured East Jerusalem, the ‎West Bank and Gaza”), pounded on Barak to acknowledge that the 1967 war ‎was an act of Israeli aggression, and that Israeli government control over a ‎Palestinian population that has no say in its election is immoral. ‎

Rather than blasting Sebastian for misrepresenting the entire issue, Barak ‎replied, “I do not start my consideration from the moral issues.” ‎

‎”Why not? You don’t care about morality?” Sebastian asked.‎

‎”I care about morality,” Barak said. “But I care more about our very survival ‎in life. And I should tell you that I do not disagree with the bottom line of what ‎you are trying to kind of somehow argue. The situation that has been created is ‎such that Israel faces a choice. If we keep controlling the whole area from the ‎Mediterranean to the River Jordan, where some 13 million people are living — ‎‎8 million Israelis, 5 million Palestinians, that if only one entity reigned over ‎this whole area, namely Israel, it would become inevitably — that’s a key word, ‎inevitably — either non-Jewish or non-democratic…”‎

Sebastian interjected, “But the state you have at the moment is an apartheid ‎state, isn’t it?”‎

Barak nodded and continued: “It’s not yet an apartheid [state], but it might ‎come on the slippery slope toward apartheid.”‎