Friday, November 04, 2016
The multicultural triumphs continue in Britain
A taxi driver has been jailed after he dragged a young female passenger into his cab and tried to make her perform a sex act on him.
Zaharul Hoque, 47, grabbed the woman and forced her back into the taxi after taking her home from a night out in Atherstone, Warwickshire, last April.
Giving evidence, the victim said she feared she would be raped and 'end up in a ditch' when he tried to undo his belt in the vehicle.
He also made lewd suggestions which were captured in a mobile phone audio recording made by the victim.
After the assault the driver repeatedly phoned the victim, trying to persuade her to not 'complain' and 'let him off this time'.
Hoque, from Birmingham, was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted of sexual assault at Warwick Crown Court.
Sentencing, Judge Sylvia de Bertodano said young women who take taxis alone are in a 'vulnerable position' and that he 'took advantage of her being on her own'.
The court heard how Hoque picked up the woman and her group of friends after a night out.
The victim asked to be dropped off early after Hoque stroked her leg and said she would walk the rest of the way home.
Some 10 minutes later Hoque pulled up beside her and apologied, offering to take her home. The victim initially refused but eventually agreed after Hoque persisted.
The jury heard how Hoque asked for a kiss when he dropped her off near her home.
Giving evidence, the young woman said: 'I went to get my keys out, and I turned round, and he'd come from the back of the taxi. He was just there out of nowhere.
'He tried to give me a kiss and grabbed me by the head. He was just generally touching me. His hands were all over me.
'Next thing, he's just pushed me towards the taxi door, and the next thing I knew he's opened the door and I was inside and he was doing something with the doors.
'I was scared, I didn't know whether he was going to rape me. He started trying to undo his belt, and I was thinking I don't know if I'm going to end up in a ditch.'
Sobbing as she continued with her evidence, she added: 'I didn't know whether I was going to get out of there.'
The court heard how the woman struggled and eventually escaped from the car. She ran home where she phoned Atherstone Taxis to complain.
The jury heard she then had the first of three calls from Hoque, pleading: 'I do apologise. Do me a favour, don't complain me. I do apologise, I do apologise. Let me off this time.'
There were two further calls and prosecutor Walter Bealby told the jury 'they amount, in effect, to an admission by the defendant that he acted inappropriately.'
Hoque denied sexual assault but was found guilty following a trial. He was handed the prison sentence and ordered to register as a sex offender for life.
Judge Sylvia de Bertodano told Hoque: 'Young women who get into taxis on their own are in a vulnerable position and have to feel they can trust the taxi driver.
'If taxi drivers behave to female customers in this way, they will be very badly affected. In her impact statement she said she feels depressed and gets flashbacks.
'It is a serious ordeal going through it again in court. She is a very courageous young woman.
'I have read references which say you are a hard-working and respectable individual, but she saw a completely different side of you.'
Hundreds of convicted terrorists are back on UK streets after serving sentences and do not have to change their extremist views
The vast majority of terrorists convicted in Britain since 9/11 have already been released from prison and are back on the streets, it was revealed today.
Out of a total of 583 jailed in the UK for terror offences since 2001 around 418 have been released again, including three who were given life sentences.
This group, 164 of whom walked free since 2014, included several people who helped the suicide bombers who failed to blow themselves up in London three weeks after 7/7.
New research by Sky News found that 104 left prison after serving between a year and four years, while 24 were released after more than four years.
Some are understood to have been released without agreeing to take part in anti-radicalisation classes while behind bars.
Omar Khyam, who was jailed for a plot to blow up a shopping centre and nightclub in Kent with homemade bombs, is among the two thirds of extremist prisoners who refused to change their views.
Former jihadi Hanif Qadir who now runs a counter-extremism outreach said deradicalisation in jails is 'failing miserably'.
He said: 'There are experts out there that are equipped and able to tackle the problem but they are not the ones that are doing it in prison.
'At the moment the prison imams, God bless them, they're not adequate and they're not experienced enough to tackle the problem of radicalisation within prisons.'
Lord Blunkett, who was Labour's Home Secretary when many were jailed, told Sky News: 'It's perfectly reasonable to say that once someone's served their sentence, if it isn't possible to reassess them, we should continue to monitor them outside prison.
'So, if there's any indication at all that they are reconnecting with organised terrorist groups, the intervention can take place very quickly rather than allowing them to commit another act and then having to try to pick them up again.'
At least four criminals jailed for their part in the 21/7 plot have been freed, with some moved to hostels or council properties.
Adel Yahya, who admitted collecting information useful to terrorists and jailed for six years and nine months in November 2007. He is believed to have been freed by 2010.
Yeshi Girma knew of husband Hussain Osman's plan to blow up a Tube train but did nothing. She was secretly freed in 2013.
Ismail Abdurahman was released from prison after just three years behind bars for helping the July 21 bombers in 2005.
He was moved to a bail hostel after winning an appeal against a bid to send him to Somalia. This year the British Government was ordered him more than £13,000 because his human rights were 'violated' during police interviews over a plot to attack London.
Zahoor Iqbal, 35, Mohammed Irfan, 36 and Hamid Elasmar, 49 were freed and living in Birmingham despite being linked to a plot to slaughter a serviceman 'like a pig'.
It came as the head of MI5 has warned that the police and security services will not be able to stop all terrorist attacks on Britain despite their successes in recent years.
Andrew Parker, director general of the domestic intelligence agency, revealed yesterday that 12 terrorist plots in the UK had been foiled since 2013. However, he warned that Islamic State posed the biggest current threat to national security and it would last a generation.
'Together with MI6, GCHQ and the police, MI5 has disrupted 12 plots in the UK since June 2013,' said Mr Parker.
'ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) is an enduring threat, here to stay, and is at least a generational challenge. MI5 and the intelligence agencies have good defences because of the investment made in our capabilities. We will find and stop most attempts to attack us, but not all.'
In a keynote speech at the Royal Society he said MI5's technological expertise 'makes it less likely people will be killed by terrorism or our secrets will be stolen'.
His speech came just hours after Britain's counter-terrorism police chief warned of the threat of a Paris-style gun rampage in Britain as he said half of the terror plots foiled involved suspects trying to get guns.
Mark Rowley said five plots uncovered in the past two years involved fanatics trying to amass machine guns and others firearms to launch an attack on our streets.
Assault weapons like the ones used in the Paris massacre last November are being smuggled into Britain by criminal gangs from the Balkans and Eastern Europe and could be sold on to terrorists, he said.
Who We Are As a People—The Syrian Refugee Question
Nothing has provoked the ire of America’s bipartisan political class as much as Donald Trump’s recent proposal that the U.S. should suspend the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other terrorist-supporting nations until we find a way of perfecting the screening process to ensure that we are not admitting terrorists or terror sympathizers. On its face this proposal was not unreasonable. Most of these refugees do not have adequate documentation, intelligence agencies do not have sufficient information to determine whether or not they have terrorist connections or intend to engage in terrorism, and the heads of our security agencies have warned that active terrorists will inevitably slip through security screening cracks. Nor is it as if there was no reasonable alternative. Wouldn’t it have been better, as Trump and others have suggested, to address the refugee crisis by setting up security zones in Syria or other Middle Eastern countries where refugees could find safety and where Muslim nations might feel obligated to help finance their care? In addition to making sense from a national security perspective, this would also have been a more humane solution, since it would not have uprooted the refugees from their homelands and injected them into an alien way of life.
Why are our political leaders, despite these facts, willing to expose the nation to such potential danger?—a danger that is surely greater than we now imagine. One only has to observe the results of the refugee crisis in Europe to see what is in store for the American homeland. Yet the Obama administration, following Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government in Germany, is adamant that the number of Syrian refugees—and Muslim refugees generally—must increase substantially. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently named Merkel as her favorite world leader, has frequently indicated that acceptance of refugees is an important reaffirmation of America’s commitment to diversity. It is a reaffirmation of “who we are as Americans,” she has said, as if the American character is defined by its unlimited openness to diversity. To show the bipartisan nature of this commitment, Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has used the same phrase to explain his approval of the refugee program. In both cases, the clear implication is that America’s commitment to diversity outweighs considerations of national security. Indeed, in what can only be called a self-willed delusion, proponents of the refugee program seem to believe that their commitment to diversity makes us stronger and more secure as a nation, and that any opposition to the program is racist, xenophobic, and most particularly Islamophobic.
Consider what this means. Germans have been warned that it is their duty to accommodate themselves to newly arrived refugees and not to place politically incorrect demands upon them—that is, not to demand that the refugees adapt to German ways. Some have advised German women in particular that if they don’t wish to be harassed by male refugees, they should cover their heads and be accompanied outside of the home by a male. Will this be a part of America’s politically correct future?
Merkel, like Obama, bases her immigration policy on a globalist view of the world. Secretary of State John Kerry propounded this view in a recent commencement address, warning Americans that we must prepare ourselves for a “borderless world.” But a world without borders is a world without citizens, and a world without citizens is a world without the rights and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship. Rights and liberties exist only in separate and independent nations; they are the exclusive preserve of the nation-state. Constitutional government only succeeds in the nation-state, where the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. By contrast, to see the globalist principle in practice, look at the European Union. The EU is not a constitutional government; it is an administrative state ruled by unelected bureaucrats. It attempts to do away with both borders and citizens, and it replaces rights and liberty with welfare and regulation as the objects of its administrative rule. Constitutional government—to say nothing of liberal democracy—will not be a part of the politically correct, borderless world into which so many of our political leaders wish to usher us.
How did we reach such an impasse? The answer is simple, but no less astounding for its simplicity. It has been frequently observed by competent thinkers that Americans have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration confidently proclaimed as its first principle the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among them “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As part of a created (and therefore intelligible) universe, rights cannot be something private or subjective; they are part of an objective order. The idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation was essential to the social compact understanding of the American founding. Thus whatever was destructive of the public good or public happiness, however much it might have contributed to an individual’s private pleasures or imagined pleasures, was not a part of the “pursuit of happiness” and could be proscribed by society. Liberty was understood to be rational liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was understood to be the rational pursuit of happiness—that is to say, not only a natural right but a moral obligation as well.
Over the past century and more, this morality grounded in the American founding has been successfully eroded by Progressivism. This erosion is manifested today in the morality of value-free relativism. According to this new morality, all value judgments are equal. Reason cannot prove that one value is superior to or more beneficial than another, because values are not capable of rational analysis; they are merely idiosyncratic preferences. In this value-free universe, the only value that is “objectively” of higher rank is tolerance. Equal toleration of all values—what is called today a commitment to diversity—is the only “reasonable” position. And note that it is always called a commitment to diversity. It is a commitment because it cannot be rational in any strict sense—it exists in a value-free world from which reason has been expelled. The only support it can garner under such circumstances is the simple fact that it is preferred.
With respect to the commitment to diversity, the tolerance of those who are willing to tolerate you does not earn you much credit—it doesn’t require much of a commitment or sacrifice. If, however, you are willing to tolerate those who are pledged to kill you and destroy your way of life, tolerance represents a genuine commitment. Only such a deadly commitment confirms that tolerance is the highest value in a universe of otherwise equal values. Only such a deadly commitment signals a nation’s single-minded devotion to tolerance as the highest value by its willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty as proof of its commitment.
The common-sense citizen is forgiven for thinking this train of thought insane. But what other explanation could there be for the insistence of so many of our political leaders on risking the nation’s security—in light of what we see in Europe, one might even say their willingness to commit national suicide—by admitting refugees without regard to their hostility to our way of life and their wish to destroy us as a nation?
Note that these leaders show no such enthusiasm for admitting Christian refugees from Middle Eastern violence, or even Yazidis, who have suffered horribly from the ravages of Islamic terror. These refugees, of course, represent no danger to America. Only by admitting those who do represent a danger can we display to the world “who we are as a people”—a people willing to sacrifice ourselves to vouchsafe our commitment to tolerance.
A rational concern for our liberties as well as for national security weighs in against such reckless policies. Security experts warn that we don’t have enough homeland security agents to monitor suspected terrorists who are already in our country. If we increase the number of refugees from terrorist-supporting nations, greater security can only be provided by closer cooperation between the various security agencies and closer monitoring of the private lives of all Americans. The consequent loss of liberty will be extensive and will impact all areas of American life. This, we are told, will become the “new reality” or the “new normal,” and Americans will have to develop a “new mind-set” to deal with it. Europeans are well on their way to accepting terrorism as a daily part of their lives—surely Americans, we are told, can adapt as well. But Europeans are used to sacrificing liberties to the administrative state represented by the EU.
Will Americans acquiesce so easily?
The administrative state has not yet extinguished America’s love of liberty, although it surely has made significant inroads over the years as Americans have become inured to being bullied by bureaucrats of all stripes. The constant monitoring of citizens in the name of detecting terrorism will, if allowed, turn the nation into a security state where liberties will be easily and casually sacrificed to the constant threat of terrorism. Sacrificing liberty will be the price Americans pay to accommodate refugees—in other words, it is the sacrifice we must make on the altar of political correctness.
Remarkably, many politicians and pundits have argued that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion prohibits Congress and the president from banning the emigration of people to the U.S. based on religion. Thus they characterized the proposal to suspend the entry of Syrian refugees and others from terrorist-supporting nations as a violation of the Constitution. But we must surely wonder how those who are not American citizens or legal resident aliens—indeed, even those who have never been present in the country—can assert rights under the Constitution. By the terms of the Constitution, free exercise of religion is one of the privileges and immunities attached to citizenship; it can hardly be said to be possessed by all those who seek refuge in, or wish to emigrate to, the United States. As a sovereign nation, it is beyond dispute that the U.S. has plenary power to determine the conditions for immigration. Except in a borderless world, it can hardly be claimed that free exercise of religion is a right possessed by all persons inhabiting the globe or even those who are potentially asylum seekers.
One condition for claiming refugee status in the Refugee Act of 1980 is religious persecution. This necessarily means that any applicant for religious asylum would have to submit to questioning about his religious beliefs and (presumably) the sincerity of those beliefs. Also, it is not beyond reason that a sovereign nation would be allowed to inquire whether the religious beliefs of an asylum seeker are compatible with the American constitutional order. Should asylum be extended to the adherents of religions that do not recognize the free exercise rights of other religions? Should those religions whose adherents refuse to pledge or give evidence that they would support free exercise be ineligible for asylum? Religion—and inquiry into religious belief—has always been part of the asylum law, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars such inquiry on national security grounds. Indeed, a quick glance at Article I of the Constitution reveals that Congress has plenary power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has always been understood—by a necessary rule of inference—to mean that Congress also has plenary power to regulate immigration. Congress has wide latitude to choose the “necessary and proper” means to accomplish this end as long as it doesn’t violate some specific prohibition of the Constitution.
To sum up, only in the perfervid imaginations of the politically correct—those who reject the idea of borders—could the Syrian refugee controversy be confused with a constitutional controversy.
Anti-Semitism was required, Anti-Islamism is verboten
Reminiscent of the Third Reich, Jew hatred and agitating against Jews are in full bloom in Germany. And it is not guilt over Nazism that has Germany protecting parasitic Muslim refugees, most of whom are anti-Semitic.
In their recent documentary, Germans and Jews, filmmakers Tal Recanati and Junina Quint, portray Germany as having reached a nuanced reconciliation with its Nazi past by breaking the silence about it and facing it head-on. Yet, several recent surveys of German attitudes toward Jews and the Jewish homeland reveal the persistence of strong, anti-Semitic attitudes that belie the filmmakers' conclusions.
Indeed, Germany may actually be stoking anti-Semitism with its official policy of acceptance and open-mindedness toward Muslim immigrants, even to the point of allowing them expression of hatred toward Jews. One of Germany's major trade partners is Iran, hostile to Israel since the first Gulf War, and Germany continues to blame Israeli settlements for Middle East unrest. Thus, Germany's policy of acceptance and tolerance toward Muslims may actually mask an underlying anti-Semitism that stubbornly remains despite the passage of time.
The Surveys and Anti-Semitism Revealed
In 2011, a survey by the Freidrich Ebert Foundation, Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination, found that 49% of German respondents agreed with the statement that Jews were trying to take advantage of their people's suffering during the Holocaust. Another 20% of Germans agreed that Jews have too much influence in their country, 30% agreed, "Jews don't care about anything or anyone but their own kind."
A 2015 study by the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence from the University of Bielefeld found that 49% of Germans don't want to hear anything about the Holocaust, 55% are angry that Germans are still accused of crimes against Jews, 28% responded that they can understand why people don't like Jews considering Israel's policies, and 27% say that Israeli policy toward Arab-Palestinians is not different from what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Third Reich.
In 2012, an Anti-Defamation League survey of Attitudes Toward Jews in 10 European Countries discovered the following about German respondents: 24% felt that Jews have too much power in international financial markets, 43% agreed that Jews talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust, 14% believe that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, and 77% believed the government was doing enough to ensure the safety and security of its Jewish citizens.
The deep resentment and demonization of Jews revealed in the surveys are not indicative of a guilt-wracked, tortured people anxious to rise above the atrocities of the Nazi generation. Clearly, large percentages of Germans still harbor harsh, anti-Jewish sentiments.
By contrast, Germans seem to apply the values of multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance to Muslims, bypassing Jews entirely. Germany today houses Europe's largest Muslim population, with the influx of Muslim refugees comprising almost 6% of the total population. It leads the way as Europe becomes an increasingly multicultural and Islamic continent. Yet, far from experiencing great anguish about dramatic increases in anti-Semitism that rose during the Holocaust, Germany appears indifferent toward the impact of Muslim interlopers on its Jewish population.
Paradoxically, Germany has accepted this wave of Muslim "refugees," many of whom vacation in their war-torn homelands, while, the Third Reich persecuted Germany's Jewish citizens, who, by and large, were productive members of society contributing substantially to the economy and culture of the state. While Jews fled to avoid death camps and had few places to go during Nazi persecution, Muslims are welcomed in Europe. Although more than 33 Muslim countries exist that could choose to accommodate Muslim refugees, five of the wealthiest - Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain - are unwilling to accept a single refugee.
During the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) which preceded the Third Reich, Jews, who were barred from certain professions, were disproportionately represented in law, medicine, journalism and retailing. They were active in creative pursuits, business, diplomacy and government. A Jew even drafted the Weimar Republic Constitution. At the time, five of the nine German recipients of the Nobel Prize were Jewish scientists. For the first time, German universities fully opened their faculties to Jewish scholars, including physicist Albert Einstein.
Although portrayed as "the enemy within," a higher percentage of German Jews fought in World War I than any other ethnic group in Germany. Over 12,000 gave their lives for their country.
Despite their sacrifice in that war, Jews were targeted beginning in the 1920s with wide circulation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forgery that claimed that Jews conspired to take over the world.
Given the contributions of a predominantly upright Jewish citizenry and their benign, contributory, integral presence in Germany, it is remarkable to consider what followed, even more so as we view today's efforts to accommodate Muslim "refugees" who decline to work and integrate into German society and insist on shariah law supremacy in lieu of German constitutional law. Further, Muslims in German have been linked to 69,000 crimes in the country in the first quarter of 2016!
Whether actively or passively, most Germans went along with the marginalization and demonization of Jews and the concomitant restrictive laws, ghettoization and, ultimately, the Final Solution. Desperate Jews facing deportation to Nazi death camps were not widely welcomed as refugees by other countries. Official German policy singled out Jews for ethnic cleansing to purify the Aryan race and made harboring and assisting Jews a crime punishable by death.
By comparison, today's Muslims in Germany enjoy protections from persecution. Social media is reviewed for offensive statements against Muslims. Germans who openly object to the settlement of Muslim "refugees" are charged with incitement and hate speech, forced to pay fines and/or endure probation or suspended sentences. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has gone so far as to chastise her fellow countrymen about those "with hate in their hearts"... "who seek to marginalize others." It is indeed striking to comprehend the gaping dissimilarities between official German policy toward its productive Jewish population during the Third Reich with the protections, generous entitlements and privileges afforded to today's mostly parasitic Muslim refugee populations that refuse to become part of German society and are massively over-represented in every category of crime.
The official narrative, vastly different from the past party line about the Jews, is that the influx of Muslim refugees is having a positive, multi-cultural influence on Germany, that Islam is truly a religion of peace not represented by ISIS, and that random acts of terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. Evidence for this distorted, benign view is non-existent and stands in sharp contrast to the Third Reich view of evil Jews as "subhuman" creatures infiltrating Aryan society, inhuman and unworthy of life itself.
This apocryphal perspective is further buttressed by efforts by German authorities and the media to conceal the dramatic rise in rapes, assaults and murders perpetrated by Muslim migrants. Following the Cologne sexual attacks on New Year's Eve during which 1,200 women were assaulted by groups of men described as Arab or North African, the North-Rhine Westphalia government ordered a cover-up to include the elimination of the word "rape" from police reports. Of the 2,000 men involved, the authorities identified only 120 and they were given suspended sentences of a year or less.
The German media takes great pains to obscure the religion, nationalities and motives of Muslim assailants and often refrains from reporting incidents altogether to avoid charges of racism or xenophobia. In 2013, in an extreme case of Germany's so-called open-mindedness, the prestigious Ludwig-Borne literary prize was given to a philosopher who sympathized with Islamic terrorist organizations and equated the 9/11 attacks with the Holocaust, the Allied bombings of Nazi Germany and the atomic bombing of Japan.
Reminiscent of the Third Reich era, displays of Jewish hatred and agitating against Jews are in full bloom in today's Germany. Radical Islamic protestors are permitted to yell, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas," "Jewish s-t" and "Jew, Jew, cowardly swine, come out and fight on your own." Yet those who call for the preservation of German culture, protest the massive influx of Muslim "refugees," religious fanaticism and Islamic separatism and radicalism are shut down, depicted as Nazis, prosecuted for hate speech, fined and even jailed. Appallingly, it has been alleged that the German government is busing in counter-protest groups to create opposition to anti-immigrant rallies.
Lutz Bachmann, the founder of PEGIDA, the organization that opposes the Merkel migration policy that has brought more than 1 million "refugees" to Germany last year, was convicted of inciting racial hatred which constituted an "attack on the dignity" of refugees and fined close to $11,000. Quite a turnabout from a country that forced Jews out of their homes into ghettos, then death camps, encouraged its populace to turn them in and fomented Kristallnacht against Jewish businesses.
This past summer, the creators of a Facebook forum for AFB, an anti-refugee movement, were found guilty of hate speech for conducting online discussions about the migrant issue. A teenage girl who posted a video, in which she expressed her fears for her safety, had her FB page taken down.
It defies belief that a Germany that once prized its Aryan identity to the point of committing genocide has gone so far as to encourage its citizens to submit to Islam and shariah. A current television ad asks Germans to "Enjoy difference, start tolerance" by wearing the "beautiful hijab." Instead of requiring Muslims in Germany to adhere to cultural and social norms, parents have been warned not to let their daughters wear revealing clothing to avoid "misunderstandings" by Muslims who are thought unable to control themselves at the sight of a short skirt or bikini and will harass the girls. Islamic education has even been introduced into German schools. Seven out of Germany's sixteen federal states now offer some form of Islamic religious education.
The pundits who claim "Holocaust guilt" as the driving force behind the present day pandering to Muslims and their demands are off track. It is implausible to reconcile today's Muslim "refugee" policies with stubbornly intransigent anti-Jewish sentiments and rationalize it as a reaction to Third Reich atrocities.
The popularity in Germany of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS), belies claims of profound Holocaust guilt. The BDS movement singles out Israel for criticism while ignoring the human rights violations of true tyrannical states. It uses false analogies of apartheid and Nazi Germany against Israel and attempts to damage Israel economically and put a stop to academic and cultural exchanges. It seeks to boycott Israel on all levels and to delegitimatize and eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. In July, NGO Monitor discovered that the German government had been donating millions of euros to groups promoting BDS. This, at the same time they were providing generous entitlements to Muslim refugees, despite the fact that they include ISIS supporters and that 13% of the refugees believe that suicide bombings are justified, according to a Pew Research poll.
Today, Germany is the top European trading partner of Iran, with sizable business interests in the Islamic terrorist state. Yet German officials consistently condemn the only democracy in the Middle East, while displaying reticence to criticize Muslim Palestinian murderers of Israeli Jews.
In 2011, the German Foreign Ministry supported a UN Security Council resolution to condemn Israeli settlement construction as "illegal." Its top diplomat, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle went so far as to meet with then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
The fixation on blaming construction projects in Israeli communities for the lack of Middle East peace and blaming Israel, not Palestinian terrorists, while, at the same time, pursuing a lucrative relationship with the Islamic terrorist state of Iran, contradicts the existence of any heartfelt remorse for anti-Semitism, past or present. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Chancellor Merkel to express his disappointment about Germany's position on the U.N. resolution, the Muslim "refugee" champion, who favored forcing Israeli Jews alone to freeze settlement construction, rebuked Netanyahu for "failing to advance peace" by telling him, "How dare you. You are the one who is disappointing us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."
The hubris of this perverted policy in light of the yet un-atoned transgressions of the Holocaust and extant anti-Semitism is stunning. European leaders like Merkel remain mum about continuing anti-Semitism and persist in vilifying the Jewish State, a country on the front lines of the war against Islamic terrorism. At the same time, they pursue policies of Muslim appeasement and prohibit criticism of Islam in the name of multiculturalism. Merkel and her compatriots are thus paving the way for continued crime, civil unrest, the rise of Islam within their borders, and the ultimate destruction of their countries.
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.