WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Europe: Prayer in Public Spaces by Giulio Meotti

Posted By on August 11th, 2018

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12568/europe-public-prayer

These Arab countries know better than Europe that to contain Islamic fundamentalism, it is crucial to control the street.

That 140,000 Muslims recently gathered in England for a public prayer event organized by a mosque known for its extremism and links to jihadi terrorists, should not only alarm the British authorities, but those in other European countries as well.

A few months ago, a global media tempest erupted after Polish Catholics held a mass public prayer event across the country. The BBC deemed it “controversial”, due to “concerns it could be seen as endorsing the state’s refusal to let in Muslim migrants”.

The same controversy, however, did not erupt in Britain when 140,000 Muslims prayed in Birmingham’s Small Heath Park, in an event organized by the Green Lane Mosque to mark the end of Ramadan.

France is debating whether or not to block prayer on the street. “They will not have prayers on the street, we will prevent street praying” Interior Minister Gerard Collomb announced.

“Public space cannot be taken over in this way”, said the president of the Paris regional council, Valérie Pécresse, who led a protest by councilors and MPs. In Italy, hundreds of Muslims prayed next to Colosseum, and Muslim prayers were held in front of Milan’s Cathedral.

The numbers are telling. When Muslims throughout Europe celebrated the final day of Islam’s holy month of Ramadan with public prayers, city squares — from Naples (Italy) to Nice (France) — overflowed. The annual Birmingham event began in 2012 with 12,000 faithful. Two years later, the number of the faithful rose to 40,000. In 2015, it was 70,000. In 2016, the number was 90,000. In 2017, it was 100,000. In 2018, the number was 140,000. Next year?

“While the two [local] churches are nearly empty, the Brune Street Estate mosque has a different problem — overcrowding,” noted The Daily Mail, exposing the situation in London.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Marxism in the Mainstream By Bill Kilgore

Posted By on August 11th, 2018

Don’t miss the significance of the Sarah Jeong affair. In this story freedom of speech, double standards, and the question of whether someone should be fired are all secondary distractions from what should be most alarming about it. The most important thing to note is that Marxism is now in the mainstream.

Jeong is the poster child for modern leftism. In a genuine and unassuming way, she dislikes people based on race and gender. Of course it is racist on its face, but so what? For her, everything comes down to group identity and the didactic world of who has power and who does not. That she and the New York Times are comfortable enough to openly spout this view is telling.

Is it Marxist?
Is this Marxism in the original sense of the term? No, but it is a descendant of the original. Marxism denies that human beings are individuals first, and instead identifies them first as members of a particular class. Ultimately, it divides the world between two classes: the oppressor and the oppressed. Whereas Marx divided the world only between rich and poor—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—contemporary Marxists also divide the world along the lines of race, gender, and sexual preference. Everything comes down to power and group identity.

Those who want to be precise might take issue with me lumping together these new Left-wing categories with the old Marxist ones. As I understand it, the early progressives, themselves influenced by German idealism, unintentionally laid the foundations for this totalitarian view in America. Others, notably Antonio Gramsci, made it cultural; others still in the Frankfurt School brought it to the university. Finally, John Rawls probably made it palatable for polite society. But what does it matter? The end result is the same, and Marx was the father of it all.

To be fair, most people today who hold and espouse Marxist views may not even see themselves as Marxists. Most don’t even know they are Marxists. Very well; we can call it whatever you want: cultural Marxism, neo-Marxism, new-Left, Leftism, progressivism or neo-progressivism, identity politics, democratic socialism, feminism. The list of names is long and parts of these approaches conflict with one another, but the core thought is the same. And all of it is subversive and destructive of American ideals.

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

NATO Redux By Herbert London President, London Center for Policy Research

Posted By on August 11th, 2018

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/399610-nato-needs-to-be-fully-financed-and-nimble-going-into-the-future

It has been said time and again that NATO is indispensable as a defense of the West. Even Trump accepts this assertion. What he doesn’t accept is the U.S. burden to sustain the treaty. A combative President Trump has made it clear member states must meet their obligation to spend at least two percent of gdp on defense. The U.S. presently spends 3.6 percent or about twice the average expenditure

Trump noted as well the irony of Germany’s reliance on a new $11 billion pipeline to import Russian natural gas into Western Europe when a significant portion of NATO’s defense budget is to buttress against Russian ambitions. How odd he notes to pay Russia and at the same time defend against Russia.

Chancellor Angela Merkle – who grew up in East Germany when it was controlled by Russia – speaks passionately of a united and free Republic of Germany today, a sound debater’s point but distraction from Germany’s defense spending. Although not always said explicitly, the allies hope that Trump will sign off on a summit deal to deter Russian aggression. It also appears as if Trump’s jaw-boning has had some effect since eight new nations are about to meet the two percent threshold. How this will unfold remains unclear. An alliance that is indispensable must be sustained. My guess is that NATO nations including Germany will be playing a more active defense role than has been the case heretofore. This will be a test of Merkle’s political skill with elections just over the horizon.

MEDIA Comments turned off

New York Times Columnist Can’t Figure Out If Racist Tweets Are A Fireable Offense Or Not Bret Stephens praised ABC when it fired Roseanne for a single tweet, yet he defends the racist tweets of Sarah Jeong.By Sean Davis

Posted By on August 11th, 2018

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/10/new-york-times-columnist-cant-figure-out-if-racist-tweets-are-a-fireable-offense-or-not/

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, an outspoken NeverTrump activist, effusively praised ABC when it fired Roseanne Barr for a single tweet, but when it comes to a mountain of racist tweets over nine years, he says his new colleague Sarah Jeong deserves a whole lot of grace and a second chance. What could possibly explain this blatant double standard?

To recap: Roseanne Barr, creator and star of the hit sitcom bearing her name, was swiftly fired by ABC in May after she posted a tweet comparing former Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, who is black, to a terrorist ape. Shortly after her firing created a social media firestorm, Stephens used his column at the New York Times to praise ABC and its executives who fired Barr, while declaring that she deserved to be fired not because of a single tweet, but because she is simply a bad person unworthy of having any public platform.

“Barr’s tweet about Jarrett, in other words, wasn’t the odd needle in the haystack,” Stephens wrote. “It was the last straw.”

“This is not a ‘one bad tweet’ issue,” Stephens claimed, before endorsing the characterization of Barr as a “boor,” a “notorious believer and propagator of conspiracy theories related to 9/11,” and “a MIRVed ICBM ready to go off in all directions at any time.”

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

The Problem with Gay Marriage By David Solway

Posted By on August 11th, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/the_problem_with_gay_marriage.html

Lately I’ve been thinking of a former close friend and colleague who happens to be one of the most brilliant and insightful political writers of our time. I had referenced his work in my own books long before I got to know him and was honored to find after we’d met that the esteem was mutual. I regarded his camaraderie as one of the blessings that conservative affiliations can afford, especially to those toiling in the scribbling trade.

Our relationship lasted many years. We met often when he visited our shores, enjoyed many pleasant, conversation-rich dinners, shared the same circle of friends, continued to read one another’s works with admiration, exchanged emails several times a week, and even wrote for the same magazines. I introduced him to my wife, with whom he developed a friendship and appreciation for her own contributions to the conservative movement. We were like an extended family. What could possibly go wrong?

The short answer is, a lot. Our relationship foundered over the vexed issue of redefining marriage, for my friend was gay and expected us to affirm the legalization of gay marriage in the United States and his forthcoming betrothal, as he referred to it, to his longtime partner. This we could not do. He objected to a rather obscure Facebook comment in which my wife deplored how the gay lobby’s justifiable plea for tolerance, with which she was fully on board, had morphed into the triumphalist demand for the unconditional celebration of all things gay, from gay politicking to Gay Pride to so-called gay marriage.

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE Comments turned off

Wind and Solar Energy: Good for Nothing By Norman Rogers

Posted By on August 11th, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/wind_and_solar_energy_good_for_nothing.html

The defenders of wind and solar claim that subsidies are a minor help to get a new industry going. These defenders counter critics with the fallacious claim that fossil fuels receive huge subsidies. Actually, the fossil fuel industry pays huge taxes.

Focusing on explicit subsidies is the wrong approach for understanding the subsidies provided to wind and solar. The explicit subsidies include such things as a 30% construction subsidy for solar and a 2.3-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind. Both technologies benefit from tax equity financing, a scheme based on special tax breaks and gaming the corporate income tax of a highly taxed corporate partner.

A better way to measure the wind and solar subsidies is to look at the benefits and losses to the economy. A net loss to the economy implies a subsidy. Once it is recognized that a subsidy is present, the next step is to figure out who is paying for it. Invariably, it is either the taxpayer or the consumer of electricity.

For example, if it costs $5 a bushel to produce soybeans, and they are sold in the soybean market for $4 a bushel, there is a net loss to the economy. Someone has to pay for the loss. That someone could be the farmers, soybean speculators, or taxpayers if the government subsidizes the loss. Selling soybeans for $4 that cost $5 makes the economy poorer.

ISRAEL Comments turned off

This Year in Jerusalem Michael Galak *****

Posted By on August 10th, 2018

I was praying at the Western wall of Solomon’s Temple, the holiest place of Judaism, the place which witnessed the beginning of the transformation of pagan humanity into Western civilisation. The experience of touching the hewn stone blocks, polished by a myriad kisses and caresses, was profound.

israel flag IIThe Jews do not weep at the Western (Wailing) Wall about the loss of their country anymore. They sing and dance with joy. This year we found ourselves in Jerusalem after a three-week stint as volunteers for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) program called Sar-El. There aren’t that many days in our life which one can look back to and say – truly, Fate gifted me the experience of a lifetime. I found myself in the midst of an historic occasion – a treat which not many people are privileged to witness.

Yerushalayim was festooned with Israeli and American flags. The signs “Trump make Israel great” and “Trump is a friend of Zion” were ubiquitous. Israel was preparing for the American Embassy’s transition to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. And yet, amid the rejoicing, I was unable to shake the feeling that however important this symbolic act of supreme political realism and courage might be, it was not the main reason for the boundless joy which filled the streets on that day. ews, young and old, Orthodox and secular, atheists and believers — none of them could cared less about what the world thought of Jerusalem and who it does or does not belong to. It was Jerusalem Day, pure and simple.

It was also Israeli Flag Day and most of the people we saw carried the national flag, waving them, wrapping themselves in them. Jerusalem of Gold was transformed into Jerusalem white and blue. That was the main event: the joy of being and belonging and living, of expressing love, patriotism, ancient heritage and pride. All this was mixed up in eruption of overwhelmingly positive energy which demanded release. Intoxicated by the enthusiasm around me, that feeling was infectious. I was whooping and jumping with the rest of the crowd, which accepted me without demur and in the blink of an eye. This was the day the witness of my eyes demolished the sardonic dictum of patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I saw Jerusalem’s soul laid bare for anyone to see on that day. I was praying at the Western wall of Solomon’s Temple, the holiest place of Judaism, the place which witnessed the beginning of the transformation of pagan humanity into Western civilisation. The experience of touching the hewn stone blocks, polished by a myriad kisses and caresses, was profound. So, too, watching the emotions of people communing with the Almighty and asking Him favours by way of notes pushed into the cracks and gaps between the ancient stones.

The Jews do not cry at The Wall anymore. On this day, singing at the tops of their voices, there was unashamed joy in observing the public and unadulterated confirmation that Jerusalem is and always has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people. The sentiment was manifest everywhere I turned — on the streets, on the roofs, on the buses and trams – everywhere. The picturesque Yerushalayim of golden sandstone was full of pretty girls handing out sweets and drinks to dancers. There were cars with loudspeakers blaring folk music to the delight of youngsters dancing horas. Smiling police on placid horses calmed the excess of enthusiasm by letting people dance but also making passage for cars stalled by the festive throng. Families with little children waving flags, bemused foreign tourists drawn into the knots of dancers, some of them evangelical Christians wqith Lion of Judah flags.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

‘Diversity’ Looks a Lot Like Old-Fashioned Discrimination I was barred from top law firms as a Harvard student in the ’60s. Today Asians face similar prejudice. By Michael Blechman

Posted By on August 10th, 2018

At 76 I am old enough to have experienced the old-fashioned kind of discrimination. It happened in 1965, when I was in my second year at Harvard Law School. I was looking for a job as a summer associate, a rite of passage that generally leads to permanent employment. I remember feeling pretty confident, having ranked 40th out of 530 in my first-year grades.

I applied to the four law firms I considered the best—all “white shoe” firms in downtown New York. I arrived at each interview in my best suit, hair trimmed and shoes shined. The interviews went smoothly, but at no point did anyone offer me a job. By my last interview I figured I must be missing something, so I asked instead what his firm was looking for in an associate. I recall that he looked at me in silence for about 60 seconds, as though trying to figure out a polite way of explaining the situation. He told me that the most important thing for any lawyer was to be able to relate to the clients, and that of course it is always easiest for clients to relate to lawyers who are like themselves.

It had taken four wasted interviews, but I finally understood. I went from that last firm to my apartment and took out a telephone book. I knew of three so-called Jewish law firms in New York at that time, so I called the one that came first in the book, Kaye Scholer, and asked to speak to the hiring partner. Though it was 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, he asked if I could come over right away. An hour later I was interviewed, first by him, then by a preppy-looking partner with a bow tie, and finally by the firm’s administrative partner, who offered me a job. I accepted on the spot.

After working at Kaye Scholer that summer, I joined the firm as a regular associate in 1966, became a partner in 1975 and stayed there until I retired two years ago, when it merged into a larger firm. Thanks in part to a Fulbright year I had spent in Berlin, I developed a large practice representing German clients—people who were not at all like myself—the very thing the white-shoe firms had assumed I could never do.

After I began my job, I found out that many of the older partners had experiences similar to my own. Some had been hired by downtown firms but left when they realized they had no future there or when an anti-Semitic partner blackballed them for partnership. Firms like Kaye Scholer benefited enormously from the downtown firms’ bigotry.

Since my experience in 1965, all of the firms at which I had interviewed have overcome their prejudices and now hire and promote Jewish lawyers, as well as women, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Kaye Scholer became similarly diverse.

Yet as the old kind of discrimination has died out, a new form has emerged—this time under the banner of “diversity.” It’s good to open opportunities to people who were previously excluded. But promoting “diversity” by discriminating against nonfavored categories of people seems quite a different thing.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Arizona Republicans Brace for a Storm Changing demographics and dismay with Trump give Democrats a chance for governor and Senate.By Allysia Finley

Posted By on August 10th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/arizona-republicans-brace-for-a-storm-1533936117

Anyone who’s lived in Arizona is familiar with the summer monsoons that sweep across the desert, bringing a tsunami of sand. The rain can come on suddenly but is usually presaged by hurricane-force gusts carrying dark, thick plumes. Some people say they can sense a storm coming by the electricity in the air.

For Republicans, this year’s midterm elections have that sort of ominous feel. Liberal intensity has been building across the country, fueled by revulsion at Donald Trump. Longtime GOP redoubts are suddenly up for grabs in special elections. Republicans this week appear to have eked out a victory in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District, which the GOP had won in 2016 by more than 35 points.

Arizona, the land of Barry Goldwater, has long leaned right. Between 1952 and 2016, Democrats carried the state in only one presidential election, in 1996. Today Republicans control the governorship, both chambers of the Legislature, both U.S. Senate seats and five of nine House seats. But demographic changes are pulling the electorate leftward, even as Mr. Trump is polarizing voters.

Hispanics make up nearly a third of the state’s population and more than 40% in the two biggest cities, Phoenix and Tucson. Mr. Trump carried Arizona by a mere 3.5 points in 2016, compared with Mitt Romney’s 9-point margin in 2012. Many Republicans and independents in the suburbs are repelled by the president’s abrasive personality and restrictionist immigration policies. Caught in the political maelstrom are Gov. Doug Ducey and Rep. Martha McSally.

Ms. McSally is running for the GOP nomination to succeed Sen. Jeff Flake. A second-term congresswoman from Tucson, she would seem to be a GOP dream candidate: a former Air Force fighter pilot who can return liberal fire. Her military background is a major asset in a state with 1,200 aerospace and defense companies. CONTINUE AT SITE

MEDIA Comments turned off

Yahoo News Interviews#WalkAway’s Brandon Straka (Not a Russian Bot) By Debra Heine

Posted By on August 10th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/video/yahoo-news-interviews-walkaways-brandon-straka-not-a-russian-bot/

Yahoo News has done the unthinkable. Not only did its reporters take the time to interview #WalkAway Campaign founder Brandon Straka, they wrote a fair piece about him and his movement (which the panicked left calls a phony Russian bot operation).

Rather than attempt to discredit Straka, they gave him a fair hearing.

“You’ve got thousands of people who are walking away from the Democratic Party, saying this is the reason why,” Straka explains at the beginning of Yahoo’s “Unfiltered,” a news interview series.

He adds, “If the Democratic Party and the people on the left had a single functioning brain cell in their head,” they would check out the #WalkAway Facebook page and view “the video testimonials of people telling them exactly where the Democratic Party has gone wrong.”

Straka likened his project to a focus group for Democrats, saying, “This could actually be an incredibly useful tool for the Democratic Party.”

But he said he was doubtful that the left would take the opportunity. “Are they going to use it?” he asked. “No! They’re going to close their eyes and close their ears and say this isn’t happening, this isn’t happening.” He added, “Well, it is happening. It’s still happening, it’s going to continue to happen until you change your party.”

The WalkAway movement has caught fire across the country, spooking Democrats, who (projecting as usual) accused it of being an astroturf campaign.

Yahoo asked Straka about that.