• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Never Forget the 10 Hours of Leftist Fascism at Canada’s CBC, 11-8-16!!!

Where, What Would We Humans Be If There Were No Global Warmings The Past 15,000 Years?….Make a Guess! Look It Up!

GLOBAL WARMING: THE BIG PICTURE

by  John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

Regular readers know that we have been debunking global warming (aka “climate change”) hysteria for a long time. As data accumulate the realist position that we have espoused becomes ever stronger. While it is often useful to take a deep dive into the data, it is also helpful to step back and see the big picture. That is what Ken Haapala, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, did in the most recent The Week That Was–an email to which you should subscribe, if you haven’t already. Turning the floor over to Haapala:

Last week’s TWTW discussed the two primary energy flows from the surface through the atmosphere into space as speculated in the influential 1979 Charney report: 1) carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbing and re-radiating (interfering with) some of the outbound long-wave radiation from the surface to space and 2) increased water vapor absorbing and re-radiating (interfering with) even more outbound long-wave radiation. According to the Charney Report, the increased water vapor is more significant than the CO2 in causing a warming of the planet.

Two key points here: 1) pretty much everyone agrees that the scientifically supportable consequence of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, a 1 degree increase in mean global temperature, would be a good thing. To get to the alarmists’ horror stories, you need to assume that increasing temperature by 1 degree would entail positive feedbacks that would quadruple that increase, or more. (This supposition seems obviously false, since in the past, when global temperatures were more than 1 degree warmer than they are today, no such feedbacks appeared.) The main positive feedback is a hypothetical increase in water vapor, which is far and away the main “greenhouse gas.” There is no basis in observation for this theory.

Further, TWTW discussed the 1997 model of the earth’s “Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” as presented by Kiehl and Trenberth paper published by the American Meteorological Society. In their graph, Figure 7, one can see the component allocated to outgoing longwave radiation and the component allocated to increasing water vapor, evapotranspiration and latent heat. Other publications disagree with the specific numbers but accept the concept.

According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their followers, there is a water vapor component of release of latent heat in the upper troposphere. This is the so called “hot spot,” which is assumed to be located over the tropics and strongest at a pressure between 300 to 200 millibars (mb) (roughly 9 to 11 km, 30,000 to 36,000 feet above the tropics). Over 50% of the atmosphere is below 6 km.

This “hot spot” has not been found and is not increasing as it should if the water vapor component of “CO2- caused global warming” is as strong as claimed in the Charney Report and repeated by the IPCC and others for 40 years. The recent McKitrick and Christy paper demonstrated that 60 years of weather balloon data have shown no such warming is taking place. Many other publications have likewise not found it.

If the “hot spot” doesn’t exist, the models on which global warming hysteria is based are wrong. Period.

Sunlight creates thermal chaotic motion of the atmosphere, which causes air with water vapor entrained to rise up. This convection process drives the winds and turbulence of the atmosphere. At the much cooler temperatures of altitudes like 10 km, water vapor condenses and becomes liquid, then ice. The conversion (phase change) from a gas back to a liquid (or solid) releases the latent heat into the atmosphere, slightly warming the nitrogen and oxygen. From high altitude, some heat is radiated into space, and part remains in the atmosphere. The entire process can be called a heat engine, or weather engine. When the Charney Report was written, the process was understood. This issue in question was: will a CO2-caused warming increase the intensity of this process, the weather engine?

That would seem to be an empirical question. But for the global warming hysterics, theory predominates over observation. That is the opposite of the scientific method.

Forty years of comprehensive atmospheric temperature trends, the last twenty years with no statistically significant warming, and 60 years of balloon observations show that the global atmosphere is not warming in a way indicating that the process is intensifying. The weather engine is not becoming more extreme. Thus, projections / forecasts / predictions from climate models or other means that CO2 warming is causing more extreme weather events are not supported by the hard evidence of temperature trends in the atmosphere.

If there is any greenhouse gas effect that is significant at this time, it is the warming of the Arctic, not the Antarctic that is both warming and cooling. The Daily Mean Temperature graphs of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), from 1958 to current, north of the 80th northern parallel, show that temperatures are rising in the cold months, not the summer. In the cold months, the Arctic is extremely dry, thus the warming may be from an increase in water vapor from El Niños, the causes of which are not understood.

Please note that the above discussion does not include transport of heat from the tropics to the polar regions both by the oceans and the atmosphere. As Richard Lindzen has discussed, any greenhouse gas warming of the polar regions is likely to be beneficial, because it lessens the temperature extremes (temperature gradient) between the tropics and the polar regions, thus reducing the driving forces of winds and severe storms. As climate change pioneer H.H. Lamb discussed in his book, “Climate, History and the Modern World,” the fiercest storms to hit Western Europe occurred during the Little Ice Age, a cold period.

To repeat: the alarmists’ models predict warming over the poles. That would reduce severe weather events, which are largely driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. The corrupt alarmist kleptocracy ignored this rather obvious fact and propagandized a non-existent increase in severe weather events to keep the cash flowing. However low your opinion of global warming hysterics may be, it isn’t low enough.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/global-warming-the-big-picture.php

Global Warmings and Global Coolings!

 

Just before the global catastrophe known best as the Biblical Flood, vast herds of wooly mammoths, buffalo, and rhinos, roamed the plains below the Arctic Circle. At the same time, there is evidence that the Antarctic was covered by a rain forest. The Earth’s crust has to have moved, to push most of the northern land mass that is now located in the Arctic Circle, to that area, flash freezing all those large animals, while covering them in mud. At the same time, the entire Antarctic continent was moved so that it was covered in ice and snow, burying it’s rain forest. It was AFTER the Flood, that most of the glaciers formed. It took around 6,000 years, from 10,500 to 4,000 BCE, for the Earth to recover enough for man’s first civilizations to be created. The Flood had nothing to do with global warming. It was caused by the passage of a celestial body, about the size of Neptune/Uranus, passing between Earth and Mars, which is yet to be identified. We recently had a visit from a much smaller celestial object that was determined to have originated from outside our Solar System, which means it is possible other outsiders have visited our System, and that one of them could have been quite large.

President Trump Stars in Quebec

TRUMP NAILS TRADE HYPOCRISY

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

President Trump’s participation in the G7 conference in Canada focused on trade. Once again, he made it clear that he wants our trading partners’ tariffs and other barriers to U.S. imports to come down. This gave the American press the vapors, but why? Our president certainly should try to reduce obstacles to sales of American goods.

President Trump gave a press conference this morning in which he expressed his belief in free trade:

Q Mr. President, you said that this was a positive meeting, but from the outside, it seemed quite contentious. Did you get any indication from your interlocutors that they were going to make any concessions to you? And I believe that you raised the idea of a tariff-free G7. Is that —

THE PRESIDENT: I did. Oh, I did. That’s the way it should be. No tariffs, no barriers. That’s the way it should be.

Q How did it go down?

THE PRESIDENT: And no subsidies. I even said no tariffs. In other words, let’s say Canada — where we have tremendous tariffs — the United States pays tremendous tariffs on dairy. As an example, 270 percent. Nobody knows that. We pay nothing. …

We have to — ultimately, that’s what you want. You want a tariff-free, you want no barriers, and you want no subsidies, because you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries, and that’s not fair. So you go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy-free. That’s the way you learned at the Wharton School of Finance. I mean, that would be the ultimate thing. Now, whether or not that works — but I did suggest it, and people were — I guess, they got to go back to the drawing and check it out, right?

But we can’t have — an example — where we’re paying — the United States is paying 270 percent. Just can’t have it. And when they send things into us, you don’t have that.

Trump is right that most countries protect their agricultural industries with tariff and non-tariff barriers. (The EU’s ban on GMO crops is an example of a non-tariff barrier that is rational only as an act of protectionism.) The U.S. has the most efficient agricultural sector in the world, and since most countries can’t compete with our farmers, they erect trade barriers. How is this any different from our imposing tariffs on steel or automobiles? It isn’t.

Does Canada actually impose a 270% tariff on American dairy products, as Trump keeps saying? Yes, it does, according to the Canadian Broadcasting Company:

Canada levies a tariff of 270 per cent on milk, 245 per cent on cheese and 298 per cent on butter in an effort to keep imports out and tightly control supply.

So Trump is right. A world without tariffs is a desirable goal, but a world in which the U.S. has no tariffs, but other countries erect barriers to our products, is not.

After President Trump departed for Singapore, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a press conference in which he responded negatively to Trump’s call for reduced tariffs all around. It isn’t clear to me exactly what set Trump off, but he tweeted this: 

“Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our U.S. Reps not to endorse the Communique as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!”

“PM Justin Trudeau of Canada acted so meek and mild during our @G7 meetings only to give a news conference after I left saying that, “US Tariffs were kind of insulting” and he “will not be pushed around.” Very dishonest & weak. Our Tariffs are in response to his of 270% on dairy!”

We will see where this leads, but my guess is that the president will ultimately succeed in bargaining for reduced trade barriers. The question is one of degree.

Finally, there were a couple of other highlights in Trump’s press conference. Here, he responded to a hostile question:

Q As you were heading into these G7 talks, there was a sense that America’s closest allies were frustrated with you and angry with you, and that you were angry with them and that you were leaving here early to go meet for more friendlier talks with Kim Jong Un in Singapore. And I’m wondering if you —

THE PRESIDENT: It’s well put, I think.

Q — if you view it the same way. And do you view the U.S. alliance system shifting under your presidency, away —

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you with, out of curiosity?

Q CNN.

THE PRESIDENT: I figured. Fake News CNN. The worst. But I could tell by the question. I had no idea you were CNN. After the question, I was just curious as to who you were with. You were CNN.

And Scott had to especially appreciate this moment:

Okay, how about a couple of more? Go ahead in the back.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. Eliana Johnson with Politico.

It was a good day all the way around.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/trump-nails-trade-hypocrisy.php

Tommy Robinson “Young Upstart”

Nearly the entire continent of Europe is being overwhelmed by an invasion of extremist Islamists devoted to destroy whatever democracy still remains in the continent by using democratic institutions to intimidate and defeat the native populations, too frightened and complacent to defend themselves.   Politicians are either bought off, too frightened, or too ignorant to contend.

In the United Kingdom Tommy Robinson, a young ‘upstart’ from the laboring class has been rallying his troups to defend the nation from the invaders from  16th Century Islam.    Establishment England, both Labor and Conservative view him as trash in much the same way Establishment America, particularly the LEFT, but also some conservatives depict Sarah Palin.

The following article was printed February 17, 2011 at the Gates of Vienna:

Introduction

EFI logo“Ten Questions” is a initiative launched by the Dutch Defence League and the Amsterdam Post. Periodically readers and members are given the opportunity to ask questions of certain people who are active in the front line against the Islamisation of their country or the threat of sharia law. This initiative was designed to give the people of Holland a better insight into these people or the organizations they represent.

The answers are published on several websites in Holland, Germany, and the rest of the world (ICLA, Amsterdam Post, Gates of Vienna). Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the first one, Tommy Robinson the second.

1. G. Deckzijl:

How big is the support for the EDL in the UK, and is anti-Islam resistance growing in the UK?

We’ve been holding demonstrations in cities all over England, and each time we manage to attract thousands of supporters. We’re doing well, but we’re still growing. We’ve got a new website, we’re making new alliances, we’re being taken more seriously by the press, and last week, just before the EDL returned to where it all began — my hometown of Luton — the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave a speech that echoed a number of the things that we’ve been saying. We started as a small band of people protesting against the treatment of the Royal Anglian Regiment by Muslim extremists, and now we’re looking at upwards of 75,000 supporters.

So resistance is definitely growing, but we’re still getting some unfounded criticisms. For instance, I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re simply ‘anti-Islam’ — we’re opposed to the terrible things that Islam has brought with it — the support for terrorism, the oppression of women, the intolerance of other religions and other lifestyles, the self-imposed isolation and rejection of the most basic British values. Islam’s got to be held accountable, it’s got to change — but above all else, it’s these things that we need to fight against.

Groups like ours are really only called ‘anti-Islam’ because people are either too scared to criticise Islam, or they don’t realise that there are many good reasons for these criticisms. People have been purposefully kept in the dark by the politicians, by the media, and by those who want to convince us that Islam is simply the religion of peace. Now we’re being told that critics of Islam are all ‘Islamophobes’ (as if we’re all suffering from some kind of mental disorder!) — our opponents really are getting desperate.

What we do believe in is freedom, democracy and individual rights. And we believe that British culture is pretty good at celebrating these things. If we’re to properly resist the threat posed by Islam then we’ve got to convince people that being ‘anti-Islam’ means not being afraid to make important criticisms — it doesn’t mean being ‘far right’, it doesn’t mean being an ‘extremist’ — it means recognising the problems and not being afraid to talk about them — it means doing your bit to defend your country and its ideals.

I’d judge our success by how willing people are to actually talk about Islam — how much they’re willing to challenge it. The more people realise that the media and the government have been covering up the problems, the more they’ll look to the EDL to help voice their concerns — and the more supporters we have, the easier it’ll be to make the politicians listen. Things are getting better, but there’s still a long way to go.

2. Ingrid, Wachters, Fummifan, Frans Groenendijk:

The EDL has had a lot of negative publicity in the press. They were associated with neo-Nazis and football hooligans, who are suspected of joining the EDL just to cause trouble and give the EDL a bad name. Is there any truth in it, and did the EDL succeed in distancing itself from Nazi sympathizers, and what does the EDL do to improve its reputation? For example: were you able to convince Maryam Namazie (onelawforall.org) of your distance from the BNP?

I don’t like that we’re constantly being asked to convince people that we’re not Nazis, hooligans, or members of the BNP. I’d prefer it if people looked at what we’re saying, and asked themselves whether it’s compatible with the views of any of those groups. Last week in Luton I made clear that we’re not at all interested in race, and that I’d rather stand with one proud black patriot that a thousand scumbag racists. Why would I say that if it wasn’t true? I don’t say one thing to journalists and another to our supporters — I’m very open about my views, and we’ve published a mission statement on our website, for anyone who’s still unclear.

Yes, people have tried to use the EDL to cause trouble — but we always deal with them swiftly. At our local meets, the division leaders are constantly working to educate new members as to what we’re all about, and to make sure that people aren’t joining up for the wrong reasons. We’ve also introduced stewards at our demonstrations to help identify and remove troublemakers.

We want to have an open membership policy — to let anyone join, whatever their background, whatever their political beliefs, whatever their skin colour, whatever their religion — so that means that it’s important that anyone wanting to join does understanding what we do and do not stand for. Back in the early days we were filmed burning a swastika — we thought we’d made it pretty clear then — both to our opponents, and to our potential supporters. The EDL is about opposition to a dangerous form of Islam, and the protection of our country. That’s it.

The people that still call us all those kinds of things (racists, fascists, etc) are actually the ones that are guilty of the sort of prejudice that they’re accusing us of. We don’t demand that every Muslim convince us that they’re not an extremist — so people shouldn’t make similar demands of us. Maryam Namazie is an Iranian Communist — but we don’t ask her to prove that she’s not some kind of dangerous Stalinist. So, I don’t know if we’ve managed to convince Maryam that we’re not connected to the BNP — she should be able to work it out for herself.

3. G. Deckzeijl, Veteraan:

Is it possible to stop this Jihad talk by hard cold facts? Why for example are the black Jihad flags not forbidden?

Facts are of course important, and we’re doing all we can to tell people things we feel they need to know, as well as encouraging them to find out about Islam for themselves. But it’s difficult to convince people of things when the media will immediately find a so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ who will tell everyone that we’ve just misunderstood the issue, that Islam is the religion of peace, and that it’s us who are being offensive.

We have plenty of facts, but the constant message from the media and the government is that we don’t understand them.

What this means is that although we hear about crimes where Islam has played a part almost every day, many people still refuse to accept that there is any connection at all. It’s almost as if it’s too obvious, that if the connection was real then the government would be doing something about it. People take the government’s silence to mean that there’s not really a problem — not that the government has no idea how to deal with it.

The black Jihad flags aren’t forbidden because so few people actually recognise what they are, and because so many people would happily pretend that there aren’t all these problems with Islam.

4. DSV:

In Europe, we see various counter jihad movements popping up: next to the EDL and its affiliates in other countries, there is SIOE, the Paris Manifesto movement, Geert Wilders planning to go international, political parties like Die Freiheit in Germany and a plethora of anti-Islam(ist) blogs.

Do you see any movement towards a pan-European umbrella organization, which would be strong enough to influence (or counter) national or European legislation, with respect to the ongoing Islamisation of Europe? Does the EDL work towards establishing such a movement? In relation to this: Which are the preferred partners of the EDL, both in Europe and elsewhere? Whose views do you most identify with?

We recognise that radical Islam is a global problem, but we’re mainly concerned with doing what we can in this country — as are the other defence leagues, and similar organisations, in their respective countries. The more successful we become, the more we’ll be able to help our foreign allies.

That said, we are proud to be members of the European Freedom Initiative (EFI), a group whose member organisations fight to preserve freedom of speech, and who oppose the spread of Islamism and Sharia law.

As for whose views we most identify with, that’s difficult, because it’s not like we’re a political party — there are lots of different views already within the EDL. As long as other groups believe in the values that we do — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, support for democracy, equal rights for women — and share our belief in the need to criticise and expose militant Islam, then they’re welcome to become part of our growing network.

Our friends in the EFI certainly share with us a number of key concerns and beliefs, and we look forward to working with them more in the future.

5. Veteraan DDL:

Is there going to be an umbrella organization for the different Defence Leagues that are forming?

It’s difficult to say exactly what’s going to happen in the future. We are seeing defence leagues, loosely based on the EDL model, cropping up all over the world. We’re proud to have inspired these people, but at the moment we don’t think there would be much point in creating any new umbrella organisation. We’re in regular contact with most of these groups, and we look forward to supporting each other’s efforts.

6. Frans Groenendijk:

What is your relation to UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and vice versa? The UKIP is not anti-Islam. Is the EDL planning to start a political party in the future?

We have no plans to become, or to found, a political party. But we cannot discount the possibility of having to adopt a more political stance if our politicians continue to fail the British public. We are working to defend principles that are more important that party politics. Radical Islam isn’t just a threat to certain types of political parties; it’s a threat to the whole system of liberal democracy, because it wants to replace our laws and our politics with Sharia Law.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re such a diverse organisation — we have supporters with all different kinds of political views (it’s also one of the reasons why it’s ridiculous to call us ‘far right’). We want to pressure all politicians of all parties to start addressing the issues, to stand up for freedom of speech, and to make clear that they will not ignore the threat posed by radical Islam.

At the end of the day, we’d only enter politics if we were forced to by inaction — if none of the political parties listened to us. But I believe that we have the momentum — the growing support — to make sure that they will.

We’ve received quiet words of support from all of the main political parties in the UK, but have yet to agree a constructive working relationship with any of them. We do not wish to be party political, but we are more than willing to cooperate with those with whom we find common ground (be they political parties or other organisations). We would hope that the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would begin to take seriously our concerns, because a clear and consistent message from government that acknowledged the extent of the problems we face, and which demonstrated a sincere commitment to overcoming them, would do a lot to reassure the people of Britain.

David Cameron does seem to be making some positive steps — but he’s got a long way to go to prove that he’s really on our side.

7. G. Deckzeijl, Templar NL:

Is the EDL aware of the meaning and existence of Taqiyya and Tafsir? Do you think that a moderate Islam exists, or is that part of their strategy?

Yes, we’re aware of the terms. Taqiyya is lying to protect or advance Islam — it’s a common tactic of Muslim organisations that pretend to be interested in building bridges between communities, when they’re only really interested in looking after their own interests, or which want to hide their real intentions. We should also mention Kitman: the strategy of pretending to accept the laws and beliefs of your enemy, whilst all the while plotting against them and looking to undermine them — a strategy very familiar to those who would push for Sharia in the UK.

Tafsir is the study and interpretation of the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah by scholars of Islam. It’s something that has so-far failed to produce a convincing blueprint for peace between Islam and ‘the West’.

We don’t always think that it’s helpful to divide Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’. Whilst there is some truth to it, we’re talking about people — who are rarely simple. I think it’s better to say that what we call ‘radical Islam’ is far more influential and widespread than most people realise. In some towns and cities, even in Britain, it threatens to dominate the local Muslim population.

Obviously some radicals do realise that it’s a good idea to appear to be moderates (and we’ve seen reports from organisations like the Quilliam Foundation that show that many supposed moderate Muslim organisations are actually infested with dangerous radicals). But I don’t think you can take that as evidence that there aren’t plenty of decent Muslims who love this country and are genuinely ashamed that others hold such intolerant views.

However, there are many opinion poll results out there that suggest that these people may actually be a minority. Regardless of the exact numbers, I think it’s undeniable that radical Islam is far too influential a force in Britain — and serious questions need to be asked if we’re to work out how to deal with it. Why, for instance, does tafsir continue to help justify the actions of the radicals and extremists rather than supporting the growth of so-called ‘moderate Islam’?

8. rias politica:

What are the possibilities of achieving a formal prohibition of the Sharia courts in GB?

We believe that it would be possible to attempt legal challenges against judgements handed down by Sharia court, but ultimately our success would rest on the political will needed to combat these courts. Judges can only operate within the law, and subject to the common consensus — and I don’t think they’ve had enough run-ins with Sharia courts to consider them a serious threat as yet.

If we’re going to prevent things from getting that far, then we need to educate people about the role Sharia courts play in undermining our laws, perpetuating intolerant and oppressive behaviours, and helping to keep the Muslim population segregated from the rest of society. Only the government is in a position to outlaw Sharia courts, and that won’t happen until we’ve won a lot more arguments.

9. DutchViking, Templar:

Will the government ever wake up before it’s too late? Do you think that politicians in GB and Europe will come to their senses and listen to groups like the EDL, or will it have to come entirely from the people?

I think they’ll listen, even if they never admit that we played an important role in convincing them that something must be done. As I mentioned earlier, David Cameron’s said some things recently that do give us hope. But even though he’s started echoing what we’ve been saying, he’d never acknowledge that he’s responding to the pressure that we’ve been putting on him. Instead, he’ll pretend that we hold extreme views — that we’re part of the ‘far right’ — even if he does come round to agreeing with exactly what we’ve been saying.

There’s still a lot of resistance to criticism of Islam. There are still a lot of people that think we need things like ‘multiculturalism’ because we should still feel guilty about the British Empire — so they hate anyone who isn’t ashamed of this country. The more people reject that view — whether they support the EDL or not — the better position we’ll be in.

10. Nederlander:

How far is the EDL prepared to go in the fight against Islamisation?

We may need to change tactics at some point along the way, but we shall always remain peaceful — anything else would be counterproductive. We believe in the need to defend certain rights and freedoms from the threat posed by certain forms of Islam, and we’d never do anything to undermine those very same rights and freedoms.

Exactly what needs to be done to turn the tide of Islamisation depends largely on Islam itself — on its ability to reform, adapt and conform to Western culture, laws, politics and respect for human rights. Of course, it also depends on the willingness and strength of conviction of individual Muslims to be part of this process.

11th Bonus Question:

What can the people in The Netherlands and on the rest of the continent do to support you?

You should focus on what you can do in your own countries. We’d love to see you at our demonstrations, and would hope to lend you our support when we can. But what we’d really like to see would be you having your own successes, inspiring us to continue doing what we do, and setting an example of what can be achieved. In The Netherlands you have Geert Wilders — a politician unlike most of the others — who is committed seriously addressing the root cause of the problems of Islamic extremism. In The Netherlands you have the potential to achieve a great deal, and to be an example to the rest of the world. Best of luck to you all, and thank you!

Comment:   How refreshing  Tommy Robinson is to me.   I am used to hearing the American political world led by Marxist progagandist, Barack Hussein Obama, who says so many words so often in so many speeches that don’t amount to anything because nothing he says means today what it meant yesterday or an hour ago.
Tommy Robinsons caries  a core as a base for his beliefs.  As young as he is, he is actually an adult.   He has not taken eloqution lessons, thinking lessons, writing lessons, television appearance lessons, coiffure lessons and so on from advisors.   Tommy Robinson has the special advantage of knowing something he dearly believes in and can articulate it extremely well without fumbling, because of that wonderful core of belief.
Unlike the quicksand of so many American politicians, Mr. Robinson is a rock of Gibraltar.  I’m proud he is on my side.

Wikipedia on the English Defence League

Association with violence and anti-social behaviour

The English Defence League protest in Newcastle, England

“The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English towns and cities,[14] but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF), local opposition and other opponents have led to street violence, anti-social behaviour and arrests. A proposed march in Luton in September 2009 was banned by the police, citing a threat to public safety.[74] There is normally heavy policing of these demonstrations, due to the likelihood of violence. The cost of policing these demonstrations has ranged from £300,000[45] to £1 million.[39] Journalists that have covered EDL marches have received death threats,[75] for instance journalist Jason N. Parkinson from The Guardian wrote about receiving a death threat by email from someone he described as an EDL organiser, as well as death threats sent to Marc Vallée, a fellow journalist.[76] The National Union of Journalists also released a statement about journalists who had been intimidated after covering EDL demonstrations.[75]

Four specialist national police units involved in policing hooliganism, extreme violence, and terrorism are investigating the EDL.[15] After their second demonstration in Birmingham Assistant Chief Constable Sharon Rowe of West Midlands Police: “Really, there was no intent to protest. I think they knew that the community was very much against them coming to the city, which…potentially would generate violence”.[33] Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that “There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence”.[77] During the Manchester city centre demonstration Mat Trewern, from BBC Radio Manchester reported that “At one point, earlier on, when it became extremely tense, members of the UAF tried to break the police line between the two groups” Greater Manchester Police confirmed a man, believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of distributing racially aggravated material.[78] One week later, at a Welsh Defence League demonstration, supporters burnt an anti-Nazi flag and made Nazi salutes.[79]

On January 2010 in Stoke-on-Trent, there was trouble as EDL members broke through police lines, four police officers were injured and police vehicles were damaged. The BBC’s Matt Cooke said there had been few problems with the Unite Against Fascism demonstration.[41]

In March 2010 in Bolton, 74 people were arrested in the demonstrations; at least 55 of the arrested were from the UAF and nine from the EDL.[44][46][47][80] Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism was arrested and charged with conspiracy to organise violent disorder,[81] Martin Smith, of Love Music Hate Racism and Dr Moran, joint secretary of Greater Manchester UAF were among those arrested on conspiracy charges.[82] Police said that UAF protesters were responsible for most of the trouble and that they had turned up intending to cause trouble saying “It is clear to me that a large number have attended with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable.”[83]

At their second Dudley protest, on 17 July 2010, there was widespread damage to local property, the local council estimated the bill to be over £500,000.[53] On 11 September 2010, police in Oldham received an advance call from the EDL. Around mid-day approximately 120 supporters had descended on the town. A separate mob of around 50 members attacked a police car with bottles. There were 8 arrests for public order offences.[59][60]

On 9 October 2010, a police officer and several civilians were injured during protests by the English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism in Leicester. A Sky News van was attacked by members of the English Defence League[84] who had earlier thrown fireworks, smokebombs and bricks at police[85] and smashed windows of the city’s International Arts Centre.[86] There were also clashes between EDL supporters and local black and asian youths as a group broke out of the EDL protest site at Humberstone Gate East and engaged with the locals. Riot police fought to maintain control over the sporadic fighting that ensued.[87] Thirteen people were arrested, one on suspicion of assaulting a police officer,[88]only one was from the city of Leicester[61] and the cost of policing the demonstration was put at £850,000.[89]

In February 2011, prior to an EDL march in Luton, national British newspapers ran headlines with expectations of violence.[90] The march, which was held on 5 February 2011, was concluded without major incident.[91]

Views and reactions

The British press describes the EDL as far-right.[92][93][94][95][96]

Nick Lowles, the editor of anti-racist magazine Searchlight says the EDL poses two risks. One is the formation of a street army prepared to travel around the country to fight and provide organisational support. The other is the group’s tactics of carrying placards and chanting in places that are potential flashpoints. Searchlight added that not every leader of the EDL is a fascist or hardcore racist.[15] Meanwhile, on the BBC’s sunday morning Andrew Marr show on December 13, 2010, Liberty director Shami Chakrabartidescribed the EDL as “modern day blackshirts”.[97] The creation of an EDL “Jewish division” in June 2010 was condemned by various different Jewish Groups.[98][99][100]

Jon Cruddas, writing in The Guardian, describes the EDL as “a dangerous cocktail of football hooligans, far-right activists and pub racists…a bigger threat than the BNP…providing a new white nationalist identity through which they can understand an increasingly complex and alienating world. In a similar way to how football hooligans once coalesced around support for Ulster loyalism and hatred of the IRA, the followers of the EDL genuinely believe they are “defending” their Britain against the threat of Islam. What makes the EDL much more dangerous is how it reflects a wider political and cultural war.”[101]

The EDL’s leaders say they are opposed to racism and say that the EDL it is “keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices”[citation needed]. Trevor Kelway, a spokesman for the EDL, has denied that the group is racist. He said he had taken over as spokesman because the previous spokesman was Islamophobic. “We would march alongside Muslims and Jews who are against militant Islam,” he said. “There were none on Saturday and an all-white group doesn’t look good. But they can join the EDL as long as they accept an English way of life. It is the people who threaten with bombs and violence and threaten and bomb our troops – they don’t belong here.”[10][102]

Government

British Prime Minister David Cameron stated in the 2010 election campaign, “The EDL are terrible people, we would always keep these groups under review and if we needed to ban them, we would ban them or any groups which incite hatred.”[103] Former Home Office secretary Phil Woolas stated of the organisation’s tactics “This is a deliberate attempt by the EDL at division and provocation, to try and push young Muslims into the hands of extremists, in order to perpetuate the divide. It is dangerous.”[104] John Denham, the then UK Communities Secretary, has condemned the EDL, saying its tactics are similar to those of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, although he stressed that they did not present anything like the same “potency, organisation or threat”. He was commenting after clashes between different groups at a new London mosque, during a demo by the group Stop the Islamification of Europe. He singled out the EDL in particular: “If you look at the types of demonstrations they have organised, the language used and the targets chosen, it looks pretty clear that it’s a tactic designed to provoke, to get a response and create violence”.[105][106]

The leader of Dudley council, Anne Milward, stated after the second EDL demonstration in her city: “We are extremely saddened that Dudley has again been targeted by the English Defence League. Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town.”[51]

Academic analysis

Matthew Goodwin an academic who specialises in the study of far-right extremism has argued that the press are more sympathetic to the Islamophobia of the EDL than they were to the anti-Semitism of the National Front in the 1970s:

The reason why the EDL’s adoption of Islamophobia is particularly significant is that unlike the 1970s, when the National Front was embracing antisemitism, there are now sections of the media and the British establishment that are relatively sympathetic towards Islamophobia. It is not difficult to look through the media and find quite hostile views towards Islam and Muslims. That is fundamentally different to the 1970s, when very few newspapers or politicians were endorsing the NF’s antisemitic message.[107]

International activities and support

American talk radio host Michael Savage became the first popular media figure to publicly announce support for the EDL, stating, “How does England take the Islamofascists spitting on their war dead, without letting the English Defence League wade into them with pipes and beer bottles, I’ll never understand”.[108] Erick Stakelbeck, a terrorism analyst and commentator for Pat Robertson‘s Christian Broadcasting Network, also expressed support for the EDL and compared it to the American Tea Party movement.[109]

The EDL is reported to be developing links with anti-islamic elements within the Tea Party movement, through individuals associated with the Ground Zero Mosquecontroversy.[110]

In October, 2010, Rabbi Nachum Shifren traveled to England to speak at a rally. In his speech, he called Muslims “dogs” and told the EDL that “History will be recorded that on this day, read by our children for eternity, one group lit the spark to liberate us from the oppressors of our two governments and the leftist, fifth column, quisling press, and that it was the EDL which started the liberation of England from evil.”[111]

Jewish Defense League has held a demonstration in support of the EDL,[112] the JDL saying that the two groups alliance will “take a stand against the forces of political Islam”. The Canadian Jewish congress has opposed the alliance. Please click here for a video of the EDL leader, Tommy Robinson:      

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyw0tpVGN4Comment:   The above is how the Establishment Left in America describes how the Establishment LEFT in the UK views the English Defence League.  I no longer spend time in the United Kingdom, but I have spent almost a year of my life in that beautiful, once proud, once quite democratic nation until the arrivial of militant Islam.  

From the distance of my tiny office from London’s wars of modern English Succession, I believe that the present leader of the English Defence League, through his native intelligence, love for his England, and probably encouraged by the spark of success he has experienced leading this group of lower class language, has guided the League into a proud and honorable  Save England force against the disharmony that is inherent with aggressive Islam today.   There is NOTHING peaceful about this swarm of fanatics who use the mosque as the center of fascism which would have  made Hitler overwhelmed with jealousy.    Not only that but few in the three major Brit political parties can be trusted to defend the homeland when Arab money is so readily available.

Because the Human Female Animal Was Born to Seek Security and Comfort over TRUTH!

Jordan Peterson And The Left-Wing Smear Machine

by John Sexton  at HotAir:

Author Carol Horton identifies herself as someone who leans left on political and cultural issues. Yesterday, in a piece for Quillette, she describes looking into Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and finding him “a refreshing departure from the standard discourse.” That put her at odds with friends who warned her that Peterson was “hate-filled right-wing propaganda.” But while Horton was willing to make up her own mind about Peterson, she found doing so left her feeling isolated and uncomfortable. Horton says the social pressure was so intense that she felt scared to speak up with her opinion. She believes that pressure to conform to a narrow, approved view is a much bigger problem for the left than Jordan Peterson:

If you follow the news stream, it seems that virtually every right-thinking left-leaning (pun intended) journalist, blogger, and social media maven agrees: Peterson is an alt-right wolf in professorial sheep’s clothing, a self-serving charlatan who dresses up old-school misogyny, racism, and elitism in faux-intellectual, fascist mystical garb.

I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm…

The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels…

The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it…

I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record.

We saw this left-wing smear machine in action just a few days ago. I highlighted an example from a debate in Toronto where Michael Dyson claimed Peterson was an example of white privilege and then called him a “mean, mad, white man” when Peterson dared to object. And that was only one of several possible examples I could have pointed to from that debate.

Here’s another example. Writer Michelle Goldberg accused Peterson of saying women “shouldn’t be allowed to wear make-up” at work. When he denied that, she told the audience he’d said it in an interview with Vice and told the audience to Google it. But if you Google it, you’ll find that in the full interview Peterson says explicitly, “I’m not saying that women shouldn’t do it and I’m not saying that it should be banned.” The video below contains video of both events. Could Michelle Goldberg have looked this up on her own? Probably so. So why didn’t she do that before rolling out this attack in a debate?

Peterson doesn’t get a fair shake from the left because the goal is not to engage with him but to make him appear so toxic that no one will be willing to engage with him. The classic in this genre is the now infamous “interview” of Peterson by Cathy Newman. I’m putting the word interview in quotes because this isn’t really an investigation of ideas, it’s a series of increasingly silly attacks designed to convince viewers that Peterson is toxic and/or irrational. Here’s one of my favorite examples from the interview (as transcribed by the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf):

Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.

Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

It’s not a coincidence that the author of a recent NY Times hit piece on Peterson used almost exactly this same line of attack, i.e. mocking his reference to lobsters without even trying to understand or explain the point of the reference.

Carol Horton is correct. The left isn’t listening to Jordan Peterson, they’re just trying to destroy him as efficiently and quickly as possible. That dynamic says a lot about the left, none of it very good. Kudos to Horton for having the courage to stand up to the mob.

There’s an underlying question here: Why are so many, so eager to destroy Peterson? The most convincing explanation of the phenomenon that I’ve seen is this one from NRO’s David French:

If Peterson were writing to a Christian audience, he’d be one voice among many. An interesting and quirky voice, to be sure, but his core message about men and women would be conventional, not revelatory. Instead, however, Peterson stands out because he is playing in the Left’s cultural sandbox. He’s disrupting an emerging secular cultural monopoly with arguments about history, tradition, and the deep truths about human nature that the cultural radicals had long thought they’d banished to the fringe.

That’s the reason for the fury. That’s the reason for the rage. When Peterson walks into a secular university or a secular television studio and addresses a secular audience by referencing ancient theological arguments, the effect is not unlike inviting a genderqueer women’s-studies professor to a Baptist Sunday-school class. Some things (in some places) are just not said.

I wish I could say I was optimistic about Peterson’s chances, but I’ve seen the left’s scorched-earth playbook in action before and it usually succeeds. Throw enough garbage at the wall and eventually, a few bits stick. Those become all the excuse a compliant media needs to silence the target. Frankly, it’s a credit to Peterson’s quick wit that he’s survived as long as he has given both the degree to which he’s willing to challenge the left’s assumptions and the firepower they are deploying against him.

Here’s the video mentioned above showing that, contrary to Michelle Goldberg’s claim, Peterson is not for outlawing make-up in the workplace.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/25/jordan-peterson-left-wing-smear-machine/

Was Al Franken, or Is It Keith Ellison the Looniest Gopher Nut in Congress?

CORRUPTION IS A REFLECTION OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HUMAN ANIMALS ON HAND TO ESTABLISH  SOCIAL WELFARE

STOP, KEITH, YOU’RE KILLING US [UPDATED]

by Scott Johnson  at  Powerline:

“I think of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison as our man in Havana. He prays for the Castro regime so that it can continue to shelter Joanne Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur), the first woman named by the FBI to its most wanted list. Ellison is also vice chair in charge of vice at the Democratic National Committee.

On Friday Ellison told an audience at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee that they have a moral obligation to defeat Republicans at the polls, saying “women are dying” because they’re losing (video below).

“Did you know that in Missouri and in Texas, and maybe other places, maternal mortality has risen?” Ellison said. Dr. Keith is on the case: “Women are dying because we are losing elections. We don’t have the right to lose a damn election. We have to win. We have to win.” They have to win so that they can socialize the health care system completely. It’s for the women (or the womyn).

Is it still okay to single out women for concern? In their capacity as mothers?

Incidentally, Ellison himself isn’t looking too good, though I don’t think the elections have anything to do with that either.”

Via Paul Crookston/Washington Free Beacon.

UPDATE: The data on maternal in deaths in Texas–I assume the ones Ellison was relying on–turned out to be fake news.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/stop-keith-youre-killing-us.php