RUTHFULLY YOURS

“The Great Mosque of Cordoba.” That’s what Unesco—the cultural arm of the United Nations—calls the 24,000-square-foot 10th-century structure visited by 1.5 million tourists a year. It was declared a World Heritage site in 1984, and rightfully so: The building’s interior is a stunning example of Moorish architecture.

Yet this “mosque” is actually the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Córdoba. In 1236, King Ferdinand III of Castile captured Córdoba from the Almohad Caliphate. He then had the building consecrated for Christian use. Or reconsecrated, rather, since underneath the mosque lay the demolished remains of a sixth-century church built by Spain’s Visigothic rulers before the Muslim invasion in 711. Today, Mass and confession are celebrated inside. The cathedral has been a Christian house of worship for centuries longer than it was an Islamic one.

The discordance greeting tourists is the result of more than 200 years of antagonism toward the Catholic Church by left-leaning Spanish intellectuals. They have used the cathedral’s unique architecture essentially to de-Christianize it in the name of restoring its historical Islamic roots. This secularist campaign began in the early 19th century but has gained new force in the past 20 years. Recent Islamic immigration to Spain has given the anticlerical leftists new allies—Muslims demanding to worship in their “Great Mosque.”

But that would require taking the building out of the Catholic Church’s hands. In 2013 an organization called the Platform for the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba gathered more than 350,000 signatures on a petition calling for a public takeover. A year later, the Socialist-led coalition government of Spain’s Andalusia region, which includes Córdoba, accused the diocese of “hiding” the building’s history. In March the city council issued a report arguing that the diocese does not legally own the cathedral. “Religious consecration is not the way to acquire property,” it said. The site’s true owners “are each and every citizen of the world from whatever epoch and regardless of people, nation, culture or race.”

The diocese worries that the leftists may be about to get their way. To shore up support among American Catholics, the bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández González, spoke Wednesday at a meeting sponsored by the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom. Outright expropriation by the local government “would be impossible,” Bishop Fernández told me before his speech. But, as a European Union report on the mosque controversy pointed out, Andalusian law would permit expropriation if a court determined the diocese had failed properly to maintain and conserve the property. The bishop added that he already has obtained the pope’s support should a legal battle arise over ownership. CONTINUE AT SITE

Mr. Cooper was the U.S. ambassador to the Defense and Space Talks during the Reagan administration and director of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the George H.W. Bush administration.

Conventional wisdom holds that it will be years before North Korea can credibly threaten the United States with a nuclear attack. Kim Jong Un’s scientists are still testing only low-yield nuclear weapons, the thinking goes, and have yet to place them on ballistic missiles capable of reaching America’s West Coast.

While its technological shortcomings have been well documented, North Korea’s desire to provoke a nuclear conflict with the U.S. should not be minimized or ignored. Pyongyang is surely close to getting it right.

For South Korea the danger is more immediate. According to physicist David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, the North Koreans have between 13 and 30 nuclear weapons and can build as many as five more every year. If Mr. Kim were to detonate one of these bombs in the atmosphere 40 miles above Seoul, it could inflict catastrophic damage on South Korea’s electric power grid, leading to a prolonged blackout that could have deadly consequences.

The United States has 28,500 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in South Korea stationed below the 38th parallel—and more at sea nearby. An electromagnetic pulse attack on South Korea could play havoc with America’s ability to mount an effective response to North Korean aggression. One hopes the troops manning the two already-deployed batteries of the Thaad ballistic-missile defense system are prepared for such a scenario (in a concession to China, the newly elected South Korean government suspended this week the deployment of four additional launchers).

In 2001 Congress established a commission to study the danger of an electromagnetic pulse generated by the detonation of a high-altitude nuclear weapon. It concluded that while there would be no blast effects on the ground, critical electricity-dependent infrastructure could be rendered inoperable. The commission’s chairman, William R. Graham, has noted that several Russian generals told the commissioners in 2004 that the designs for a “super EMP nuclear weapon” had been transferred to North Korea.

Pyongyang, the Russian generals reported, was probably only a few years away from developing super EMP capability. According to Peter Vincent Pry, staff director of the congressional EMP commission, a recent North Korean medium-range missile test that was widely reported to have exploded midflight could in fact have been deliberately detonated at an altitude of 40 miles. CONTINUE AT SITE

LONDON—The U.K. faced fresh political turmoil after exit polls and early results signaled a serious setback for Prime Minister Theresa May in Thursday’s general election, creating new uncertainties as the country prepares to negotiate its departure from the European Union.

The exit polls suggested that the Conservatives failed to secure an overall parliamentary majority in the election. But early results from districts around the country showed significant regional variations in actual votes, indicating that the Conservatives could still retain a majority.

Mrs. May called the election in April to substantially increase her 17-seat majority in Parliament and started off with a huge lead of more than 20 percentage points in the opinion polls. A modest majority would therefore still be a damaging blow to the prime minister, demonstrating her gamble was a mistake.

The pound sank sharply against the dollar after the exit polls came out predicting a result that could leave British politics mired in uncertainty.

The exit polls pointed to Mrs. May’s Conservatives having fallen short of the 326 seats needed to win a majority in Britain’s 650-seat Parliament, suggesting they would win 314 seats while the main opposition Labour Party gained ground to 266 seats. That result would amount to a so-called hung parliament, meaning both major parties would scramble to get enough support from smaller rivals to form a government.

Early results indicated turnout was higher than in 2015, suggesting more young people, a large majority of whom support Labour, turned out to vote.

Steven Fielding, professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, said Mrs. May’s future as prime minister was at risk.

“The capital she had with her own party—that’s been spent, that’s all gone,” he said. “If you call an election to reinforce your authority, to reinforce your negotiation hand and you don’t get that endorsement, clearly people are going to ask questions about you.” CONTINUE AT SITE

At about 10pm British Summer Time on Saturday night, the London Bridge area was the scene of a series of vehicle attacks and stabbings. So my scheduled conversational topic with Judge Jeanine on Fox News was replaced by yet another discussion about terrorism. We’ll link to any video that gets posted. I’ll be back on Fox with Abby, Pete and Clayton tomorrow morning, Sunday, live at 8am Eastern/5am Pacific.

As I write, six members of the public are dead, and three attackers. I’m wary of weighing in as the situation is unfolding, but, though the details are always different, in the end the story is always the same. And, as I said only the other day, the reality of what is happening in Britain and Europe is that this problem was imported and that, until you stop importing it, you’re going to have more of it.

No one likely to end up as Prime Minister or Home Secretary after this Thursday’s election seems minded to say that, never mind act on it. Instead, we have the usual post-terrorist theatre: Congratulations for the speed of the emergency services, and sober anchormen announcing that Theresa May will be chairing a meeting of COBRA – as though a bunch of bureaucrats with a butch-sounding acronym has any clue about how to stop the corpse count from mounting. The cynical strategy of British and Continental leaders is to get their citizens used to this.

For that to work, it’s not helpful for new attacks to follow so swiftly on the last attacks. After Manchester, Mrs May raised the official “Threat Level” from Mildly Perturbed to Somewhat Disturbed or whatever it was, and in order further to reassure the public put soldiers on London’s streets. Soldiers aren’t really much use at stopping homicidal car drivers or random stabbers. To do that, you’d have to ban motor vehicles and sharp knives, which, given the fecklessness and decadence of Europe’s political class, I wouldn’t entirely rule out. Absent that, it’s unfortunate that the London carnage occurred before Katy Perry, Justin Bieber & Co had had a chance to hold their stupid, useless, poor-taste all-you-need-is-sentimentalist-delusional-crap pop concert for the victims of the Manchester carnage. Maybe they’ll cancel it, or maybe they’ll make it a twofer.

Meanwhile, even as the politicians trot out the rote response that these attacks “won’t change us”, everything changes: more armed police, more soldiers, more bollards, more security checks – and smaller lives, fewer liberties, less free speech. London Bridge still stands, but everything else is falling down, in Britain and Europe.

In Australia in recent days there has been some controversy over a Quadrant editor’s response to the obnoxious remarks of someone on the ABC’s Q&A panel that an American has more chance of being killed by a falling refrigerator than by terrorists. This happens not to be true. As far as I can tell, the only source of this bon mot is a US Consumer Product Safety Commission report that found that, between January 2000 and December 2011, toppling television sets, furniture, refrigerators and all other domestic appliances killed a total of 349 Americans – or 29 people per year.

For purposes of comparison, in Britain Islamic terrorists have just killed 28 people in 12 days. [SUNDAY MORNING UPDATE: it’s now 29.] More to the point, your refrigerator is not trying to kill you, and not eternally seeking new ways to do so. You don’t have to worry about your fridge getting hold of an automatic weapon, or a dirty nuke. The Islamic supremacists want to kill as many infidels by whatever means are to hand. Nor are statistics relevant: If you’ve lost your only child because she went to an Ariana Grande concert, that’s 100 per cent of your kids who are dead. When it comes to deceased loved ones, the only statistical pool that counts is your family, not the nation or the planet.

U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, by rejecting the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad.

It is as if McMaster believes that the terrorists’ war against the West emerged out of nowhere — unconnected to a multi-pronged logistical foundation and network.

A Palestinian state would quickly become a theocracy — an ISIS clone, denying its citizens exposure to Judeo-Christian culture, as Islamists are currently trying to do in Europe, Australia and Canada.

Despite considering Iran a grave threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world, the U.S. establishment opposes canceling the nuclear deal, and instead apparently prefers to provide the Islamic Republic’s theocratic regime with the logistical means to continue developing its nuclear weapons program.

U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, for example, by rejecting the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad. It is as if McMaster believes that the terrorists’ war against the West emerged out of nowhere — unconnected to a multi-pronged logistical foundation and network.

The same can be said of the American media, the Justice and State Departments and the intelligence services — and not only in relation to terrorism.

U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, by rejecting the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” appears to be ignoring the ideological, cultural, religious, political and economic factors behind global jihad. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The American establishment also seems to be suffering from a similar form of tunnel-vision in relation to the Palestinians’ quest for a state, by ignoring the fundamental logistics behind it. Under the best circumstances, any state created would not be like Denmark. The reality is that such a state would adopt the political and institutional nature of the totalitarian regimes of the Gulf countries, just as Hamas did in the Gaza Strip after Israel’s withdrawal in 2005.

A Palestinian state would survive through funding from regimes such as Iran, Qatar and Turkey, and continue to serve as their proxy in the region. Similarly, it would quickly become a theocracy — an ISIS clone, denying its citizens exposure to Judeo-Christian culture, as Islamists are currently trying to do in Europe, Australia and Canada. Witness the attacks in Europe on Paris’s sports stadium and the Bataclan theater in November 2015, or on young girls listening to music in Manchester on May 22, 2017. Or the attempted Christmas bombing in Australia and attempts further to silence free speech in Canada.

Our political, civic and even religious leaders are stubbornly unwilling to grasp and accept Islam’s true nature, its ambitions and what those things mean in the context of Australia’s future. Silence, as they say, gives consent. The need now is to get loud and stay loud.

What is to be done about Islam?

Before any attempt to answer that question, it is essential that those taking up the challenge determine what is Islam, so let us, first of all, toss out the two most audaciously false claims: that it is the Religion of Peace™ and “one of the Great Abrahamic Faiths”. The first will only be true, according to Muslim authorities, when all of mankind is under the rule of the only “true” version of Islam, whatever that means. The second assertion stems, ironically, from the easily demonstrated fact that Muhammad plagiarised and distorted fragments of Christian and Jewish scriptures widely known in his 7th century Arabia. The late Christopher Hitchens, a scathing critic of all religions, reserved a particular contempt for the Koran, its borrowings, contradictions and arrogant presumptions. His appraisal of the Koran and its origins,good as any and better than most, can be heard here.

In fact, Islam is more than a mere religion. Rather, it is a totalitarian socio-political philosophy, adroitly contrived by Muhammad to secure for himself and successors total control over its followers by invoking the sacred authority of Allah.

It is no coincidence that the Nazis and Islam were staunch allies and actively cooperated to serve their shared interests, the murdering of Jews high on their lists. The Nazis must have envied Islam’s efficient functioning, how it had no need for a Gestapo to enforce absolute control of its adherents.

The second requirement is to ascertain the disposition of Islam towards us — the West and our traditions, in other words.

Islamic scriptures leave no room for doubt about the attitude of Islam regarding the non-Islamic part of the world in general and the “people of the Book”, Jews and Christians, in particular. It asserts vehemently that Islam is the only true religion and, further, that it is divinely destined to subdue all the world under its authority. Furthermore, it is prescribed as the sacred duty of every Muslim to endeavour in all possible ways to bring about that destiny. The Koran also specifically instructs the faithful to fight and kill the unbelievers (kaffirs), the enemies of Allah, true lord of the universe. They are also told that unbelievers, inferior beings, must either submit to Islam or die, with a third option of living as tolerated inferiors (dhimmis) and paying a special tax (jizya) for the privilege of being indulged by their Muslim masters.

All of the above is furiously contested by Muslims and their apologists, who regularly refer to certain verses of the Koran as proof that all accusations are unfounded. There certainly are Koranic verses urging love and compassion, but they need to be considered in context. First, bear in mind that the Koran speaks specifically to the faithful and refers to unbelievers only indirectly, which means the enjoinment of benevolent attitude applies only between Muslims.

Another is the rule of abrogation, which states that chronologically later verses supersede and negate earlier and contradictory messages, rendering them invalid. It is undisputed even by Muslims that the verses directing the faithful to be hostile and violent towards the unbelievers are of later origin than the ones with the kinder messages. Trotting out the more favourable but superseded verses to defend Islam while simultaneously presenting it as a pacific creed is taqiyya in action– the slippery business of telling sanctified lies in order to further the cause.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, went into the lion’s den known as the UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday for the stated purpose of challenging the status quo. Sadly, the status quo won, at least for the time being. The UN’s human rights apparatus, including the Human Rights Council and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, continues to face no consequences for its blatant hypocrisy, anti-Israel bias, and even for its interference in the U.S. presidential election last year.

Ambassador Haley dutifully pointed out to the other Council members something that many of them are quite proud of and have no intention of changing – the anti-Israel bias so prevalent in the Human Rights Council as well as other UN forums. She also urged reforms that would preclude the worst human rights abusing countries such as Saudi Arabia from serving as members of the Council. However, she ducked completely the issue of the UN human rights chief’s interference in last year’s presidential election. And Ambassador Haley stopped short of turning her pleas for reforms into demands for action. She drew back from threatening to withdraw U.S. political and financial support for the Council and the whole UN human rights apparatus if serious changes were not forthcoming immediately.

Indeed, on the same day as Ambassador Haley delivered her remarks to the Human Rights Council, High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, signaled business as usual in his opening statement to the Council. After going through the motions of declaring that the Holocaust “has no parallel, no modern equal,” Zeid then immediately drew a parallel of his own to his version of the Palestinians’ situation today. “Yet it is also undeniable that today,” Zeid said, “the Palestinian people mark a half-century of deep suffering under an occupation imposed by military force. An occupation which has denied the Palestinians many of their most fundamental freedoms, and has often been brutal in the way it has been realized; an occupation whose violations of international law have been systematic, and have been condemned time and again by virtually all States.”

Aside from his regular Israel-bashing, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who hails from the decidedly non-democratic country of Jordan, decided to stick his nose into the U.S. presidential campaign last year. Moreover, he continues to offer his unsolicited opinions on matters directly impacting America’s national sovereignty, such as protection of its borders.

“If Donald Trump is elected, on the basis of what he has said already, and unless that changes, I think it’s without any doubt that he would be dangerous from an international point of view,” Zeid proclaimed to the press less than a month before the election.

Slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Jews is underway in Manchester, escaping much notice by the outside world in the wake of the slaughter at the Arianna Grande concert. Antisemitism UK is the source for this report on the culinary terrorism underway:

JS Restaurant, the oldest kosher restaurant in Manchester has been gutted by fire following a suspected arson attack overnight at approximately 4:00.

As can be seen in the picture below, the second wave attack was successful, closing a business that also served as a community center, allowing observant Jews a place to gatsher and enjoy food together

Two days ago, Ta’am, another kosher restaurant in the city, was firebombed for the second time, and CCTV captured images of two youths conducting the attack. Last year the same restaurant was also set alight.

Once again, the only term used by police to describe that attackers who were photographed is “youths.”

If Labour led by Jeremey Corbin is elected in today’s voting, things will get much, much worse for the Jews of Manchester and the UK. But they are only the first target of the conquerors.

Ht tip: Cheryl Jacobs Lewin

According to the media machine and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic, President Trump’s recent attendance at two summits—in Brussels (NATO) and Sicily (G7)—went very badly. He went through many tense encounters, made a number of statements his interlocutors did not like, notably on the uneven burden of defense costs, on his dislike of the Paris climate change accords, and on German trade sufficits. Significantly, he sounded lukewarm on NATO’s Article 5 (“all for one, one for all”). Some Europeans tried to score a few domestic points by exploiting latent anti-Americanism in their encounters with Trump, notably the newly elected French president Emmanuel Macron with that now famous gladiatorial handshake.

According to The Guardian, Trump’s visist has left the continent’s leaders aghast, but at the same time it has had one unexpected positive consequence. Just like the Soviet threat forced Europeans to focus on what they had in common and how to protect it, this theory goes, Trump’s attitudes may help improve Europe’s ability to integrate: “The continent’s interests lie in making sure the toxicity of Trump is somehow curtailed. That can only happen if it sets new ambitions for itself. Just weeks after Emmanuel Macron’s electoral victory in France brought a major moment of solace, Trump’s tour will have starkly reminded Europeans of the new world of uncertainties, and the need to pull together.”

According to another commentator writing in the same organ of Britain’s leftist bein pensants, “In truth, Trump’s mixture of vulgarity, arrogance, ignorance and rudeness makes Europeans secretly feel extremely good about their own sophistication and civilised manners. Contrasts can be soothing. Just as Europeans decided Brexit needed to be dealt with in unity . . . Trump is fast turning into a binding factor.” In brief, the postnational elite loathes Trump and wants a new global strategy “for a world where, every so often, the US electoral cycle produces a corrupt, deluded isolationist who can think only in monosyllables.”

This sentiment was reflected in German chancellor Angela Merkel’s unusually blunt statement at an election rally in Munich last weekend: “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she said, “naturally in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain, as good neighbors with whoever, also with Russia and other countries. But we have to know that we Europeans must fight for our own future and destiny. The times in which we could rely fully on others, they are to some extent over. This is what I experienced in the last few days.”

In Europe Merkel’s statement caused an instant sensation. In America the globalist establishment predictably chastised Trump for undermining our partnerships and alliances of long standing. Richard Haass, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, called Merkel’s comments a “watershed,” and warned that the resulting scenario is “what U.S. has sought to avoid” since World War II. On the whole it would be very welcome news if the German Chancellor really meant what she said, but there is less than meets the eye.

If Merkel was serious, over 50,000 American soldiers can finally be withdrawn from Germany, where their stay has not had any military-strategic justification for the past twenty-six years. She is loath to do so, because their upkeep at the U.S. taxpayers’ expense is a boon to the German economy. If she seeks military self-reliance, then Germany—with the GDP of $3.4 trillion—will have to spend considerably more on defense in the future than the miserly 1.2 percent she is spending at the moment. It seems, however, that Merkel still wants to have it both ways: the days of full reliance on the United States are over, she says, but only “to some extent.”

The real meaning of Merkel’s words is clear if we replace “we Europeans” with “I” or “we Germans.” In addition to “the Russian threat,” Trump’s “unpredictability” is a perfect excuse for Euro-federalists to push for a massive restructuring of Europe’s political, economic, military, and trade strategies in order to turn the EU into a superstate, a German-led geopolitical player in its own right. The oligarchs in Brussels can hardly wait: after an icy meeting with Trump, the European Council president Donald Tusk declared that “the greatest task today is the consolidation of the free world around values, not just interests.” Merkel’s and the superstaters’ long-term hope is that Trump will be a single-term president, but that the consequences of their “taking fate into their own hands” and imposing an ever-tighter union will be permanent.

The saddest part about the recent terrorist attacks in the U.K. — aside from the actual horror for the victims and their families, of course — was that there was so little new to say about it.

But that didn’t stop anyone. Everyone backed into their usual rhetorical corners, filling in the blanks on the familiar post-terror conversation like it was a game of Mad Libs, only none of the answers were particularly funny.

I, for one, could easily recycle one of umpteen columns on how the Left’s response is wrong and why we have to shed our dysfunctional aversion to speaking plainly about the nature of the threat and what is required to fight it. Or I could note that President’s Trump’s response to the attack was less than helpful. But to what end? Who hasn’t heard the arguments a thousand times already?

Watching cable news and surveying the algae blooms of “hot takes” on Twitter, it’s hard to imagine anything will dramatically change. We are growing numb to the problem as it becomes part of the background noise of daily life. One of the attackers in London was even featured in a 2016 TV documentary titled The Jihadi Next Door.

Contrast the reactions to the London attacks and to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord. A writer for The Nation spoke for many when he assured readers that “this is murder” and a “crime against humanity.” No sane liberal condoned the terrorist attacks, but the condemnations seemed rote, while passion was reserved for admonishing those who made too big a deal of them or flirted with “Islamophobia.”

In 2014, Jeremy Corbyn, who has a remote but possible chance of being the next British prime minister, argued that supporting the Islamic State is just another “political point of view” and that the government shouldn’t put up “legal obstacles” to Islamic State fighters trying to return to England. This perspective hasn’t cost him much with his admirers on the left, but I have to wonder what the reaction would be if he described climate-change “denial” as just another political point of view.

But there I go, falling into the familiar trap of scoring ideological points rather than dealing with the larger truth. And what truth is that? Simply that we are in a rut when it comes to terrorism.

The Ariana Grande concert attack in Manchester did generate more than the usual passion because lots of pundits and policymakers, never mind television viewers, have teenage daughters they could imagine attending an event like that.

But did you hear about the bombing of a popular ice-cream parlor in Baghdad last week? Families taking their kids there for a post-fast treat were blown to bits by the Islamic State.