Do Muslims Need To Defend Their Faith From Extremists?

The NY Times is running a Room For Debate on how Muslims should respond to the threat of Muslim extremism entitled Do Muslims Need to Defend Their Faith Against Extremists? Many of the answers are interesting, no more than that of Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York and the national advocacy director of the National Network for Arab American Communities.

Muslims Do Not Need to Justify Themselves in Face of Extremism

I am a New Yorker, born and raised in Brooklyn. I am a civil rights activist. I am a mother. I also happen to be Muslim, a faith that represents a quarter of the world’s population. My faith unequivocally condemns groups like ISIS, and while I stand with every other American and 1.7 billion other Muslims in that condemnation, we must stop misrepresenting the problem with my faith.

I am horrified by these attacks, but not because I am Muslim. I am horrified because I am human. By constantly apologizing and denouncing these attacks, Muslims reinforce the misguided public perception that they are connected to ISIS through the same basic ideology, when in fact they have nothing in common at all.

We do not expect Buddhists to apologize as Buddhist extremists massacre Muslims in Burma or for their human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. I also don’t ask Christians to apologize for the genocide that Bosnian Muslims faced less than two decades ago at the hands of Christian Serbs, or for the Lord’s Resistance Army and Christian militias who have killed tens of thousands of civilians and ethnically cleansed Muslims throughout Uganda, the Congo and Central African Republic. Nor do I ask every white American to apologize for hate crimes committed by self-proclaimed White Christian supremacist groups like the Klu Klux Klan. All of us instead recognize that religious fanatics perpetuate violent acts for their own deranged reasons.

Why is an apology only expected of Muslims?

Well, now, those are very interesting comparisons. The problem is that this relies on a false premise, that Muslims who aren’t extremists need to provide an apology. Alas, no one is asking for an apology. What has been asked of the non-extremist Muslims is for them to repudiate the Muslims who practice an extremist form if Islam and stand up against the extremists, much like White Christians stood up against the KKK and repudiated them. How Buddhists stood up against those in Burma and Sri Lanka, saying “not in my Name”. Because, whether Muslims (and idiot Liberals with their diversity and multiculturalism) like it or not, extremism grows in the name of their religion, based on the writings within their holy book, the Koran, with passages such as

Quran (9:14)“Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

One would think that so-called Moderate Muslims would be upset, since the extremists, who are known as “Islamists”, tend to kill more Muslims than people of other religions. And, let’s be clear: the extremists are not just those who practice violence in the name of Allah and Mohammed. They are those who push peacefully for Sharia law, for more hardcore Islam, who take advantage of the laws of nations to force their viewpoints and laws on citizens (such as the woman who is upset she wasn’t allowed to swim in a Muslim dress. The rules apparently shouldn’t apply to her). They do not use violence, but infiltration, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, and our own rules of law and society against us.

So, no, Ms. Sarsour doesn’t have to apologize: if she had respect for her religion, she would, though, stand up against the hijacking of her religion. And it’s interesting that Ms. Sarsour would talk about “apologizing”. She herself has often downplayed Muslim extremist attacks. She claimed the underwear bomber was a CIA plant. She easily trots out the Islamophobe card to deflect from the doings of Islamists. She blows off “honor killings”, a practice of Islamists. She’s wondered if Osama Bin Laden ever did anything to deserve death. She was upset over Saddam Hussein’s death. And she attacks anyone concerned with the continued rise and threat from radical Islam, typically using ad hominum, personal, and non sequitur methods.

This is not to say she is an extremist. But, it is very interesting that her group receives quite a bit of funding from Qatar, a massive funder of radical Islam. She defends Islamic terrorism suspects. She has many anti-Israel statements. And likes to make hate crimes against Muslims up out of thin air.

There are many things done in the name of religion. There have been times when Christianity performed large scale terrible acts. This is discussed within the essay by Jonathan Wright, who notes

Every major religion has endured its share of violence and extremism. Christianity, for example, was intolerant of other faiths through most of its history and pursued dissent within its own ranks with indefatigable zeal. Wars were fought, heretics were burned and rival religions were pummeled in the name of the Christian God.

But such sorry episodes do not sum up Christianity any more than contemporary extremism within Islam encapsulates an ancient and beautiful faith. We deploy caricatures at our peril.

Christianity has mostly moved away from those sad episodes. Will Islam? One big difference is that the Koran pushes the extremism within its passages. The Bible has moved on to peace and love in the name of Jesus Christ.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Do Muslims Need To Defend Their Faith From Extremists? »

Say, What Do Hotcoldwetdry And Sweaters Have In Common?

In this case, the Huffington Post’s Katherine Boeher doesn’t use the un-scientific phrase “climate change”, but the old and bust “global warming”

What Do Global Warming And Sweaters Have In Common? This Climate Scientist Explains.

Climate scientist Adam Levy got sick of hearing all the usual arguments against the existence of climate change, so he decided to fight back with a clever and easy to understand YouTube channel.

His latest video explains global warming using a sweater analogy. “We’ve known for over a hundred years that the carbon dioxide that exists naturally in the earth’s atmosphere helps trap heat to keep the world warm, just like a sweater in winter.” By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, Levy explains, we’re adding more hot clothes.

“When a sweater’s making you hot, you can just take it off,” Levy says. “Unfortunately for us, carbon dioxide doesn’t work like that. Once it’s in the atmosphere, it sticks around for hundreds of years, so if you want to stop the world getting warmer, we need to stop too much carbon dioxide getting in to the atmosphere in the first place.”

Of course, a big difference is that wearing a sweater can increase your feeling of warmth by many degrees. The Earth’s global temperature has only gone up a miniscule 1.4F since 1850. And, despite the bleating by Warmists, there really has been no statistically significant warming over the last 18+ years, in complete contradiction to the majority of their computer models.

Interestingly, making the video and having people watch it uses quite a bit of energy which creates CO2, meaning that Levy, Google, and the Huffington Post are Part Of The Problem, according to their Warmist religious tenants.

Speaking of computer models, The Hockey Schtick points to a comment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. at Dr. Judith Curry’s site

This is a remarkable statement

“the warming of the upper ocean predicted by these models did not agree with observations; particularly in the southern hemisphere.They inferred from this that upper ocean warming rates in the southern hemisphere have been underestimated – that it was the previous observations that were inaccurate and that the models were correct.” 

When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process! This is a systemic problem with these studies.

That’s right, Warmists actually think that computer models are more important that real world observational data.

Read: Say, What Do Hotcoldwetdry And Sweaters Have In Common? »

If All You See…

…is a super awesome tree sucking carbon pollution from the air, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on the life expectancy ranking under Ocare.

Read: If All You See… »

As World Deals With Ebola And ISIS, John Kerry To Focus On More Important Stuff

Can you guess what’s more important? I’m sure you can, since I blog about climate change multiple times a day

Secretary of State John Kerry to talk global warming in Boston

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry plans to discuss the “global threat of climate change and the importance of investing in a clean energy future” at a wind turbine testing facility in Charlestown on Thursday morning.

The former U.S. senator from Massachusetts will be joined by United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and Gov. Deval Patrick, and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has been invited.

That’s interesting, since John Kerry worked hard to block the Cape Wind Project for years.

The meeting is scheduled for 915am today. Perhaps Kerry could jump in his fossil fueled airplane afterwards and head to Mexico to help Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi, an American citizen stuck in the Mexican legal system.

Read: As World Deals With Ebola And ISIS, John Kerry To Focus On More Important Stuff »

10 Easy Ways You Warmists Can Practice What You Preach

I’m impressed by this article at the UK Independent. It’s rare that Warmist actually recommend Warmists get off their duffs and do something within their own lives

  1. Make meat a treat (go without meat a few days a week. Actually, you should give it all up, because it’s evil for climate change)
  2. Drive with smooth style (drive slower and use less AC. Actually, you should just stop driving altogether)
  3. Don’t over-boil the kettle (only use the water you need, a decent real environmental idea, subsumed under the banner of Hotcoldwetdry)
  4. Turn off appliances at night (a smart idea for everyone, again, subsumed under the banner of HCWD)
  5. Adjust your computer power (see previous)
  6. Walk more (stop using fossil fuels)
  7. Eat seasonably and locally (reduce your “carbon footprint”. Seriously, this is England. Do you actually want to eat local foods?)
  8. Take short, sharp showers (another good environmental idea ruined by Warmists)
  9. Receive less junk mail (apparently, one can request to be left off mailer lists in the UK, and by doing so, you’re saving Gaia from a fever!)
  10. Encourage others to do the same (boom, I love that. Warmists walking the talk and telling other Warmists to do the same.)

There are lots of other things Warmists can do. But, they mostly won’t. Because this is really about pushing hardcore Leftist policies, not science.

Read: 10 Easy Ways You Warmists Can Practice What You Preach »

EPA “Loses” Text Messages Sought In Records Request

That’s right, another issue of transparency regarding Team Obama, this time at the EPA

(Fox News) The EPA is being accused of pulling “an IRS” for reportedly planning to inform the National Archives it has lost text messages being sought in an open-records request.

The Washington Times reported Wednesday that lawyers from the Department of Justice informed a federal court of the EPA’s plans to tell the National Archives it cannot produce the text messages because they have been deleted.

The open-records request in question came from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is seeking text messages from the devices of EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow for the institute, told FoxNews.com in a statement it is clear the EPA has not learned from the IRS’ mistakes. The tax agency came under fire earlier this year after it announced it could not locate an untold number of emails sought in congressional probes into the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

“Here we see EPA agreeing to the court to ‘do an IRS’, which is to say: notify the National Archivist of the loss of every one of Gina McCarthy’s thousands of text messages we have discovered she destroyed, just as the IRS finally agreed to notify (the National Archives) about the emails lost from (former IRS official) Lois Lerner’s destroyed hard drive,” he said. “The IRS’s insincere efforts at following through on Federal Records Act obligations drew the court’s ire – the same court now hearing the EPA case. Taxpayers should rightly expect EPA to have learned the proper lesson from the IRS’s experience and hope for better.”

On one hand, the EPA is saying “no biggie” because the texts are personal messages. On the other, they’re informing the National Archivist that official messages have been lost (now that they’ve been caught). Over to that Washington Times article

Unlike other agencies surveyed by The Times, the EPA says it has had a policy since 2005 instructing employees to save any text messages that would qualify for preservation, and it has no evidence that employees are failing to do that.

The EPA also says that even if text messages were being destroyed in violation with its guidance, that’s not against the law because they believe text messages are “transitory records … which may be deleted when no longer needed,” Ms. Purchia said.

Go that? It’s against EPA policy to delete the messages, but, hey, no biggie if they are. Try this with your own company and see what happens. The metadata shows that many messages were, in fact, sent to phone numbers owned by the EPA.

I think we can agree that not all the messages were EPA business. The judge in the case acknowledged that. But, McCarthy has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules of record retention, and she surely deleted messages that were government business.

Read: EPA “Loses” Text Messages Sought In Records Request »

Surprise: White House Lied Regarding Knowledge Of Secret Service Prositute Parties

Here’s your most transparent administration ever, and a weird headline from the Washington Post

Aides knew of possible White House link to Cartagena, Colombia, prostitution scandal

Rather makes little sense in terms of the article

As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.

The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.

The Secret Service shared its findings twice in the weeks after the scandal with top White House officials, including then-White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. Each time, she and other presidential aides conducted an interview with the advance-team member and concluded that he had done nothing wrong.

So, the White House knew about the prostitutes, and decided to lie to the American public about it.

“We were directed at the time . . . to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election,” David Nieland, the lead investigator on the Colombia case for the DHS inspector general’s office, told Senate staffers, according to three people with knowledge of his statement.

Nieland added that his superiors told him “to withhold and alter certain information in the report of investigation because it was potentially embarrassing to the administration.”

Not only did the White House lie about their knowledge of the scandal, someone surely pressured the investigators to withhold information for political purposes. As to the headline, that goes to

Whether the White House volunteer, Jonathan Dach, was involved in wrongdoing in Cartagena, Colombia, remains unclear. Dach, then a 25-year-old Yale University law student, declined to be interviewed, but through his attorney he denied hiring a prostitute or bringing anyone to his hotel room. Dach has long made the same denials to White House officials.

The White House’s big investigation was to simply ash Dach, twice, if he was involved. He said no, they said “move on.” Yet, the post does the investigation, and finds that Dach had an “extra guest”, a woman, registered to his room. Yes, prostitution is legal in Cartegena, however, if that’s why the White House found no wrong doing, then why discipline Secret Service agents?

Obfuscate, lie, misdirect, lean on people, especially loyalists, stonewall, never admit doing wrong, finally, years later, state that this is old news and it’s time to move on. Typical Obama administration.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: White House Lied Regarding Knowledge Of Secret Service Prositute Parties »

Surprise! More Say Obamacare Has Hurt Than Helped

If this is what Obama and his minions mean when they say Ocare “is working“, I’d hate to see the results if it was failing!

(Gallup) Although more provisions of the Affordable Care Act have taken effect over the past year, more Americans still say the law has hurt rather than helped them. Compared with early 2014, fewer Americans say it has had no effect, although this group is still in the majority, at 54%.

Americans overall are both more positive and more negative about the law’s effect on themselves and their families. Since the start of this year, the percentage saying the law has helped them has increased from 10% to 16%, while the percentage saying it has hurt them has also gone up, and by a similar amount, from 19% to 27%.

At the same time, overall attitudes about the law have stayed constant over the past year. Currently, 41% of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” while 53% disapprove.

Broken down into partisan lines, obviously more Dems think it is helping, 27% yes – 15% no. Interestingly, 56% say it has had no effect. Good think we’ve heavily changed the health care and health insurance systems and spent gobs of money, along with giving Government even more control of our lives, eh?

For Republicans, 4% say helped, 40% hurt, 55% no effect.

What’s dangerous for Dems is Independents, of which 27% say hurt, 16% helped, and 53% no effect.

Read: Surprise! More Say Obamacare Has Hurt Than Helped »

If All You See…

…are wonderful wonderful trees sucking up all the carbon pollution from Other People’s Evil fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post noting an anti-Obama film maker under audit by IRS.

Read: If All You See… »

Anybody Watch “The Strain”?

Hey, a non-political post. The Strain, based on the books by Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan, just made it through the first season, and, if memory serves, the first book of the trilogy. It’s been quite some time since I read the novels. I must say I loved this show.

Was it a bit plodding? Slightly, but it truly captured the essence and flavor of the book. I’m kind of a purist: I like movies/TV shows based on books to be close to the book. I understand that there often have to be changes to make it screen worthy. Some things do not translate as well, though one can be closer for TV than movies. In this case, it translated wonderfully, with few changes to the story arc. It truly seemed like the book, and even the characters were like those in the books. Well done.

If you watched it, what did you think?

Also, are you a purist, or a whatever goes? I read a lot. Seriously. A lot. If there’s a book associated with a movie or series, I’ve probably read it. Though I refused to read Revenge of the Sith prior to seeing the movie.

I can deal with some changed. When it came to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, there were serious substantive changes made,  plus missing scenes that were Important. I still love all three, and have watched them countless times. Especially the first half hour or so of each disk (6 in total) while going to sleep.

But, others, no way. I suffered thru the first season of Under The Dome, and the changes were beyond what I’ll suffer through further. Seriously, a large number of inner city ruffians just happen to be hanging out in this Maine town in the middle of nowhere, and now have some black market and fight club going on? Strains credibility. I did not watch season 2.

I could deal with the changes in the first episode of The Hobbit. I almost walked out of the theater for the 2nd. It was no better on DVD, and I did not purchase. The extra Gandalf stuff, fine. The things with the elves, what happens Dale, leaving dwarves behind, the silly love stuff, and what happens in the Lonely Mountain with Smaug, hell no. It missed the point as to the growth of Bilbo Baggins. The book is about HIM! Too damned much for me to take. I often have good natured arguments with a coworker about book to movie purism.

They did a great job with Stephen King’s The Stand. I loved the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy movie. A lot of people didn’t, thinking it diverged too far from the book. It did, to a degree. Don’t forget, Douglass Adams was involved in writing the screenplay, so he was obviously happy with the end result.

Dune. Hmm. The original movie was very good, but took lots of liberties. I guess it helps that I read the book after seeing it. The SciFi mini-series based on the first couple books were fantastic.

Logan’s Run. Wow. Great movie, but not ever really close to the book. The John Carter Barsoom movie a few years ago? Terrible.

What are your thoughts on book to movie purism? Yes? No? It depends?

Read: Anybody Watch “The Strain”? »

Pirate's Cove