Terror attacks and random radical Islamist killings have subsided but the "beat" goes on!
Imam in Austrian mosque calls on youth to establish Islamic State and wage Jihad
A mobile phone video, taken inside the Viennese Taiseer mosque, shows how imams call on youths to create an Islamic State, Austrian newspaper Krone reports.
While one imam calls youth to establish an Islamic state as “they have the most important roles in jihad and proselytising”, another preaches against so-called unbelievers.
Congratulating Christians on religious festivals is something like “haram” – which is forbidden. “It’s like prostration to the cross. For Allah worse than drinking alcohol,” says Imam Zakaria M. Other imams present are Sheik El-Said F and Aiman M.
Islam expert Amer Albayati strongly criticises the speech: “Political Islam is a threat to social peace and our security, it must be stopped immediately.”
The Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) has filed a complaint with the prosecutor. According to the National Council club chairman Johann Gudenus, “The Muslim Brotherhood also appear in the mosque and spread there anti-Austrian, anti-Christian and anti-democratic ideas”.
“I see the FPÖ confirmed in their criticism of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. We will quickly pass a law!”, Gudenus says.
The leaked footage, which is no longer available via Krone, can still be found on Austria’s Kurier website.
This isn’t the first incident in a Viennese mosque. Earlier, children of a Turkey-backed mosque were playing dead and re-enacted the World War I battle of Gallipoli. As they died for their country, their “corpses” were then lined up and draped in Turkish flags.
Afterwards Austria’s government announced it planned to shut down 7 mosques and expel foreign-funded imams. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some random links:
Britain’s Inability to Handle Last Year’s Flu Season Shows Perils of Socialized Medicine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Or try the link below
And:
One of the best mayor's New York ever had writes: Restore American Glory » Giuliani: “A Lot More” to FBI Misconduct Than Anyone Knows About.
Finally:
(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump: If not for yourself how can anyone be for you? (See 3 below.)
Meanwhile, neither Trump nor the mass media have acquitted themselves well over this outrageous woman, Omarosa. She was a lousy hire, now he, the nation and the mass media are paying the price for Trump's misguided loyalty and his failing to understand when he became president he was no longer a brawling New York real Estate Developer and TV star.(See 3a below.)
However, when it comes to Trump's policies the mass media and Trump haters turn to sniping but offer nothing better unless you believe Socialism is preferable to Capitalism, energy dependence on The Middle East is preferable to independence on or own expanding resource base, having a weakened military is preferable to challenges from Chinese and Russian aggressive moves and "the beat" goes on as insanity grows within the ranks of The Democrat Party driven by hatred of Trump's unappealing compulsivity.
Finally, the mass media's obsession with Omarosa validates what I have been saying for years. Entertainment is what drives "news" nothing more, nothing less and those who "entertain" us claim they are informing us and they want our respect. Americans are many things but "deplorables" are not fools.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An entire British Political Party denies it is anti-Semitic but that is who it's leader is despite his public denial. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it. - Maimonides
Book Review: The Importance of the Covenant of Medina August 12, 2018 · by drjamorrow · Bookmark the permalink. · By Rabbi Allen S Maller Khutba Bank (15 July 2018)
The Constitution, Charter or Covenant of Medina pre-dated the English Magna Carta by almost six centuries. It applied to the 10,000+ citizens living in Medina at that time. Remarkably, 45% of the total population in Medina consisted of pagan Arabs, 40% consisted of Jews, and only 15% were Muslims, at the start of this treaty. These numbers were recorded by Prophet Muhammad through a census he commissioned. So Prophet Muhammad’s Charter/Covenant of Medina was designed to govern a multi-religious pluralistic society in a manner that allowed religious freedom for all. The Charter’s 47 clauses protect human rights for all citizens, including equality, cooperation, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Clause 25 specifically states that Jews and pagan Arabs are entitled to practice their own faith without any restrictions: “The Jews of the Banu ‘Auf are one community with the Muslim believers, their freedmen and their persons, except those who behave unjustly and sinfully for they hurt but themselves, and their families. (26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the Banu al-Najjar, Banu al-Harith, Banu Sai’ida, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aus, Banu Tha’laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the Banu al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves. So the Covenant of Medina was the first political document in history to establish religious freedom as a fundamental constitutional right. The “Charter of Medina” created a new multi-tribal ummah/community soon after the Prophet’s arrival at Medina (Yathrib) in 622 CE. The term “constitution” is a misnomer. The treaty was more like the American Articles of Confederation that proceeded the U.S. Constitution because it mainly dealt with tribal matters such as the organization and leadership of the participating tribal groups, warfare, the ransoming of captives, and war expenditure. Two recensions of the document (henceforth, “the treaty”) are found in Ibn Ishaq’s Biography of Muḥammad (sira) and Abu ʿUbayd’s Book of State Finance (Kitāb al-amwāl). Some argue the final document actually comprises several treaties concluded at different times.
According to Arjomand, the treaty is a “proto-Islamic public law.” Some clauses in the second part of the treaty, or the treaty of the Jews section (namely clauses 53–64), form a pact with the Jewish Qurayza tribe that was incorporated in this treaty at a later stage. However, clause 44 (“Incumbent upon the Jews is their expenditure and upon the muslimun theirs”) and, clause 45 (“They will aid each other against whosoever is at war with the people of this treaty”) clearly were part of the original pact. According to Denny, the ummah of the Constitution is made up of Muslims and Jews; although the Jews also constitute a separate ummah “alongside” the Muslims. The treaty was a political-military document of agreement designed to make Yathrib and its people more secure. The Jewish tribes were a party to it as a special group, a “sub-ummah” with its own din (religion and law). Yathrib was to be “sacred for the people of this document,” which adds a factor of locality and religion. Kinship was not to be the main binding tie of the new ummah; for monotheistic religion was of much greater importance. The ummah is the tribe, a supertribe, with God and Muhammad as arbiters and authorities. According to Goto, the three main Jewish tribes—Nadir, Qurayza, and Qaynuqaʿ had agreements with Muhammad that were separate. Muhammad himself made a document or documents for the three major Jewish tribes. The six Jewish groups called “yahud bani so-and-so” mentioned in the treaty were not the three large Jewish tribes, but refer to significant groups of Jewish converts to Judaism within the pagan Arab tribes of Medina (since most Jews married other Jews these groups grew into large clans within the larger pagan Arab tribe of which they were a part). Muhammad Hamidullah divides the document into two parts: (1) The rules affecting the Muhajirun and the Anṣar that go back to the beginning of the first year after the Hijrah, and (2) the code for the Jews concluded after the Battle of Badr. In his view it was a constitution promulgated for the city-state of Medina. It included the prerogatives and obligations of the ruler and the ruled, as well as other immediate requirements (including social insurance for the needy). According to Rubin, the Jewish participants were not the three main Jewish tribes, but Jewish groups that unlike the three main tribes, had neither a territory of their own nor a separate Jewish tribal affinity, because they were families and clans of converts to Judaism within the various pagan Arab tribes. Muhammad’s ummah was a unity sharing the same religious orientation (monotheism) and included the Jews as “an umma of believers.” They were entitled to complete protection for themselves that also included their din (religion and law). The original Covenant of Medina influenced later generations of Muslims to include Christians within its provisions. There are a total of six different versions of such covenants with different Christian groups, which have been largely ignored by both Muslim and European historians. A recent book by John Morrow “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World”.
Rabbi Maller’s web site is: http://www.rabbimaller.com (http://www.rabbimaller.com). His book ‘Judaism and Islam as Synergistic Monotheisms: A Reform Rabbi’s Reflections on the Profound Connectedness of Islam and Judaism’ (a collection of 31 articles by Rabbi Maller previously published by Islamic web sites) is for sale ($15) on Amazon and Morebooks.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)TODAY'S HISTORY LESSON.Yet another interesting WWII piece of history...THE OIL PATCH WARRIORS OF WORLD WAR II
Seventy-five years ago this month, a Band of Roughnecks went abroad on a top secret mission into Robin Hood's stomping grounds to punch oil wells to help fuel England's war machines.
It's a story that should make any oilman or woman proud.The year was 1943 and England was mired in World War II. U-boats attacked supply vessels, choking off badly needed supplies to the island nation. But oil was the commodity they needed the most as they warred with Germany.A book "The Secret of Sherwood Forest: Oil Production in England During World War II" written by Guy Woodward and Grace Steele Woodward was published in 1973, and tells the obscure story of the American oil men who went to England to bore wells in a top secret mission in March 1943.
England had but one oil field, in Sherwood Forest of all places. Its meager output of 300 barrels a day was literally a drop in the bucket of their requirement of 150,000 barrels a day to fuel their war machines.Then a top secret plan was devised: to send some Americans and their expertise to assist in developing the field. Oklahoma based Noble Drilling Company, along with Fain-Porter signed a one year contract to drill 100 wells for England, merely for costs and expenses.
42 drillers and roughnecks from Texas and Oklahoma, most in their teens and early twenties volunteered for the mission to go abroad. The hands embarked for England in March 1943 aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth. Four National 50 drilling rigs were loaded onto ships but only three of them made landfall; the Nazi U-boats sank one of the rigs en route to the UK.The Brits' jaws dropped as the Yanks began punching the wells in a week, compared to five to eight weeks for their British counterparts. They worked 12 hour tours, 7 days a week and within a year, the Americans had drilled 106 wells and England oil production shot up from 300 barrels a day to over 300,000The contract fulfilled, the American oil men departed England in late March 1944. But only 41 hands were on board the return voyage. Herman Douthit, a Texan derrick-hand was killed during the operation. He was laid to rest with full military honors, and remains the only civilian to be buried at The American Military Cemetery in Cambridge.
"The Oil Patch Warrior," a seven foot bronze statue of a roughneck holding a four foot pipe wrench stands near Nottingham England to honor the American oil men's assistance and sacrifice in the war. A replica was placed in Ardmore Oklahoma in 2001
____________________________________________________________________It is by no means a stretch to state that without the American mission, we might all be speaking German today.
3)
Save Yourself, Mr. President
When it comes to overseeing the FBI and Justice, he’s all tweet and no action.
By William McGurn
Over the weekend the president went on a tear, here tweeting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is “scared stiff and Missing in Action,” there demanding to know why the Federal Bureau of Investigation is refusing to hand over Andrew McCabe’s text messages, here again complaining about the “Media coverup of the biggest story of our time”—by which he means the FBI and Justice Department’s “program to keep Donald Trump from becoming President.” On Monday, after the FBI finally gave agent Peter Strzok the heave-ho, a triumphant Mr. Trump tweeted “No Collusion, No Obstruction—I just fight back!”
But does he?
Mr. Trump gripes about coverups that have kept the American people in the dark about the bad behavior of FBI agents and Justice Department officials during the 2016 election. The question is: Why should anyone lift a finger to help him when he refuses to help himself by taking the one step—declassifying documents sought by Congress—that would clear up whether our most powerful intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were in fact working to deny him the presidency?
Mr. Trump has legitimate beefs here. His attorney general is weak because of a crippling recusal. The FBI and Justice do continue to slow-walk documents under subpoena from Congress. And what we have learned about the fishy behavior of high-ranking actors—from the FBI’s Mr. Strzok to the Justice Department’s Bruce Ohr —does suggest the investigators ought themselves to be investigated.
The proper venue for such an investigation is Congress, which is charged with overseeing the executive branch. Unfortunately, even as specific committees push hard for information, the leadership has opted not to deploy its considerable powers—which include contempt and impeachment—to exact a price for executive defiance.
Typically, the rationale for denying members of Congress access to documents is longstanding Justice policy against releasing information that might affect ongoing law-enforcement investigations.
In a June Washington Post article, David Rivkin, who has served in the Justice Department and Office of White House Counsel, cited a 1982 letter to Congress from Reagan Attorney General William French Smith outlining the principles behind this policy. “I am,” Smith wrote, “aware of no president who has departed from this policy regarding the general confidentiality of law enforcement files.”
But near the end of his letter, the attorney general acknowledged one exception. “These principles,” Smith wrote, “will not be employed to shield documents which contain evidence of criminal or unethical conduct by agency officials from proper review.” In other words, precisely the type of information Congress has been demanding.
Now the legislative branch has hit a wall. Notwithstanding all the hearings, all the testimony and all the documents it has collected, lawmakers still lack answers to fundamental questions such as when the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign.
To get this material to the public, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has called for declassification of three main items: 20 pages of the FBI’s application for a warrant on Carter Page, FBI interviews with Justice’s Bruce Ohr about former British spy Christopher Steele, and exculpatory evidence about Mr. Page that somehow was not included in the bureau’s warrant application.
So why hasn’t the president yet directed his administration to declassify and let the American people see for themselves? The best guess is that his legal team opposes it on the grounds it might rile special counsel Robert Mueller. Or because such an order might not be obeyed and lead to a wave of resignations.
These are factors that must be weighed in any calculation. But the president should consider another factor: There is a concerted effort to delegitimize his presidency, an effort that appears to have included some in the highest reaches of the government. Whatever the ripple effects of an order to declassify, transparency is a good hill for a president to be defending. If he waits, he risks a post-midterm Democratic House putting an end to committee investigations of Justice and the bureau. If that were to happen, he will surely regret not having declassified when Republicans on the Hill were in position to follow up.
Mr. President, it’s all well and good to snipe at your attorney general for not doing more to get this story out, to dump on the FBI, and to tease everyone with a tweet saying “you may have to get involved” in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. But thus far it’s been all talk. If you are unwilling to take the heat by using your authority to resolve the big unanswered questions and protect your presidency, how can you expect others to do it for you?
3a)
Omarosa's Clinton White House Firing
Shows How Bad She Is
“She was the worst hire we ever made,” Gore's office administrator admitted to The Times.The Trump White House is not the first to be unsatisfied with the work performance of Omarosa Manigault, the former senior Trump staffer who already released secretly recorded conversations she had with the president and Chief of Staff John Kelly
Despite Manigault’s complaints that she was treated poorly in the Trump White House during her tenure as one of the highest paid staffers there, former “numerous” staffers for Vice President Al Gore’s office told The New York Times last year that she was a terrible employee for the then-vice president.
During her days on Trump’s NBC program The Apprentice, People Magazine reported in 2004 that she held four jobs within two years when she worked for the Clinton administration.
At 24 years of age, she scored an entry-level, $25,000-per-year post replying to invitations for the vice president. According to The Times, she left a mound of 13 months-worth of unanswered correspondence addressed to Gore below her desk.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Jeremy Corbyn and the uses of idiocy.
By DOMINIC GREEN
Corbyn would be among them. A few days later, footage emerged of Corbyn, on the Iranian propaganda channel Press TV, detecting “the hand of Israel” in an ISIS attack on Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai. In the same interview, Corbyn described a Hamas terrorist, convicted of the murder of seven Israeli civilians in a café bombing, as his “brother.”
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour party, is a man of principle. unfortunately, all his principles are noxious. He is an anti-Semite, a useful idiot in a Lenin cap, and an unreconstructed, impenitent Trotskyite-Maoist of the vintage that enlivened the student unions of the 1970s, tried and failed to take over Labour in the 1980s, and then tried again and succeeded in the aftermath of the crash of 2008. He remains convinced of the rectitude of his principles even when they secure the endorsement of David Duke, the demented ex-grand wizard of the KKK, and Nick Griffin, the thuggish ex-leader of the neofascist British National party.
“You’re a f—ing anti-Semite and a racist,” the ex-minister Dame Margaret Hodge suggested to Corbyn in the House of Commons in mid-July. “You have proved you don’t want people like me in the party.” Hodge is Jewish and members of her family were killed in the Holocaust. A Labour moderate, she has routed the British National party in her Barking, Essex, constituency. The Labourleadership, which has proven serially incapable of taking action regarding dozens of cases of anti-Semitism in its ranks, immediately announced an inquiry into Hodge and Ian Austin, a second MP who had protested.
Hodge was infuriated by the refusal of Labour’s national executive committee to endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA’s legal definition has been endorsed by the Conservative government, the Crown Prosecution Service, the College of Policing, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and 124 local councils, many of them Labour-ruled, as well as dozens of international bodies. Labour leaders, however, proposed to rewrite or water down 4 of the 11 clauses, and thus to broaden the field of what would be tolerated within party fora. For reasons that Labour’s leadership have not satisfactorily explained, they wish to preserve for their members two of the anti-Zionist’s sordid pleasures, the assertion that the founding of the Israeli state was racist and that Israel is “like” Nazi Germany.
Corbyn has led Labour as it has mutated into Europe’s most successful anti-Semitic party, while continually insisting that none of its anti-Semitism is in his name. His cultish supporters, sharing in the folly of his principles and slavering at the prospect of power, believe in the purity of his intentions. Not everyone in Labour has fallen in line: The foremost dissenters are Jewish Labouritesand the Blairite centrists who are being purged as enemies of the people.
That Labour has to define anti-Semitism at all indicates the extent of what earlier and more candid socialists would have called its Jewish Problem. In 2016, Corbyn tried to shut down the issue with an internal inquiry, led by the human rights lawyer Shami Chakrabarti. After absolving Labour of all charges, Chakrabarti received Corbyn’s nomination to the House of Lords and is now a minister in Labour’s shadow cabinet. Since then, evidence of endemic anti-Semitism has continued to accumulate. The events of the last two weeks confirm that the rot runs from the head of the party to the bottom. We shall start with Labour’s purulent bottom and then examine its cracked head.
Like all racists, anti-Semites fantasize that their enemy is monolithic. A chilling fact of political power is that it can homogenize its enemies into a single group. The old saying goes that if you ask two Jews, you’ll get three opinions. Not in Corbyn’s Britain you don’t. On July 16, 68 rabbis from across the Jewish spectrum signed a letter protesting the “severe and widespread” anti-Semitism within Labour and objecting to the “most insulting and arrogant way” in which Corbyn and the Labour leadership have denied the existence of a mountain of evidence. Then, on July 25, the three leading Anglo-Jewish newspapers, in an unprecedented display of consensus, published the same editorial on their front pages.
“We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government,” they wrote. Labour’s refusal to adopt, and its leadership’s insistence on diluting and rewriting, the IHRA definition was “sinister,” a new low in “Corbynite contempt” for Jews and Israel.
“Under its adapted guidelines,” the editorial explained, “a Labour Party member is free to claim Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour and compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany, unless ‘intent’—whatever that means—can be proved. ‘Dirty Jew’ is wrong, ‘Zionist bitch’ fair game?”
In so doing, Labour makes a distinction between racial antisemitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political antisemitism targeting Israel (acceptable). The reason for this move? Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour . . . members would need to be expelled.
Corbyn would be among them. A few days later, footage emerged of Corbyn, on the Iranian propaganda channel Press TV, detecting “the hand of Israel” in an ISIS attack on Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai. In the same interview, Corbyn described a Hamas terrorist, convicted of the murder of seven Israeli civilians in a café bombing, as his “brother.”
It also emerged last week that on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2010, Corbyn opened and addressed an event at the House of Commons called “Never Again for Anyone—From Auschwitz to Gaza.” Corbyn, it is alleged, ordered the expulsion of a Holocaust survivor who objected to the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany. He also found himself apologizing for his presence in the 1990s on the international advisory board of an NGO called the Just World Trust. In 1996, when Corbyn led Just World Trust’s British chapter, Just World defended Roger Garaudy, the French philosopher convicted of Holocaust denial.
After the rabbis’ letter, Peter Willsman, a longtime Corbyn ally and a member of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC), was caught on tape telling an NEC meeting that Labour’s anti-Semitism problem was the invention of Jewish “Trump fanatics.” He then asked if anyone had ever heard anti-Semitic sentiments in the party and pronounced himself “amazed” at the show of hands. Meanwhile at the bottom of the party, a Labour councilor in the seaside town of Bognor Regis, Sussex, got into trouble over some indelicate Facebook postings.
“Talmud Jews are parasites,” said councilor Damien Enticott. “They drink blood and suck baby’s dick.” Jews, Enticott said, they “need executing,” and Hitler had the “cure” for Israel. Endicott at first insisted that someone else had been using his computer: “I don’t share anti-Semitic views at all.” Then, confronted with the evidence, he characterized himself as “anti-Zionist, not anti semantic [sic]” and as a fearless man of principle: “I will continue to speak my mind on subjects that I believe are completely insidious.”
This, crudely, is Corbyn’s attitude. He seeks a just world. He is an anti-Zionist in a world where perceptions are distorted by the insidious power of capital. He is a freedom fighter in a world where the hidden hand of America controls the market and the hidden hand of Israel tips the scales in favor of its American master. For Corbyn, socialism is not a dialectical system for the decoding of capitalism and its conversion into collective ownership. Nor is it a historical tragedy that brought hunger, war, and massacre to every society that it touched. Socialism is a perennially renewable good intention, a library card of the soul, a virtuous spending of a bottomless fund of other people’s money.
These are his principles. As a socialist and a fool, it is to be expected that Corbyn might be susceptible to anti-Semitism, the socialism of fools. The worst of his principles is his cynical refusal to accept the implications of his other principles. Each time his trafficking with Jew-haters is exposed, he apologizes not for a shameful moral failing but for the “hurt” and “pain” that he has inadvertently caused the touchy Jews.
“It’s not what you say, but what you do,” Margaret Hodge is reported as having said, “and by your actions you have shown that you are an anti-Semitic racist.”
Last week, Corbyn finally acknowledged Labour’s Jewish problem in a Guardian op-ed intended to assure Jews that a Labour government would be no threat to Jewish life in Britain. The op-ed ended with criticism of Israel, praise of anti-Zionist Jews, and a veiled warning that as the “far right is on the rise across Europe and America,” British Jews should shut up and stick with Labour.
Corbyn now leads a party as familiar to historians of the 19th century as it is alarming to survivors of the 20th. For the first time in British history, the parliamentary opposition is a socialist party in which the delusions of anti-Semitism and its foreign policy corollary, the delusions of anti-Zionism, are articles of faith and a loyalty test. The difference is that in the 1930s, Oswald Mosley, whose ideas about tariffs, welfare, and the Jews are curiously similar to Corbyn’s, failed to win a seat. Last week, a poll put Labour neck and neck with the Conservatives, with 40 percent support.
On August 6, the party announced that it would be abandoning its investigation of Margaret Hodge; Ian Austin, however, remained under investigation in a process that he described as “Kafkaesque.” The decision not to punish Hodge followed an appeal in Sunday’s Observer by Corbyn’s deputy, Tom Watson, calling for Labour to halt its arguments over anti-Semitism before it disappears “into a vortex of eternal shame and embarrassment.” Watson also called for Labour to adopt the IHRA recommendation without delay. While Corbyn is a useful idiot, it remains to be seen who among his close allies will make the best use of his idiocy in the long run.
Dominic Green is a columnist at Spectator USA and a frequent contributor to The Weekly Standard.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment