Islam v. Free Speech: Twitter Surrenders By Andrew C. McCarthy

My weekend column profiled Bosch Fawstin, the intrepid cartoonist who won last spring’s “Draw Muhammad” contest that was attacked by two ISIS-inspired jihadists in Garland, Texas. (The terrorists were killed in a shootout with police.) Fawstin compellingly argues that the best way to fight a repulsive conquest ideology such as Islamic supremacism is to expose it. That means an unstinting reliance on our constitutional right to free expression.

Apparently, Twitter has opted to join the campaign to crack down on free expression. And one is left to wonder whether the big Saudi bucks that have come its way are a factor in Twitter’s decision-making.

As I recount in the column, the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists has long been the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on the West. This campaign is not waged exclusively or even primarily by violent jihadists. Instead, its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (a 57-government bloc of, mainly, majority-Muslim countries).

The West should be fighting these anti-Western Islamic supremacists in defense of our core principles. Instead, the Obama administration — particularly the president and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton — has colluded with them. So have other left-leaning governments and institutions that are naturally hostile to free speech and open debate. One prominent result, which I discussed in the column as well as in Islam and Free Speech, is U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. This blatantly unconstitutional provision, co-sponsored by Obama, Clinton, and OIC members, calls on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam. Essentially, this is a codification of sharia, which prohibits all expression that subjects Islam to critical examination.

Hillary Clinton to Heckler Mentioning Juanita Broaddrick: ‘You Are Very Rude,’ ‘I’m Not Ever Gonna Call on You’

Hillary Clinton dismissed a heckler Sunday during a town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, calling the woman “very rude” and promising never to answer her questions–which concerned Juanita Broaddrick and her allegations of sexual assault from Clinton’s husband Bill.Clinton got a round of applause when she announced her husband Bill would be campaigning in New Hampshire this week.

Hillary then continued her habit as of late of taking rather adult questions from young children.

AWR Hawkins:Chicago Airport Police Officers Directed to ‘Run And Hide’ In Event of Active Shooter ?????!!!!

Aviation police officers at Chicago’s O’Hare and Midway airports have been advised to “run and hide” in the event of an active shooter at either facility.

The officers really have no other options because they are not allowed to carry guns.

According to CNN, the 300 aviation officers all have “badges, uniforms and vehicles…[that] say ‘police.’” Moreover, “they are certified police officers in the state of Illinois.” But they have no guns. Therefore, “internal aviation department documents” obtained by CNN advise the officers to evacuate in the event of a shooter. And “if evacuation is not possible: hide.”

The documents also say, “We must also ensure that unarmed security personnel … do not attempt to become part of the response, but could be invaluable to the evacuation efforts.”

A training video for aviation police officers provides similar guidance: “If evacuation is not possible, you should find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you. Block entry to your hiding place and lock the door.”

An unidentified aviation police officer commented, saying,

We’re not trying to replace the Chicago police officers; we just want to have the tools to do the job like every other law enforcement agency in the country. We’re nothing but casualties if you tell us to run and hide. And how can the public look at us if they see police officers running and hiding? That goes against the very oath we were sworn to that we took.

European Court Stops Ireland Deporting Islamic State-Linked Man, Even If He Threatens National Security by Liam Deacon

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has overruled the decision of an Irish court, preventing the nation from deporting a man alleged to be a prolific recruiter for the Islamic State terror group.

The Dublin court had ruled that an unnamed 52-year-old man was the “foremost organiser and facilitator of travel by extremists prepared to undertake violent action on behalf of Daesh [IS]” and subsequently decided that he should be removed from Ireland.

According to New Europe, the Islamic State-linked man is married and had been living in Ireland for some years. He secured residency as he has a 15-year-old son who is an Irish citizen.

More than two years ago, however, the son left Ireland after he decided to go and live with his mother abroad, and the father’s residency permit has since expired.

Now, the ECHR has issued an order temporarily preventing Ireland from deporting the man. The court claims he could be tortured if he is returned to his native country.

The man has denied any links to Islamic State and the accusation that he has acted as a recruiter for the terror group. However, during his hearing at the Dublin court, his lawyers argued that he cannot be deported even if he poses a threat to Ireland’s national security.

The lawyers used Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees absolute protection from torture or inhumane or degrading treatment. The man did not show up for court this Wednesday, claiming health reasons.

Former CIA Director on Refugees: ‘There Is a Danger’ By Nicholas Ballasy

Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, said “there is a danger” in allowing Syrian refugees to resettle in the United States at this time and cautioned the Obama administration to be “prudent” with the process.

“With regard to the refugees, sure, there’s no requirement to be stupid, along with being generous, so my short summary would be simply I would advise the chief executive to speak like and act like Mother Teresa and then before the meeting broke up to grab whoever is filling my chair now, pull them aside, poke his finger into his sternum and say, ‘now you make sure nothing bad happens.’ We can do both. We are talented. We’ve got talent at this,” Hayden said during a homeland security discussion held by the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Look, there is a danger. We should be prudent about it, but just simply saying ‘it ain’t going to happen’ is actually destructive of our security, not just destructive of our character,” he added.

Hayden served as NSA director from 1999-2005 and as CIA director from May 2006 to February 2009.

Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Robert Bonner said the U.S. visa waiver program poses more of a threat than the refugee process.

Politically Incorrect New Year’s Resolutions By Victor Davis Hanson

We live in an expanding culture of victimhood fueled by identity politics. Americans are supposedly saved from themselves by a new hipster generation of Silicon Valley zillionaires, socially aware techies, progressive government bureaucrats, crusading liberal journalists, and cranky, mostly irrelevant academics. So why do they not address the need for politically correct self-policing? Here are five examples of how postmodern do-gooders could help the nation in 2016.

iPhone-induced Mayhem

The left believes a corporation or business is ultimately financially responsible for the unanticipated consequences of using its product. Smoke too many cigarettes and the tobacco companies are sued for knowingly having tar and nicotine in their products. We go after fast food and super-sized drinks for inundating unaware Americans with trans fats and processed sugar. Design flaws earn auto companies billions of dollars in recalls and fines.

But why do we ignore smart-phone companies? Studies supposedly reveal that texting or net surfing while driving is a greater impairment than is driving while under the influence. How many of us have seen 20-ton semi-trucks weave down mountain passes, as a 20-something driver is glued to the opiate-like device on his lap? Doesn’t Apple know how its product is being misused and causing death and mayhem—or has it commissioned some secret study showing that its devices are as addictive as painkillers and therefore essential for expanding sales?

Shouldn’t a benevolent government agency in 2016—in the fashion that it regulates less-lethal handguns—go after iPhones to block their use while the user is in motion? Cannot Obama’s consumer protection bureaucrats put an “automatic motion shut-off app” on every smart phone? In one day last week, a vagrant with shopping cart walked into my bumper at a crosswalk while texting, a young woman slammed on her brakes in front of me during a bottleneck while texting, and a driver went off the road into the gravel. Again, all were texting. How about a microchip to turn these gadgets off once they are in motion? Wouldn’t that remedy be as humane and socially aware as trigger locks on new handguns? Could we register lethal iPhones?

A quick run-down of Donald Trump’s positions By Ed Straker

That is to say, his positions from within the past year, and no earlier.
ConservativeReview.com, which is edited by conservative talk show host Mark Levin, has emerged as a great ranking service for politicians. Recently the site ranked the positions of Donald Trump based on his public comments. Since everyone knows that Trump has spent most of his adult life as a liberal but has since recanted nearly all of his former positions, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and exclude any quotations over one year old. Everything you read below has come from Trump’s own plush lips in the past twelve month

Taxes: Trump wants to lower income taxes (though not as much as Ted Cruz), but he also wants to take a lot of voters off the tax rolls entirely, giving them incentive to vote for politicians who will vote to raise taxes and spending on the remaining people who do pay income taxes.

Free Trade: Trump will slap high tariffs on goods from China, Japan, and Mexico, which has the potential to create more jobs in America but also to radically raise the price of consumer goods here.

Guns: Trump currently supports Second Amendment gun rights, in contrast to his past support for gun control.

Abortion: Trump is against abortion. On August 3, he said he would defund Planned Parenthood, but on August 11, he changed his mind, saying he wants to continue funding Planned Parenthood, finding ways to finance the “good things” they do. Since all money is fungible, that would mean the continued indirect subsidy of abortions and sale of baby parts.

Coming soon: EPA to tackle ‘light pollution’ By Rick Moran

For thousands of years, man has sought to ward off the dark by using light to illuminate the night. Now, EPA chief Gina McCarthy and celebrity astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson want to take us back a few thousand years by giving the agency the ability to deal with “light pollution.”

The only way to deal with light pollution is to, well, turn off the lights. This will be a boon to astronomers like Tyson who will be able to see the stars and planets a lot better. But for the rest of us, not so good. Crime will rise, accidents will increase, and more people will die just so that Tyson can study the heavens.

Washington Examiner:

“So is there a day, is there some occasion, where I can add light pollution to your portfolio,” he asked McCarthy during a segment released for Sunday’s episode of “Star Talk,” a weekly late-night talk show he hosts on National Geographic.

“Well, this is another thing that’s been called to our attention for satellites,” McCarthy answered. “The imagery of the United States at night shows all those flares from oil and gas in places that are in the middle of nowhere. It is startling to me, to see the change in the night sky.”

“Go in the big world and see how vast it is, and get a sense of yourself in it,” she added. “It changes your perspective forever. And you’re absolutely right. That’s one of the reasons why we have to be worried about light pollution. It’s in our portfolio, and we’re thinking about it and there are steps we can take, but it needs to be on everybody’s mind because the way in which we disconnect ourselves from the natural world means that my job gets harder and harder.”

Another ‘Scientific Consensus’ Bites the Dust By Jonathan F. Keiler

The favorite cudgel of leftist climate change fear mongers is the appeal to authority, as in that there is “a scientific consensus” that the earth is warming and that changes over the last century are due to human activity. The problem with appeals to authority on extremely broad scientific topics is that they are not subject to easy proof by experimentation, and are quite often wrong. Here’s a list of ten popular theories ultimately proven false, and it omits some major howlers, like therapeutically bleeding people or the geocentric theory of the solar system. Now we can add to that list the “scientific consensus” that diets rich in processed foods and fats lead to heart disease. This idea, which has dominated medical thinking for at least the last half-century, and led to all manner of government policy making, regulation and just plain tsuris over finishing the brisket, is now in doubt.

New studies of pre-modern humans, dating back many millennia, demonstrate that arteriosclerosis (the hardening of the arterial blood vessels that causes blockages and heart attacks) afflicted people who (by necessity and not choice) followed that most rigid of diet and exercise regimens — hunting and gathering. The mummified remains of Neolithic era humans from around the globe demonstrate that arterial disease was about as commonplace in those ancient populations as it is today. Despite the fact that these people had diets low on saturated fats, high in proteins, vegetables and fruits, and engaged in regular and strenuous exercise, they still suffered from heart disease as they aged at about the same rates as modern humans.

The global warming consensus that isn’t By Thomas Lifson

At last, we have a peer-reviewed paper that accurately surveys how much support there is for anthropogenic global warming among relevant scientists. And the news isn’t good for Al Gore, nor for Barack Obama, who sees climate change as our number one national security threat.

The widely cited figure of 97% of scientists supporting man made global warming theory has always been a fraud:

…a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”

“These ‘consensus’ surveys appear to be used as a ‘social proof,'” says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. “Just because a science paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases.”

The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a “remarkable lack of disagreement” by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.