Sunday, December 06, 2015
The Reaction of the Liberal Media to the San Bernardino Terrorist Attack by two Muslims? Demonize prayer!
California has very strict gun-control laws so a call for more gun controls made even less sense this time than usual. But Leftist bile had to find some outlet so yet another torrent of abuse directed at Christians was the result
The liberal media took a note from Rahm Emanuel. They're not letting a crisis go to waste.
Less than 24 hours after the shooting, failing New York liberal rag the Daily News Snooze rushed to mock any politician who dared to offer thoughts and prayers for the victims of the tragedy. They weren't the only ones. As Mollie Hemingway notes:
That’s when things got super weird. For some reason, much of the media began mocking the efficacy of prayer. This was happening while victims of the shooting were actually asking people to pray. I mean, the critiques were everywhere. An editor at ThinkProgress said, and I quote, “Stop thinking. Stop praying.” There’s a bumper sticker for you!
At the Washington Examiner, Becket Adams outlines some of the comments. They are, in a word, revolting:
"Other countries must have fewer mass shootings because their conservative politicians offer thoughts and prayers more vigorously," said Vox.com's Matt Yglesias.
Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten added, "Dear 'thoughts and prayers' people: Please shut up and slink away. You are the problem, and everyone knows it."
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Arthur Delaney even penned an entire article smirking at both Democratic and GOP officials for offering prayers in the wake of mass shootings.
"Another Mass Shooting, Another Deluge Of Tweeted Prayers," read their headline. "Seems to have been an ineffective strategy so far."
Journalists on the coast have little to no interaction with people of faith. As Hemingway concludes:
The bizarre outpouring from journalists of anti-Christian sentiment yesterday was not becoming. And some of it was downright alarming. But consider that many journalists didn’t really understand what they were doing. They are bad at understanding the religious practices of much of the country, of course. But they’re not particularly good at understanding their own theodicy and its attendant rites and rituals either.
Is it any wonder why people prefer conservative news sources?
Pentagon opens all combat jobs to women
But admits that women will rarely be able to meet the physical standards for elite units. That's fine if it continues but there have already been occasions of standards being watered down for women. If there is much more of that, it will endanger the effectiveness of the force concerned and may even endanger the lives of other unit members
In a historic transformation of the US military, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Thursday that the Pentagon will open all combat jobs to women.
“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said at a news conference. “They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men.”
The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that had restricted women from combat roles — even though women often found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 14 years.
It is the latest in a long march of inclusive steps by the military, including racial integration in 1948 and the lifting of the ban on gays in the military in 2011. The decision this week will open about 220,000 military jobs to women.
The military faced a deadline set by the Obama administration three years ago to integrate women into all combat jobs by January or ask for specific exemptions. The Navy and Air Force have already opened most combat positions to women, and the Army has also increasingly integrated its forces.
The announcement Thursday was a rebuke to the Marine Corps, which has a 93 percent male force dominated by infantry and a culture that still segregates recruits by gender for basic training. In September, the Marines requested an exemption for infantry and armor positions, citing a yearlong study that showed integration could hurt its fighting ability. But Carter said he overruled the Marines because the military should operate under a common set of standards.
General Joseph E. Dunford Jr., former commandant of the Marine Corps who recently became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not attend the announcement, and in a statement Thursday appeared to give only tepid support, saying, “I have had the opportunity to provide my advice on the issue of full integration of women into the armed forces. In the wake of the secretary’s decision, my responsibility is to ensure his decision is properly implemented.”
Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions, which allowed them to serve in combat zones, often under fire, but prevented them from officially holding combat positions, including the infantry, which remain crucial to career advancement. Women have long said that by not recognizing their real service, the military has unfairly held them back.
A major barrier fell this year when women were permitted to go through the grueling training that would allow them to qualify as Army Rangers, the service’s elite infantry.
Carter said that women would be allowed to serve in all military combat roles by early next year. He characterized the historic shift as necessary to ensure that the US military remained the world’s most powerful.
“When I became secretary of defense, I made a commitment to building America’s force of the future,” Carter told reporters. “In the 21st century that requires drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of talent. This includes women.”
Many women hailed the decision.
“I’m overjoyed,” said Katelyn van Dam, an attack helicopter pilot in the Marine Corps who has deployed to Afghanistan. “Now if there is some little girl who wants to be a tanker, no one can tell her she can’t.”
But the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees expressed caution and noted that by law Congress has 30 days to review the decision.
“Secretary Carter’s decision to open all combat positions to women will have a consequential impact on our service members and our military’s war-fighting capabilities,” Senator John McCain of Arizona and Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas said in a statement. “The Senate and House Armed Services committees intend to carefully and thoroughly review all relevant documentation related to today’s decision.’’
Some in the military have privately voiced concern that integration will prove impractical, especially in the infantry, where heavy loads and long periods of deprivation are part of the job.
“Humping a hundred pounds, man, that ain’t easy, and it remains the defining physical requirement of the infantry,” said Paul Davis, an exercise scientist who did a study of the Marine infantry.
Carter acknowledged at the news conference that simply opening up combat roles to women was not going to lead to a fully integrated military. Senior defense officials and military officers would have to overcome the perception among many service members, men and women alike, that the change would reduce the effectiveness of the armed services.
The defense secretary sought to assuage those concerns Thursday by saying that every service member would have to meet the standards of the jobs they wished to fill, and that “there must be no quotas or perception thereof.”
He also acknowledged that many units were likely to remain largely male, especially elite infantry troops and Special Operations forces, where “only small numbers of women could” likely meet the standards.
Hildabeest hires antisemite
Does Hillary Clinton have a bigotry problem? Her icy view of American Jews is becoming an issue again, after she named to her leadership team former Congressman Earl Hilliard, who blamed his re-election loss on a supposed Jewish conspiracy to control money and the media.
“The only thing I know for sure, that I saw in black and white, is $1,098,000 that [Davis] reported. You can’t take money from corporations, so that came from Jews and Republicans. There’s no question where that money came from,” he claimed in a July 16, 2002 interview with “Black Commentator” magazine.
Hilliard also claimed Jews control the media and were out to get him. “Remember, the Jewish media. They started putting word out, they wanted everybody to know, because … obviously they felt that the money they had, that they put in, that they were going to beat me,” he said.
Hillary’s leadership team member then claimed Jews were plotting to control all blacks, and only a “conflict” will stop them. “There is a group out there that wants to dominate us. They want us to do what they want us to do … and to Hell with our agenda if there is a conflict,” he said.
Hilliard expanded on his Jewish conspiracy theories in an interview with the Associated Press, where he promised “retribution” against Jews.
“I see a future with a great deal of conflict between African-Americans and Jews in this country,” said Hilliard. “It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I don’t think African-Americans are going to sit back and let this continue. There will be retribution.”
Given Hillary’s belief in collective guilt, will she apologize for her anti-Semitism by association?
The New French "Résistance"
Several weeks have passed since Islamist attackers bloodied Paris. France's President François Hollande is describing the killers as just "a horde of murderers" acting in the name of a "mad cause." He adds that "France has no enemy." He never uses the word "terrorism." He no longer says the word "war."
France never was, in fact, at war. Police were deployed on the streets. Special Forces had to "intervene" a few days later in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. That was it.
French forces did bomb positions of the Islamic State in Syria; and Hollande traveled the world to find coalition, but could not. Now he says he wants to turn a page. The French public seems to want to turn a page, too.
From the beginning, pacifism and appeasement filled the air. A German pianist came to play John Lennon's Imagine in front of the Bataclan Theater; since then, other pianists have come. On the Place de la République, people assemble every evening to sing more songs by the Beatles: All You Need Is Love; Love Me Do. Candles are lit, and banners deployed, calling for "universal brotherhood."
Those invited to speak on TV about what happened allude to "senseless acts." They do not blame anyone.
Some spoke of "resistance," but to them, resistance meant listening to music. To others, it meant having a drink with friends in a bar. In a widely circulated video, a man tries to reassure his child. "They have guns," he mutters, "but we have flowers."
Heart-shaped stickers are posted on mosques. Words such as "We love you" and "We share your pain" are written on the hearts.
Just after the attacks, French philosopher Michel Onfray said that France for many years had led Islamophobic bombings against the Muslim world, so "it was logical if the Muslims now attacked France."
When his words were used in an Islamic State propaganda video, and reporters asked him if he regretted what he said, he replied, "No."
A man who lost his wife in the Bataclan massacre said on a talk show that he would live in the future as he did before; that he had no hatred at all against the murderers, just compassion. Another man on a different talk show said he was offering "free hugs."
If some French think otherwise, they are silent.
All political leaders in France speak like Hollande. They say the country must show "unity" and "solidarity." All of them know the mood of the vast majority; even those who might want to say more, stay silent.
Almost no one mentions radical Islam. Those who do, prefer the word "jihadism," and rush to emphasize that "jihadism" is "not related to Islam."
Hollande, when he still spoke of war, said that France had "an enemy." He avoided the word "Islamic," instead referring to the Islamic State by its Arabic acronym, "Daesh."
He knew that "Daesh" could not be defeated without an American intervention that would not take place. With symbolic gestures, he did the best he could.
He also seems to know that the main enemy of France is not in Syria or Iraq, but inside the country: France already finds herself defeated.
More than half the Islamists who attacked Paris on November 13 were Muslims born and raised in France. Mohamed Merah, the murderer of Jewish children in Toulouse in 2012, and those who attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in January all were Muslims born and raised in France.
Over 750 no-go zones -- autonomous areas ruled by radical imams and Muslim gangs -- exist in France.
Radical imams and Muslim gangs also control most of France's prisons: 70% of prison inmates in France are apparently Muslim. Non-Muslim inmates are attacked and threatened; many are forced to convert to Islam.
A British survey published in 2014 showed that 16% of French approve of the Islamic State. Among people aged 18-25, the proportion rose to 27%. Within the French Muslim population, the numbers are undoubtedly higher.
More than 1000 French Muslims have left France to fight for the Islamic State. At least 400 have returned without being stopped or vetted at a border. Thousands of radicalized French Muslims have never left. Many are good, loyal citizens; but many could have learned all they wanted to know on the internet and on Islamic satellite television stations. Still others -- hundreds of thousands of French Muslims -- are not radicalized but are ready to help the radicalized ones; ready to host them or offer them asylum.
More than 10,000 French Muslims are classified as extremely dangerous by the police and are linked to "jihadist activities". They are registered in what the French government calls "S files," but there is no way to monitor their whereabouts. Placing them all in detention centers would involve a complete break with what is left of the rule of law in France.
All of the French Muslims who participated in the November 13 attacks were registered in "S files," but that did not change anything. They were free to act, and they did.
For the first time in Europe, suicide bomb attacks took place. The explosive used to make suicide belts, triacetone triperoxide (TATP), is powerful and extremely sensitive to friction, temperature change and impact. Making belts containing TATP requires a "professional."
A French judge, Marc Trevidic, in charge of all the main Islamic terrorism cases over the last ten years, said a few days before the November attacks that the situation was "getting worse," was now "out of control," and that "radicalized groups" established in the country could "carry out attacks resulting in hundreds of deaths." He was quickly transferred to a court in Lille, northern France, where he was assigned to petty crimes and divorce cases.
All the French political leaders know that Marc Trevidic is right -- that the situation is out of control -- but not one will say so publicly. Not one has asked the government why it took almost three hours for the police to intervene during the attack at the Bataclan Theater, where 89 people were murdered and over 200 wounded. There are simply not enough well-trained police, and not enough weapons in the hands of the police, and not enough bulletproof vests.
For the next few months, more soldiers and police officers will be placed in front of public buildings, synagogues, churches and mosques, but "soft" targets, such as theaters, cafés and restaurants, are not protected. It is as easy to enter a theater in Paris today as it was on November 13. French police do not have the right to carry a weapon when they are on duty.
In a few weeks, French military actions against the Islamic State will doubtless stop. President Hollande, the French government, and most French political leaders probably hope that the French will soon forget the attacks. They know that the problems are now too widespread to be solved without something resembling a civil war. When more attacks occur, they will talk of "war" again. They are supposedly hoping that people will get used to being attacked and learn to live with terrorism.
In the meantime, French politicians are trying to divert the attention of the public with -- "climate change!" The conference in Paris will last a fortnight. President Hollande says he wants save the planet. He will be photographed next to America's Barack Obama and China's Jiang Zemin.
French journalists are no longer discussing jihad; they are discussing "climate change."
Until December 11, at least, Paris will be the safest city.
In June 2015, five months after the January attacks, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that the French had to "adapt to Islam". In November, he added that "Islam has to stand up to jihadism". The French Council of the Muslim Faith, offering "condolences" to the families of the victims, specified that Muslims were "victims" too, and that they should not be "stigmatized."
Regional elections will be held on December 6th and 13th, the same time as the conference on climate change.
Polls show that the rightist party, National Front, will almost certainly win in a landslide. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, did not depart from the calls for "unity" and "solidarity." She is, however, the only politician to say unambiguously that the main enemy is not outside the country, but within. She is also the only politician to say that a return to security implies a return to border controls. A National Front victory does not, however, mean that Marine Le Pen will win the 2017 presidential election: all the other parties and the media might band together against her.
France's National Front is part of the increasingly popular rejection of the European Union. The invasion of Europe by hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim migrants has strengthened that stance. The Islamist attacks in Paris, combined with the state of emergency decreed in Belgium for several days after the attacks, have helped this rejection to gain more ground. In addition, the news that several of the Paris terrorists came to France among illegal migrants -- and had successfully used false Syrian passports to enter Europe, where they could go from country to country unhindered -- did not help.
The rise of populism is slowly destroying the unelected, unaccountable, and untransparent European Union. Many European mainstream journalists see this change as a "threat."
The real threat to Europe might be elsewhere.
"The barbarians," wrote the commentator Mark Steyn, "are inside, and there are no gates."
After the attacks in Paris, Judge Marc Trevidic, again, raised the possibility of simultaneous attacks in several cities in France and in Europe. He said that if these attacks took place, the situation would become "really serious". He said he had documents to show that Islamist groups were planning to organize such attacks. If the suicide bombers, he said, had been on time at the Stade de France, before the 79,000 spectators had entered, the death toll could have been worse. He concluded that too little had been done for too long, and that now it was probably too late.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.