Palestinian "refugee" in Britain attempted to rape underaged girl

ENGLAND: A Palestinian refugee from Gaza, who arrived claiming to be fleeing a ‘genocide’, was arrested for attempting to rape a 14-year-old girl.

He defends himself: “According to Sharia law, raping a non-Muslim girl is legal. I only follow Allah and Sharia law.”

Pure evil! pic.twitter.com/5pABBRge5B

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) April 18, 2026

As told here, a Muslim who identifies as a "palestinian" tried to rape a 14-year-old girl in Britain, and he blatantly used the Islamic koran to defend his behavior. This abominable incident must serve as a lesson that the koran isn't just built on antisemitism. It's also built on misogyny and racism. Yet the government of Kier Starmer sees fit to import such monsters into their territory, and doesn't demand any other countries in places like north Africa that are Muslim (but shouldn't be) take them in instead. Just absolutely disgusting.

NYC high school promotes hijabs to female students

In another horrific example of the effect Zohran Mamdani's election as first Muslim mayor of NYC has had, a local high school promoted "world hijab day" to female students:

A New York high school encouraged non-Muslim girls to try wearing hijabs to “dispel misconceptions.” But the event seems rather aimed to reinforce misconceptions, since it is obvious the girls were not informed about the violent misogyny inherent in and praised by Islam.

Domestic abuse, rape, bigamy, sex slavery, child brides, and honor killings are all allowed or endorsed by Islamic "sacred" texts, and the most minimal honest study of Islam makes it painfully obvious that females are always considered inferior and subject to men. For all these reasons, Islam is not compatible with the Judeo-Christian Western ethic. Yet Western leftists continue to lie to young people about Islam, particularly young women. [...]

Because Islam teaches that men are superior to women, it encourages men to "discipline" women as parents used to do to children. This includes explicit domestic abuse. Quran 4:34, for instance, reads, "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them." In the hadith Sahih Muslim 2127, Aisha — the girl the 50-year-old Muhammad married when she was six — mentions how Muhammad struck her and called it just.

In the Ten Commandments of the Torah/Bible, it says "thou shalt not God's name in vain", yet that's tragically what the Religion of Peace has done for centuries now, and with people like Mamdani in charge, this propaganda is clearly just beginning, all at the expense of the fairer sex.

French court rules all Gazan Muslims can have asylum in their country

In another example of the French establishment's dhimmitude, the French court for asylum gave their backing to allowing Muslims from Gaza to have asylum in a country that's already become a nightmare:

All Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip will be eligible for the first time to apply for asylum in France, a court ruled on Friday.

Deciding on a case brought by a Palestinian mother seeking asylum in the wake of the Islamist Hamas October 7th terror attacks on Israel, France’s National Court of Asylum (CNDA) ruled in her favour given the “war methods” of the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, which the court found were “serious enough to be regarded as methods of persecution.”

The decision overturned a previous rejection from the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Effrusion (OFPRA) in November, which noted that the Palestinian woman was not specifically being “persecuted” and therefore could only be eligible for “subsidiary protection”, a lesser form of asylum which only allows for a four-year temporary residence permit rather than the ten years of protection guaranteed to refugees.

The case paved the way for the CNDA to declare that all Palestinians living in Gaza should be entitled to asylum protection in France, Le Figaro reports. The court based its decision on the Geneva Convention, which says that people who face “persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,” should be considered refugees. [...]

Although the ruling was hailed by leftist groups such as Amnesty International, others expressed concern about allowing more Palestinians into France, including a former Muslim turned anti-Islamist activist and female rights campaigner, Henda Ayari.

“While France is already grappling with explosive community tensions, it chooses today to unconditionally welcome refugees from Gaza, even though more than 30 Muslim countries refuse to take them in. Why should France, once again, play the role of humanitarian substitute while others categorically refuse to host these populations in their countries?” she questioned.

“We’re talking about a region where Hamas recruits, where Islamist ideology and anti-Semitic, anti-Western hatred are deeply rooted, where many celebrated the massacres of October 7. We cannot pretend to believe that they are all ‘innocent victims.’ Some of these individuals who will arrive in France may have participated in, supported, or condoned terrorism. And tomorrow? They will be housed, fed, and supported at the expense of French taxpayers… while our retirees are dying and our neighbourhoods are exploding,” Ayari lamented.

This is utterly horrific, and in addition to importing antisemitism that'll hurt the Jewish community even more, it'll also be importing more misogyny and rape, more jihadism that'll affect regular French as well, and above all, precipitate the way for a European caliphate. This cannot go unopposed.

John Daniel Davidson's wrong about how the USA should deal with middle eastern issues

One of The Federalist's leading editors, John Daniel Davidson, has written a very sloppy and concerning take on Donald Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, one that sounds like he doesn't think the USA should promote and demand civilized values in the middle east:

Not only did Trump lambast neocon “nation-building” in the region, he more or less vowed never to pursue the kinds of neocon misadventures that spilt American blood and treasure over the past 25 years in the insane pursuit of creating western liberal democracies in the Middle East.

In stark and unmistakable terms, the president reminded the world of the abject failure of decades of neocon and liberal interventionist U.S. foreign policy under both Democrat and Republican leadership. He specifically called out the trillions of U.S. tax dollars wasted in a totally unsuccessful attempt to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into western-style democracies as part of the global war on terror.

“In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Trump said. “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad.”

Ahem. If we take Afghanistan as an example, they didn't even try to do that, and most importantly, refused to wean the country off of the Islamic religion. How does Mr. Davidson expect there to be any long range peace and quiet if there's a dominant ideology that leads to a boomerang effect, where years later, they can, much like a "sleeper agent", go right back to old and dirty tricks?

In other words, Trump’s vision of American foreign policy isn’t driven by a zeal to remake the world into some version of a liberal western democracy. In Riyadh, he was saying that Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states can just be Islamic monarchies, and as long as they present no threat to American interests, and as long as they promote peace and stability, then we can do business with them.

Well, this is telling something. So it's okay if Islam continues to govern such countries - and additionally chilling, if it ends up dominating Europe and the USA - so long as it supposedly doesn't affect the USA? Also, what's this about a "liberal" western democracy? Why not a conservative western democracy? This has got to be another chilling flaw in Mr. Davidson's argument. Something only somebody who doesn't value foreign lives as much as local ones could possibly write. He later says, very insultingly:

Critics will simply repeat platitudes like we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here, or that a world of liberal democracies is in the American interest. Maybe that’s true in theory, but in practice it amounts to a carte blanche to intervene anywhere in the world for any reason. What’s more, no one seriously believes that America has the ability or competence to plant stable democracies in Africa or Asia — or anywhere, for that matter. The reason for this is simple: stable democracies cannot be planted by any outside power, no matter how rich and powerful. They have to grow organically and domestically from the people themselves. We can applaud emergent democracies, we can do business with them, but there is precious little we can do to guarantee them, much less build them in the first place.

And not every nation has to be a democracy. The great lie of the Bush-era war on terror was that all people yearn for freedom and democracy. No they don’t. Some yearn much more for justice, or righteousness, or simply revenge. Some will be hereditary monarchies, or Islamic caliphates, or any number of other things. That’s fine. We shouldn’t be troubled by our differences with other nations, so long as they don’t threaten us. The idea that we could turn Afghanistan into a modern democratic state was perhaps the greatest delusion of the past quarter-century. As Trump said on Tuesday, “I am willing to end past conflicts and forge new partnerships for a better and more stable world, even if our differences may be very profound.”

Ahem. Maybe democracy isn't what every nation need be, but should any nation be a spot where barbarism, misogyny and racism can reign? Absolutely not. And it's unacceptable that any country have totalitarians savaging their own subjects. Similar points can be made about communism. Davidson's argument is defeatist in that it additionally refuses to recognize that indoctrination to evil is another grave wrong that can't go unopposed. And it goes without saying that said indoctrination is what's led to "honor murders" by Islamofascists. And it's insulting to Americans' intellects to say the USA doesn't have the ability to establish sturdy democracies on continents like Africa and Asia. By that logic, they didn't have what it took to tame Germany and Japan either.

And Adam Johnston isn't doing much better with his claim the USA shouldn't go to war with Iran, which has some strange descriptions of certain commentary figures:

Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is under fire from neocons after she recently testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee “that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized [restarting] the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

This caused neoconservative media personality Mark Levin and 2024 GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley to push back on Gabbard, both sharing an op-ed from former John Bolton Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz, who called the intelligence reports referenced by Gabbard “stupid intelligence.”

I can't currently recall Levin ever being described before as a "neocon". Is this some kind of absurd propaganda to undermine those who believe force is the only true way to defeat savage evil? And are the lives of innocent women in Iran persecuted for not dressing in abayas worthless? Well that's what Johnston runs the gauntlet of implying, and that's no improvement over Davidson's approach. Maybe the war in Iraq was unnecessary, but that's only if you fail to get rid of the Islamist indoctrination that since became more prevalent there. Same can be said about Iran. Are we to assume Johnston and Davidson also believe Lebanon should remain in the clutches of the Islamists too?

Yet under the growing influence of the more nationalist and non-interventionist America First movement, this longstanding alliance is beginning to fracture. A new generation of right-wing leaders — figures who are notably more realist and restraint-oriented, and less reflexively pro-Israel, such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Elbridge Colby, and influential media figures like Tucker Carlson — are questioning endless American interventionism in the Middle East and whether U.S. interests are always best served by unconditional support for Israel.

Wow, with this kind of mentality, we'd never have won WW2, let alone WW1. Interesting Carlson comes up in discussion here, because he's regrettably proven negative to Israel, and that's not good. Also, what's so wrong with being "hawkish"? Does that mean that when a left-winger is "dovish" that's a great thing? Forget it, these propagandists have gone too far, and the Federalist's just proven a most embarrassingly bad publication with this embarrassment.

Now in more news related to Trump's recent Saudi Arabia conference, Christine Williams has addressed the issue, and points to serious info on what crimes al-Sharaa's organization has done:

A MEMRI article entitled, “Qatar Continues To Finance Terror With U.S. Consent: Will Fund Syria’s New Regime, Led By HTS Terror Organization, Just As It Funded Hamas,” examined the terrorist history of Syrian leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who reverted to his original name Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, to create a false impression that he had changed, even though he remains dedicated to the jihadist cause, ie. to establish the Sharia.

Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) “was established in 2012 by Al-Sharaa (then known as Al-Joulani) at the behest of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who would soon become the founder of ISIS. In 2013 the group became the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria after Al-Joulani broke with Al-Baghdadi and swore allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.”

Al-Sharaa’s followers have slaughtered Christians, Alawites and Druze since toppling Al-Assad.

The MEMRI article also exposes the modus operandi of Qatar, “the world’s greatest financer of extremist Islamist elements such as the Muslims Brotherhood and jihadi terror organizations.”

[...] The fall of the al-Assad Syrian regime was bad news for its staunch ally, Iran, which was good news to America and Israel. But like the mujahideen of Afghanistan, Al-Sharaa is no friend to America and Israel, and neither is Qatar. In December, Qatar “rushed to position itself as a pivotal player in shaping Syria’s future” after the fall of al-Assad. Qatar was hand in hand with “its closest regional partner,” Turkey, which was responsible for facilitating and backing al-Sharaa before and after al-Assad’s fall.

Now al-Sharaa is making significant inroads, as his leadership is legitimized by Muslim Brotherhood-supporting Qatar (and Turkey), with new US support to boot.

Seriously, it's very sad and regrettable it's come to this, because not only does it not help Israel, it also does not help any innocent Druze, Kurds and Yazidis in the area. Williams does note though:

One thing for certain is that Trump inherited Joe Biden’s complete betrayal of American interests, both domestically and abroad. Biden left open borders, poured billions into the coffers of Iran, left billions of dollars worth of state-of-the-art military equipment in Afghanistan for free use by the Taliban, and virtually factored America out of the equation of any global influence. Biden left Trump to contend with a nuclear threshold Iran and a turbulent Middle East that saw America under the declining Biden as nothing more than a joke.

It’s also no secret that Qatar has been buying out American campuses, where pro-Hamas, intimidating protests proliferated, with little to no intervention by the campus administration.

The picture looks grim. But one needs to remember that Trump, not Biden, cracked down on campus antisemitism, which was disguised as “free speech” when it was really a promotion of jihad terror against Israel and Jews.

Yes, but that doesn't mean Trump should allow jihadism to gain footholds even abroad. As some conservatives may realize, the day will come when right-wingers will have no choice but to do battle overseas if that's what it takes to ensure future generations of decent folk everywhere will have a future. Let's also consider that Iran may not be the only Islamic regime with nuclear research in store.

Of course, the cautionary tale of the mujahideen in Afghanistan should be remembered. However, considering Trump’s past policies of protecting American borders from the worst criminals and jihadists, as well as his reinstatement of the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries of concern, it makes little sense to assume without further evidence that he would betray America to the jihadist cause. Let’s hope there is a method (and long-term results) to the madness — as appears to be the case even at this point. In the meantime, expect the inevitable media circus as America continues to emerge from disastrous, nightmarish Democrat rule.

Certainly it's important to protect USA borders, and to back Israel, but that doesn't mean we should turn our backs on any innocent souls in Islamic regimes who should be liberated from the Religion of Peace's tyranny. And even communist regimes are a bad omen. Mainly because of how they're more than perfectly willling to do business with the Religion of Peace, and maybe even sell out their countries to Islam in the end. Interestingly enough, Trump's deal with al-Sharaa in Syria doesn't seem to have met any opposition or complaints from the Democrats. Surely that's not telling something?

Then, here's some more observations about Trump's gamble on Syria:

“Obviously, it is a bit of a gamble,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, told the DCNF. “If you take a look at historical cases in which an entity has been on a terrorist list and then has transitioned towards becoming more acceptable as they become a political party or take over a country, whether it’s the [African National Congress], the [Irish Republican Army], or the [Palestinian Liberation Organization], it’s nevertheless been a process with specific demands and time in order to make sure that this is not just a temporary change of heart.”

What it really is, is taqqiya (deception). And vehement refusal by the PLO to abandon Islam only worsens the matter.

Al-Sharaa has attempted to distance himself from his jihadist past, but HTS still retains the salafist jihadist interpretation of Islam that al-Qaeda espouses, with the latter viewing HTS as traitorous.

Point: if we take the case of Egypt's past autocrat Anwar Sadat as an example, there are jihadists who won't accept that he pulled an act of deception of his own on Israel, and that's how Sadat was slain a few years after the Camp David accords. So it's no surprise if al-Qaeda doesn't accept al-Sharaa's own acts of deception regardless of his intentions. Either way, both al Qaeda and al-Sharaa are bad news, and nobody should have to make a choice between either.

More important information comes from Dr. Yehuda Balanga:

Last Wednesday, US President Donald Trump met with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (al-Julani). It appears Trump chose to ignore the fact that until that meeting, al-Sharaa had been a wanted terrorist in the eyes of the Americans. Overnight, he became wanted in Washington under very different circumstances. "A young and attractive guy," Trump said of al-Sharaa. "A tough guy with a strong background. A very strong background. A fighter." Notably, the American president failed to mention that this "fighter" he praised led a Sunni Islamist-jihadist organization that persecuted and killed men, women, and children during the Syrian civil war solely because of their religious beliefs or political affiliations. [...]

To date, no Islamist movement that seized power has ever abandoned its ideology. Quite the contrary - every past success has emboldened a wider Islamist surge. This was true in Iran after the 1979 revolution, and again after the Arab Spring, when Islamist movements, many tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, rose to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and now Syria. Given al-Sharaa's past in al-Qaida and Islamic State, a shift in worldview seems unlikely.

See, this is exactly what may be overlooked in this whole concerning development. Do MAGA supports and America Firsters intend to let this go without public comment?

Anyway, after discovering what the above writers/editors for the Federalist were using for apologia, I decided I'd had enough, and the time had come to remove them from my side menu. Even the Daily Caller so far hasn't written anything that foolish, which is amazing considering Carlson was one of their co-founders. The Federalist had turned out some very tasteless, disturbing and divisive op-eds before, and these latest are only compounding a very embarrassingly bad situation. We could decidedly do without their shoddy "opinions".

Schools in Virginia allow opt-out from Holocaust lessons

The school board of Fairfax County, Virginia, is doing something terrible they won't do with LGBT ideology:

Virginia’s largest school district will let students skip a presentation from a Holocaust survivor, saying the diverse district includes students with “different experiences.”

“We understand that all students have different experiences. If you prefer to opt your child out from participating in this presentation, please email your child’s history teacher and they will be provided an alternate assignment. Please email your child’s history teacher with any questions that you may have,” a letter from Cooper Middle School said.

The letter referred to a scheduled presentation from a Holocaust survivor to seventh-graders, according to Adele Scalia, a mother of one of those middle schoolers.

[...] Scalia said on social media that she is drawing “less charitable (but more likely) conclusions.” The Left has been pressured by Islamic extremists to demonize Israel following Hamas’ terrorist attacks on the Jewish nation on October 7, and liberals have used the same language of “colonization” and “oppression” that they apply to whites in the U.S. to Israelis.

“If the email had said ‘We understand that some students are very sensitive and Mrs. X’s stories my be disturbing and traumatizing to them…’ I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But it didn’t,” Scalia wrote.

Fairfax County contains a hotbed of Muslim extremism. A mosque there, attended by several 9/11 hijackers as well as the Fort Hood terrorist, was presided over by the father of Abrar Omeish, who until this year was a member of the Fairfax County school board. Omeish voted against an FCPS resolution offering a moment of silence for victims of 9/11 and another for victims of October’s Hamas attacks on Israel, said the decisive World War II victor at Iwo Jima was “unfortunate,” and gave a graduation speech encouraging students to “remember your jihad” and reject capitalism.

This definitely says quite a bit, right down to how the manager of a mosque is allowed on the school board, and even desecrated the memory of 9-11 victims. This also makes clear the sad path the USA is regrettably headed on if something isn't done to put a stop to this indoctrination.

The opt-out of the Holocaust lesson in FCPS, whose school board is entirely Democrat, is a reversal from the Left’s position on opt-outs on topics like transgenderism and anti-racism, which typically holds that hard truths are often uncomfortable, that it is the role of a school to instill certain values, and that on some issues, there are not two sides, but only good and evil.

[...] With some people claiming that the Holocaust did not even occur, the lesson is one of the last chances to hear from someone who survived it first-hand, as survivors are perishing of old age.

Prior to the election of Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a video promoted by Virginia’s state Department of Education, then presided over by Democrat Atif Qarni, sought to dampen the emotional resonance of 9/11, advising teachers not to call it “terrorism” and to focus on “anti-Muslim racism” while making sure not “to reproduce what’s understood as American exceptionalism.”

This is the most terrible part about Virgina, how, Youngkin's election notwithstanding, there remains a considerable amount of far-left influence, and now it's resulted in a truly awful situation. It's clear Virginia has a serious problem with misogyny, anti-Semitism, and the Religion of Peace is really going to make things awful soon enough. Maybe most grating about the whole matter is that, if LGBT ideology is cleared away from schools in Fairfax, it'll only be due to Muslim influence, not because Judeo-Christians, Hinduists and Buddhists ask for it to stop. That's one of the worst things about "protected class" statuses.

Coming from an Islamic immigrant, this comes off as a most peculiar complaint/lamentation

Last year, Abigail Shrier wrote about American families sending their children to foreign language immersion courses, because they're so disillusioned with whatever passes for "American culture" these days, and find it so bad an influence, they'd rather take measures they believe could shield their children from said influences, which are conveyed foremost via the English language. It's an interesting subject, but along the way, she highlights what a psychology expert told about a conference he gave in a certain location in Michigan:

At the end of a talk Dr. Sax gave at an Islamic center in Detroit years ago, a Syrian-born father approached him. The man and his wife had come to the United States twenty years earlier and had four children. “They normally speak Arabic at home, but they told me that when their teenage son wants to be defiant and disrespectful, he switches to English,” Dr. Sax said. “And Dad told me that his son’s whole body language changes. His eyes narrow, he gets a smirk on his face.”

Now this is most peculiar - and decidedly rich - coming from an apparent follower of the Religion of Peace, which seeks to impose perversions of its own upon western "infidels". Of course culture in the USA, as told there, has tragically been corrupted, but ironically, depending what's involved, it's not something a religion built upon jihadism, antisemitism, racism and misogyny would truly have an issue with. Especially if the kids continue to adhere to Islam even after becoming defiant of the parents. If modern entertainment products in the USA build on horrific ingredients like normalizing violence and playing it for cheap sensationalism, it'd only be seen as something Islamofascists would consider a perfect extension for their twisted beliefs.

Obviously, there are Muslim parents who have problems with children growing up disrespectful to them for all the wrong reasons, but it's still no excuse for raising them under a horrific ideology that's just as destructive as LGBT ideology's turning out to be in the past decade, and has led to terrible instances of honor murders against daughters over Thoughtcrimes. Indeed, how is that any different from the misogyny that's now resulted in girls mutilating themselves for the sake of transsexual ideology?

So maybe the real query here is why the aforementioned doctor was giving lectures at a Muslim institution. It makes this a very absurd situation where the guy risks glossing over one bad ideology while talking about another. If you think that's weird and naive, it sadly is.

A so-called comics historian sides against Lois Lane's Jewish creators

Tim Hanley is a Canadian comics historian of a most left-wing leaning who's written books about Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, and other such comic women, but apparently out of some kind of male feminist belief system. And guess who's side he chose to take at a time when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's Israeli/Jewish brethren around the world are suffering horror stories at a time when antisemitism arose during the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza, and Islamic riots in cities like Lod? It wasn't Siegel/Shuster's ethnic relatives:

Here's some info on the mission and the charities @books_palestine supports so you can learn more! #BooksForPalestine pic.twitter.com/RpcE0QGVeA

— Tim Hanley (@timhanley01) May 27, 2021

He's dedicating his work on a Betty & Veronica history book to a cause going against any and all of comicdom's Jewish creators? Well...this is certainly telling. Some gratitude he shows there alright, after all the problems comicdom's Jews went through, and tried to address in their time. Now, some charlatan desecrates their memory by taking a position that's hurtful to their Israeli brethren. Even Archie had their share of Jewish contributors decades before, and these repellent promotional posts are a slap in the face to their memory as well. He even posted the following:

Just signed this petition, and wrote the library directly. There should be no place for anti-trans rhetoric in our library system. Remove Anti-Trans Hate From Halifax Public Libraries - Sign the Petition! https://t.co/L9lhqGqm7H via @CdnChange

— Tim Hanley (@timhanley01) May 30, 2021

So he buys into this transsexuality propaganda too, and what next, will he throw his full support behind allowing men claiming to be the opposite sex into bathrooms reserved for the ladies? This is why Israeli-American columnist Ruthie Blum once lamented the failure of schools to teach boys to defend a woman's honor and dignity these days.

I've taken a look at a few other subjects on Mr. Hanley's own site, and he sure does offer a lot of telling clues what's wrong with his thinking. His site, with entries spanning at least a decade, is a stunning goldmine of absurd social justice propaganda. Here's an early entry, where he blabbers about underrepresentation of women in the industry:

Women account for half of all human beings on the planet, but in terms of making comic books they are seriously under-represented. This shouldn’t be a shocking piece of information to anyone… we all know that comics are a male-dominated industry. But we know this anecdotally, not with solid numbers behind it or breakdowns of what women are doing where. Thus, this women in comics statistics project.

Comic books come out every Wednesday, and for all of 2011 I will examine the comics released each week by the industry’s two biggest companies, Marvel and DC Comics, and chart the credits along gender lines. [...]

And movies and music aren't male-dominated in any way? Let's put it this way. It's not like the industry never did anything wrong. I've commented on their most greivous errors for over 15 years now. But the problem with his arguments is that, despite any attempts to persuade to the contrary, he largely refuses to consider talent and merit important factors for hiring, and past lady contributors like Marie Severin and Ann Nocenti don't seem to mean anything to him. Yet what does is the Big Two:

Why Marvel and DC: Ideally, I’d look at every comic from every company, but a) that’s a TON of comics, and b) full credits are really hard to find for smaller companies (but if you are a non-Marvel or non-DC company that would like to send me all their credits pages each week, I would gladly chart them up!!). Plus, together Marvel and DC account for nearly 70% of the comics sold in a given month, along with well over 80% of the top 300 comics sold. So yes, there’s going to be a mainstream, superhero bias to these stats… but the vast majority of the comic books people are buying will be accounted for.

He fails to understand a]not many women may want to work for them even now because of the shoddiest examples they published at the time Quesada/DiDio were in charge, where a number of items they put out were full of reprehensible mistreatment of women through violence and such, b]they may feel there's no creative freedom, and the universe wide crossovers are no improvement, and c]in addition, the job just doesn't pay much money any more than animation studios do. Yet I can't say that in what I've read, I've seen him arguing women should get into the gigs for the glory more than the money either. So his statistics for ladies' employment over the past decade are meaningless if he's going to be so fluff-coated. He also said:

So there you have it. I think this will be very interesting… I’m not trying to call out publishers, or suggest they go start hiring women just to look better or anything. I’m just trying to provide numbers for something that we all know is anecdotally true. Frankly, comic books have been aimed at males for decades now, and most of the people working on them today were the boys to which they were marketed. The industry hasn’t created an environment where one should expect a fair number of female creators… it’s very much a boy’s club. And gender isn’t the only divide; it’s very much a white boy’s club too. But charts are fun, and I am curious as to what the current status of women in comic book industry actually is, not just anecdotally. Ultimately, perhaps seeing how the data breaks down will lead us to think about why the numbers are the way they are.

My my, this is also telling. If we take the Big Two's superhero output as an example, what's so wrong with Stan Lee for one forming a boys' club? Besides, if anybody wants to form a publisher that can promote a girls' club, they're quite welcome, yet socialist mentality's dictated that established franchises must be exploited almost entirely to push the shoddy agenda Mr. Hanley has for over a decade now. Big problem: from what I've checked on his site, I've never seen him complain why Joe Quesada and Dan DiDio should be fired from the publishers, as the latter was last year. And that's one of the reasons why they were able to hold onto their positions as long as they did, or still are: nobody's willing to stand up and boldly say why those truly accountable must be giving the pink slip. Here's another post he wrote that's quite insulting, where he implied something was wrong with "60-year old white guys" like the late Len Wein being hired to script miniseries for DC 6 years back:

I fail to see how a group of men with an average age of 62.3 years old are, to quote DiDio, “the best writers for these characters” when the task is to freshen up and contemporize them. All of these men are certainly talented writers and I respect their work and, for several of them, their legacies, but the last thing the superhero world needs more of is old, white guys reintroducing characters and trying to make them relevant and interesting. That rarely goes well. Especially when so many of them have such close ties to past incarnations of the characters. This is where you introduce new voices and new talent, find the NEW Marv Wolfman and the NEW Len Wein, not bring back the same old creators. This would be a KILLER lineup in 1987, but it’s not 1987 anymore.

It's not a time of sanity anymore either, and Hanley was only precipitating a terrible situation where whites, no matter their age or sex, are discriminated against. Would he have said this about veteran black writers like Christopher Priest? I doubt he'd be that stupid, but then, why is it okay to say Wein and Marv Wolfman are obsolete because of their age, merely because they're white (and Jewish)? Again, I can't say I've noticed much criticism leveled by Hanley against DiDio for more valid reasons, like the obnoxious misogyny he injected into comics during the mid-2000s, and however he was handling the DC output around this later time, it was no improvement, artistically or otherwise. Hanley got some pushback about this post, and he attempted to minimize the damage with the following:

I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that guys like Wein, Wolfman, et al. shouldn’t be getting work. They’re legends. However, a line written primarily by white men who’ve been in comics for decades sends, intentionally or not, a bad message about diversity.

I understand that comics is a rough industry for older creators, and my problem isn’t with them for doing the gigs. But it’s also a tough industry for women and POC who have been rarely afforded the opportunity to break into the Big Two in the first place.

My issue is with DC for not putting together a more diverse and representative line. Hire some old white guys, sure, but ALSO hire woefully underrepresented folks getting their first shot at superheroes. Doing just the former doesn’t send a great message.

And for everyone going “But DC’s June #DCYou books!” Yes, ONE TIME DC put together a slightly more diverse lineup. SLIGHTLY. That doesn’t mean they can stop doing that now, or that it’s cool to even things out with these new minis.

Gee, he sure was pretty frantic to offer an alleged apology. Since when hasn't the industry been hiring "underrepresented folks" like Blacks/Asians/Latinos? I've written before about Matt Baker, the guy most famous for illustrating Phantom Lady of the Freedom Fighters. And DC practically has a man of Asian descent, Jim Lee, in a prominent executive role, even if his politics are sadly reprehensible. Also, considering how bad the Big Two became artistically and in terms of creative freedom, what's the use of working there at this time anyway? Nobody creative will benefit, no matter their racial background. And turning back to Hanley, a big problem with his argument is that, despite any attempts to sound otherwise, he's putting diversity entirely above artistic talent and merit. If such are lacking, what's the use of hiring a particular writer/artist at all? Here's some examples of the replies he got on the page proper, including:

Ageist Bigot

And then:

I get that you’re trying to take a “progressive” look and stance to modern comics, you just seem a little misguided here. Not to mention that focussing so much on the age of the writers involved makes you look completely ageist. A balance needs to be found between modernisation and classic, and judging by their current line up of monthlies and these new minis announced, DC look to be doing a great job in the regard. As I said, DC You is for everyone, not just young new readers.

The line was a failure regardless, and Hanley's "progressive" ideology is exactly what's wrong with him. It practically led him to take the PLO's side at the expense of Siegel/Shuster's Jewish brethren. Another reply:

That was an absurdly ageist take on this.

And:

Ageist racist bigot.

And then, better still:

You are incredibly racist. How many more times could you mention “white guys”? How did this medium start out? Oh yeah, white guys. I’m tired of the white male being singled out. Do there need to be more women and people of other colors in comics? YES. Do the people who have established themselves need to be kicked to the side like leftover meatloaf? NO. Stop usurping the past and trying to replace current writers/artists and the heroes they created. Bring in fresh talent of all colors shapes and sizes. Create new characters. Enough with the whining and wimpering. You are not entitled to erase the past. Create your future.

Sadly, we're 6 years past this moment and Mr. Hanley's still plying his loathsome, petty ideologies at the expense of classic creations. Here's another good one:

“Old white guys.” Because there’s nothing fresh and contemporary to be found in the works of 60-year-old white guys. Wait, how old was Steve Jobs again?

As a Hispanic 30something man, I am sick and tired of the “White old men” boogeyman.

I am sorry, Wolfman -created- Raven. Made the Titans THE best selling book in DC during the 80s. If someone deserves to write a mini on Raven, it’s going to be goddamned Marv Wolfman, especially since Pfeiffer and Lobdell have made such a terrible spectacle of the Teen Titans.

You know, I understand that you are trying to advocate for diversity, but I thought that diversity meant inclusiveness, and that means *everybody*- not simply brown people like me and people with a strict cutoff at the age of 30something, brandishing a “Go Away” sign being waved in the face of any pale old dude.

As much as I respect your very insightful book on Wonder Woman, I am going to have to call you out and say- no, Tim, you are acting like a total ass right here, right now. Part of being actually diverse and individualistic includes listening to people who are often discarded and disregarded, people whom idiots and fools consider not worth anyone’s time because they assume they have nothing of worth.

Like “old” people. You assume they cannot create anything fresh, you assume they cannot find new angles, you assume they cannot tell new stories, that they cannot possibly have anything into which they can pour their considerable experience that could possibly fascinate anyone.

Because old people are only good for sitting back on their laurels and do nothing except ushering in the next generation gracefully, while tending to their gardens, kittens and tea kettles. Old me-

Wait.

What is that?

Over there- yes, I do believe it is the shadow of Sir Terry Pratchett, Tim.

He’s staring at you with such a look.

I cannot fathom what words he would say to you, but I imagine they are the kinds of words that would leave very strong scorch marks in the air.

You are a disappointment, Tim Hanley. For someone who allegedly admires Wonder Woman for her message of compassion and acceptance, you have demonstrated a very ugly side of yourself.

On that, I fully agree. Hanley's a hypocritical leftist who even goes out of his way to support the wrong sides of an issue, and whether he's uninformed, it's still no excuse. Mainly because well before this, he was already pandering to Islamophilia, and gushing over some of G. Willow Wilson's worst propaganda, here being Alif the Unseen:

I also really liked that not only is the strongest and bravest character in the book a woman, but Dina’s a woman who’s chosen to wear the niqab, the black veil. Lately debates have raged about veiling and whether or not it should be outlawed, and most of these conversations seemed to ignore the issue of choice for a woman herself. The decision to veil or not became her father or husband forcing her to wear it OR the state forcing her not to. Now, of course many women are forced to wear a veil who don’t want to, but there are also women who DO want to. Dina chooses to wear the niqab even against the wishes of her family because it means something to her, and she’s no weak-willed wallflower. Being devout to Islamic law and being a strong woman aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, and Dina was a great character who walked that line.

SIDENOTE: Veiling is a super complex issue, even if you agree that it should be a matter of choice for the woman. For example, sure a woman might choose to wear a veil, but is the religion and culture that encourages veiling so inherently patriarchal and oppressive to women that choosing to wear the veil is actually just participating in your own subjugation? And even if it is, I suppose you should have the freedom to so subjugate yourself, right? I don’t have any answers… I just very much appreciated how Wilson addressed the issue in the novel and made it Dina’s choice.

As somebody who finds the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox lifestyle demeaning to women, even if it's not going as far as Islam's belief a woman should be veiled (although there are some clans who made use of it, and even a cult called Lev Tahor made use of similar outfits), I find it repellent Mr. Hanley would take such a lenient position on the whole notion such self-isolation from society is acceptable, and his ostensible admittance there's women forced against their will to wear such denigrating outfits does nothing to alleviate concerns. It goes without saying I cannot accept such outfits in any religion, not even Catholicism's concept of the nun's wimple dress, because it all makes women's sexuality and beauty out to look like the worst thing that could happen, and is insulting a woman's body. Or, put another way, it's insulting God by extension, since God gave women their physical attributes, and now, look where things have wound up by extension in an era where the left is denigrating both women and men, and indoctrinating them into sex-change operations that can do serious harm, along with encouraging rejection of the opposite sex for the sake of homosexuality. That Mr. Hanley lacks a clear answer on whether women should be encouraged to accept the degrading idea of veiling themselves is another serious problem with his approach. It's no better than an inability to express a clear opinion on whether punk lifestyles like mohawks and noserings are healthy for the mind and body, let alone cocaine abuse. Mr. Hanley is shameful. He doesn't even consider apostates from Islam who find that abandoning the Religion of Peace gives them a much better perspective on life.

Here's also something he said about Frank Cho:

This weekend, artist Frank Cho announced on his Facebook page that he’ll be drawing variant covers for Wonder Woman when the series relaunches this June as part of DC’s “Rebirth” line. Several sites are reporting that he’ll be on the book for a year, and since it’s shipping bi-monthly that means 24 covers. Cho is an artist best known for doing sexy pin-ups and while his work isn’t really my jam, he’s certainly very good at what he does. He’s also drawn some cool, non-hypersexualized stuff when reined it, and hopefully he brings some of that restraint to Wonder Woman. Cho’s got definite skills. However, he’s also a real twit.

It all started a while back when Marvel inexplicably decided that it would be a fun idea to hire famed erotica artist Milo Manara to draw variant covers starring their female characters. He did a Spider-Woman cover that had the character bizarrely positioned with her butt poised high in the air, and the cover drew a lot of criticism. It was poorly drawn, and the sexualized pose wasn’t a good reflection of the contents of the new Spider-Woman series. Marvel eventually decided not to release the cover.

Umm, they did release it, but with a large Spider-Woman logo over the supposedly offending part, whose only mistake was that it just wasn't very appealing artistically. By the way, is that good manners to call somebody a "twit", just like that? For somebody who'd surely consider himself a public figure, Hanley's setting a pretty poor example.

For some reason, Frank Cho decided that this was the hill he wanted to die on. He did a commission of Spider-Gwen on a blank sketch cover, mimicking the Manara pose. When folks were all, “Come on, man,” Cho blasted the “small group of angry and humorless people ranting against my DRAWING of a pretty woman,” telling them that they should “just grow a sense of humor and relax.” He then doubled down on the pose, drawing Harley Quinn in the same position. Over the past year, he’s done several of these pieces, reveling in the controversy he’s causing and proudly posting them on the internet like he’s some sort of brave rebel (he’s not).

The reaction to Cho’s pieces have brought him some vocal defenders, many of whom are the sort of men (they’re all men) who use the term “social justice warrior” unironically. They see Cho as a defender of free speech, a valiant hero saving the comic book industry from the scourge of evil feminists who are ruining their funny books. Cho tried to capitalize on the support of these dopes by following the posting of one of his sketches with a campaign where he sold “Friends of Cho” t-shirts. The ad for the shirts asked, “Are you outraged by the outrage?” and offered his fans the opportunity to stand with him (he only sold 21 one of them online).

So what he's saying is every artist of Cho's caliber has no female fans? I'm think that's disputable too. Does this also mean Hanley believes Spider-Man, for instance, isn't their funnybook? I guess that sums it up. It's too bad that since this was written, Cho had to go and attack Comicsgate using the F-word, and alienated a lot of people when he could've avoided causing trouble. But speaking of Comicsgate, look what Hanley said the other year about Blake Northcott:

...Elsewhere, Blake Northcott is co-writing Catwoman this month, which I am less excited about. She’s been ComicsGate adjacent for a while now, and I’m not terribly thrilled when anyone associated with that hate group lands a mainstream gig.

Strange, aside from her being a leftist, I don't think she ever said she supported the campaign. I guess her refusal to actually come out against it is why he decided she was. But look at that - when ideological divides come into the picture, suddenly, a man who writes sugarcoated takes on many items related to lady writers decides he's against her. In any case, she's largely disappeared from comics over the past year, possibly because now, she's working on films and TV.

Here's more on Hanley's predictable gushing over the Muslim Ms. Marvel book:

While Kelly Sue DeConnick and David Lopez are set to relaunch Captain Marvel this March, a new character is taking over Carol Danvers’ old identity of Ms. Marvel in February. Kamala Khan is an American teen girl of Pakistani origin, and when she discovers she has super powers, including the ability to change shapes, she takes the mantle of her hero Ms. Marvel.

The book is written by G. Willow Wilson, who has done some fantastic comic work including the Vertigo graphic novel Cairo and the recent CrossGen/Marvel mini-series Mystic. Her novel Alif the Unseen is also absolutely fantastic. Kamala is Muslim, and Wilson is a convert to Islam, giving her a unique perspective for writing the character. The art is by Adrian Alphona, best known for his great work on Runaways. He’s also Canadian, which makes him extra cool. The cover above is by Sara Pichelli, who I hope is the regular cover artist for the series because she’s super good.

This book sounds interesting, boasts a stellar creative team, and is a new and original direction for a superhero title. It’s also exactly what Marvel needs given some recent unfortunate trends at the company.

And by that, he means "too sexy" for his political/ideological beliefs, right? This guy is truly disgusting with his leftism, and of course, his automatic support was a precursor for his recent pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli propaganda, that, interestingly enough, ignores what another famous woman, Golda Meir, said regarding "palestine".

Now, another item prior to release of the first Wonder Woman movie with Gal Gadot, where he attacks Fox News for all the wrong reasons:

First, they got upset about Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman costume because it didn’t have the halter top and short shorts that they liked, or the patriot markings of the classic outfit. Then, somewhat bizarrely, they also took issue with the dark colour scheme and the fact that Wonder Woman has to share her movie debut with Superman and Batman, which was an odd moment for me to say the least. Hearing people on Fox News say things I actually agreed with made me re-evaluate my entire life and every decision I’ve ever made, but after that life crisis I continued on with the video and things got ridiculous again.

Nowhere near as ridiculous as Hanley's politics. And at the end, he let slip what's really wrong with his visions:

Anyway, that was some great work by Fox News, getting outraged about a comic story from four years ago in the most offensive and sexist ways possible. I don’t understand why these people have a network. Why do you let them talk, America? I mean, I understand free speech and all, but they’re just so goddamn dumb.

Gee, if you don't like their alleged rightist leanings, don't watch them! I'm not fooled by Hanley's supposed insistence he "understands" free speech values either, and his accusations of sexism are pathetically cheap. If I were an artist and created a rabbi's daughter wearing a bikini, and he made accusations of sexism, I'd be furious. He's giving a very bad impression of a Canadian leftist, that's for sure. But, he sure does reveal quite a bit more what he thinks of men who love women in the following review of a WW comic by Wilson from 2019:

I’m very much enjoying this identity crisis of the gods. First, we have Ares wanting to give up war for justice. That’s gone quite poorly so far, of course, due to his engrained toxic masculinity more than anything else, but it’s been a very interesting turn for the character. And now, Aphrodite wants to separate herself from love. She doesn’t seem to have a plan of where to go from there, what new cause to champion, if any. She’s just tired of being’s love representative.

It sounds like we have quite a double whammy here. On the one hand, Ares embodies that atrocious anti-heterosexual propaganda called "toxic masculinity". On the other hand, Aphrodite doesn't want to represent the concept of love anymore? But then, it's long been apparent many far-leftists are thrilled to stuff as much propaganda into their stories as possible.

I'm glad I don't own any of Hanley's history books. Disgraceful people like him with such loathsome politics tend to be the least reliable on these pop culture subjects anyway. If they could spout all this reprehensible tommyrot, why should we expect them to be the most accurate on any subject since their ideology could play into their approach? Why should we even believe they supposedly don't approve of Fredric Wertham, who had similar positions? If this is how men like Hanley intend to ply their trade, nobody with common sense should waste their money on his publications. Again, let's be clear, he's desecrated the Jewish originators of the industry, including, but not limited to, Siegel, Shuster, Lee, Kirby and even Wein, among others. Why, now that I think of it, the worst part of Mr. Hanley's propaganda is that he's engaged in otherizing the people who made superhero comics possible in the first place.

Half-Jewish contestant at Miss France pageant attacked with anti-Semitism after revealing her father's Israeli

April Benayoum, a contestant at Miss France's current paegeant, faced antisemitic abuse after she revealed her father's nationality:

Anti-Semitism in France reared its ugly head over the weekend after a Jewish woman in the national beauty contest had to endure bullying on social media due to her background.

April Benayoum, a French woman who has Italian and Israeli roots, won second place in the Miss France 2021 competition on Saturday, but that has not stopped racists and anti-Semites from launching incessant attacks on social media, including with anti-Semitic tweets.

Benayoum, who won Miss Provence before competing in the national contest, has described herself as Italian-Israeli because she was born to a Serbo-Croatian mother and an Israeli father.

Can anyone guess who the culprits are in the online abuse? It may not be all of them, but you can be sure some of them are adherents of the Religion of Peace, many of whom are doubtless anti-sex misogynists too. The Jerusalem Post says:

Leading French-Jewish groups, the Israeli Embassy in France, and numerous local politicians strongly condemned on Sunday this storm of antisemitic attack against the Miss France contestant.

The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (Crif), the umbrella organization of France’s Jewish community, called the attacks on Benayoum “vile and unacceptable!”

“All occasions appear to be good for spreading hatred of Jews and Israel,” the group added, demanding that Twitter take responsibility for what had happened."

The International League Against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), demanded that the social media assailants face legal consequences for turning Twitter “into an antisemitic cesspool” and urged users to report antisemitic tweets.

Let's not forget this is the same social media network that allowed a former premiere of Malaysia to post messages condoning murder of French people. Food for thought: there should be a demand the company execs abandon their leftism, seeing how it's coloring their conduct, or lack thereof.

The Israeli Embassy in France also reacted, condemning "in the strongest possible terms the surge of antisemitic and anti-Zionist hatred on social networks last night,” pledgeding “full support” for Miss [Benayoum].

[...] The winner of the competition, Normandy’s Amandine Petit, was quick to offer support for her colleague saying on Sunday morning in an interview with French broadcaster BFM TV she was "extremely disappointing.”

The TV channel on which was broadcasted the event, TF1, also condemned on his Twitter account the antisemitic attack Miss Benayoum faced, reaffirming its strong support to the contestant.

[...] In a letter to Miss France Competition Director-General, Sylvie Tellier, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, expressed outrage at the wave of Twitter attacks against April Benayoum, Miss Provence and first runner-up in Miss France 2021.

“There have been critiques of feminist organizations who consider beauty competitions as debasing to women, but this year - the Miss France centenary - will be remembered as a sick exercise in Jew-hatred,” said Samuels.

What's offensive about feminist organizations - the same kind who led to the dumbing down of the Miss America pageant a few years ago, is that they have none of the same concerns about racism, let alone actual sexism or misogyny, and if this happened in America, chances are they'd remain equally ignorant. It's a disgrace, and nobody should be funding such organizations because of that. For now, no matter what the ethnic background of Ms. Benayoum, all should stand behind her after what's happened.

Trial begins for 14 collaborators in Paris bloodbath

The Jewish Press reports that the trial's beginning in the case of at least 14 people who collaborated with the murderers who struck at Charlie Hebdo and the Hypercacher supermarket in Paris:

The trial of 14 individuals accused of providing logistical support to the brothers Said and Chérif Kouachi who on January 7, 2015, murdered members of the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and Amedy Coulibaly, who two days later took hostages and killed customers at a kosher supermarket in Paris. The defendants face charges of participating in a terrorist criminal association.

On January 7, 2015, around 11:30 AM, two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in Paris, armed with rifles and other weapons. They killed 12 people and injured 11. The gunmen identified themselves as members of al-Qaeda. Two days later, their accomplice, Amedy Coulibaly, attacked the Hypercacher kosher supermarket where he held 19 hostages and murdered 4, all Jews. The gunman was killed.

[...] On Wednesday, Charlie Hebdo republished the cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed in its new weekly edition. The editors suggested they were running the cartoon as evidence. They said the cartoon is “part of History, and one cannot rewrite History, neither can it be erased.”

That's pretty amazing that, a number of years after CH foolishly stopped producing cartoons featuring Mohammed, now they're republishing some of those in focus again. What remains to be seen now, aside from that, is whether the justice officials will take a convincing position on both the tragedies involved, considering all the antisemitism and misogyny lurking around every nook and cranny of their system that so far led to the refusal to prosecute the murderer of Sarah Halimi. Only the death sentence can possibly ensure definite justice in cases like these.

HOW WE CAN SUCCESSFULLY COUNTER ASYMMETRIC JIHADO-TERROR BY NON-NATION-STATE PLAYERS

MANY FOLKS WERE EXHAUSTED BY THE AFGHAN WAR AND THE IRAQ WAR AND THEREFORE HATE THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND ARE WEARY OF WAR AND LEERY OF PUTTING ANY BOOTS ON THE GROUND ANYWHERE.

BUT THE OBAMA DOCTRINE IS AN ABYSMAL FAILURE FOR THE FREE WORLD:

THE WORLD IS AFLAME WITH JIHADIST VIOLENCE FROM WEST AFRICA TO THE PHILIPPINES.

SYRIA AND IRAQ ARE COLLAPSING AND THREATENING OUR ALLIES JORDAN AND EGYPT AND ISRAEL.

OBAMA'S WAR AGAINST KADDAFY HAS MADE LIBYA A STATELESS COUNTRY AND DESTABILIZED NORTH AFRICA.

WE NEED TO CHANGE STRATEGY IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE.

Andy McCarthy suggests we return to the Bush Doctrine, with an addendum:

... the Bush Doctrine [...] remains the only [strategy] that has any chance of working . . . at least if we add a small but crucial addendum — one that should have been obvious enough back in 2001, and that hard lessons of history have now made inescapable. 

[...] The unadorned Bush Doctrine had two straightforward parts. First, because violent jihadists launch attacks against the United States when they have safe havens from which to plot and train, we must hunt down those terrorists wherever on earth they operate. Second, the nations of the world must be put to a choice: You are with us or you are with the terrorists. Period — no middle ground. If you are with the terrorists, you will be regarded, as they are regarded, as an enemy of the United States. 

[...]The Bush Doctrine ...  is the path to victory — if we get that one addendum right. It is this: Our enemies are not driven by American foreign policy, our friendship with Israel, our detention of jihadists at Gitmo, or the supposed “arrogance” our current president likes to apologize for. Those are all pretexts for aggression. Our enemies are driven by an ideology, Islamic supremacism, that is rooted in a classical interpretation of sharia — Islamic law. Islamic supremacism is rabidly anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic. It rejects the fundamental premise of our liberty: that people are free to govern themselves, rather than be ruled by a totalitarian legal code that suffocates liberty and brutally discriminates against non-Muslims and apostates. And sharia is an actual war on women — denying them equal rights under the law, subjecting them to unthinkable abuse, and reducing them in many ways to chattel. In the “you are with us or you are with the terrorists” view of national security, any Muslim nation, organization, or individual that adheres to Islamic supremacism is on the wrong side. Failing to come to terms with that brute fact is where the Bush Doctrine went awry. 

[...] But it does mean we should be using all our assets — not just military but intelligence, law-enforcement, financial, and diplomatic — to undermine regimes that support sharia supremacism. 

Cutting off that jihadist life-line is the path to victory — just as maintaining a strong military that is allowed to show it means business, that is not hamstrung by irresponsible rules of engagement, is the best way to ensure we won’t have to use it too often. In Iran, where sharia is the law of the land, they persecute non-Muslims and apostates just like ISIS does. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, they behead their prisoners just like ISIS does. A candidate who cannot tell liberty’s friends from liberty’s enemies is not fit to be commander-in-chief.

I HAVE ARGUED THIS VERY THING FOR YEARS. 

I HAVE ESPECIALLY ARGUED THAT WE NEED TO TREAT SHARIA NATIONS WHICH CONDONE ISLAMO-MISOGYNY AS WE DID STATES WHICH TRADED IN SLAVES AND ALLOWED SLAVERY:

THESE NATIONS NEED TO BE UTTERLY SHUNNED BY THE FREE WORLD; BANNED FROM TRADE AND AL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.

BUT - IN MY OPINION - BECAUSE OUR ENEMIES 

1. ARE NOT ALL NATION-STATES, AND ARE 
2. NOT NECESSARILY CONNECTED BY ANYTHING MORE THAN A COMMITMENT TO THE HIDEOUS IDEOLOGY OF JIHADISM, AND
3. THE ATTACKS ARE OFTEN ASYMMETRIC - COSTING THE ENEMY VERY LITTLE AND COSTING US A LOT - 

WE NEED TO ADD MORE MORE ELEMENT: 

WE NEED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WHEN JIHADISTS FROM ANY JIHADIST GROUP LOCATED ANYWHERE ATTACK US OR OUR ALLIES ANYWHERE, THEN WE WILL RETALIATE ON ANY JIHADISTS ANYWHERE.

WE WASTE TOO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY TRYING TO CONNECT EACH ATTACK TO AN EXACT SET OF CONSPIRATORS AND TRYING TO PINPOINT A COUNTER-ATTACK ON ONLY THOSE CONSPIRATORS.

IN THE VAST SCHEME OF THINGS, IT REALLY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHARLIE HEDBO ATTACKS WERE PLANNED BY AQAP IN YEMEN OR ISIS IN SYRIA OR WERE LONE WOLVES ATTACKS CARRIED OUT BY SOCIOPATHS INSPIRED BY A VARIETY OF IMAMS ON THE INTERNET.

WHAT MATTERS IS THAT WE SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT ATTACKS ON US AND OUR ALLIES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND THAT WE WILL NOT BE BULLIED INTO SUBMISSION.

WHAT MATTERS IS THAT JIHADISTS AND WANNABE JIHADISTS LEARN THAT THEIR ATTACKS WILL NEVER SUCCEED AND WILL ONLY BRING THEM AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS AND THEIR SPIRITUAL AND FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS DISPROPORTIONATE SUFFERING DEATH AND DEFEAT.

AND THAT MEANS THAT:

• AFTER AN JIHADIST TERROR ATTACK...
• ON US OR OUR ALLIES...
• WE WILL SPEEDILY COUNTER-ATTACK... 
• AGAINST THE MOST OPPORTUNE JIHADIST TARGET AVAILABLE... 
• WITH AS MUCH DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE AS POSSIBLE... 
• THAT YIELDS THE LEAST POSSIBLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

FOR EXAMPLE: AN ATTACK BY ISIS IN FRANCE MIGHT BE COUNTERED BY BOMBING A BOKO HARAM CAMP IN NIGERIA.

FOR EXAMPLE: AN ATTACK BY AQAP IN SINAI MIGHT BE COUNTERED BY BOMBING AN MILF CAMP IN MINDANAO, OR A TALIBAN CAMP IN AFGHANISTAN.

AND THIS REQUIRES NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND, JUST MISSILES AND DRONES LAUNCHED BY THE US NAVY, AIR FORCE AND MARINES.

A GLOBAL PROBLEM REQUIRES A GLOBAL RESPONSE.

WHEN WE RESPOND GLOBALLY WE SEND A MESSAGE TO ALL THE JIHADISTS - OF EVERY VARIETY - AND ALL THE NATIONS WHICH HARBOR THEM OR AID THEM.

WE ESSENTIALLY TELL THE ENEMY:

IF WE ARE NOT SAFE, THEN YOU ARE NOT SAFE.

NOT YOU AND NOT ANYONE LIKE YOU, IDEOLOGICALLY.

PEOPLE BECOME JIHADISTS FOR THE SAME REASON PEOPLE BECOME LEFTISTS

The left have argued for years that poverty and the remnants of colonialism are what cause otherwise peaceful, sweet, tolerant, progressive Muslims to become jihadists who behead people or burn them alive with seemingly pious glee.

"if they had jobs, then they wouldn't become jihadists", the people on the left tell us.

It's a load of crap.

Binladen and Zawahiri and Atta (who led the 9/11 attacks) were all educated and well-to-do.

A jihadist is as likely to be rich as he is poor, educated as ignorant.

But they are all devout muslims emulating their prophet.

The search for a hidden reason these people chose jihadism is driven by puzzlement: It's simply strange to most people who live in the affluent, tolerant, post-enlightenment west that, given the choice of becoming educated, enlightened and affluent that anyone would choose a discredited ideology which has, for 1400 years, promulgated poverty, ignorance, misogyny, terror and war and general mayhem wherever it went.

So - to explain it away - leftists blame their favorite bogeymen: Imperialism; colonialism - which in  their minds includes Israel; and Western racism which  - in leftist ideology - created Third World poverty and the resulting widespread feelings of resentment of Third Worlders.

Again: this is just total crap. We might as well as why educated, affluent people in the west become leftists! After all, leftism gave us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol pot - even Saddam and Assad were Baathists and Baathism is socialist and therefore leftist. The fact is that leftism killed more people in the 20th century than any other Western ideology did in the preceding 20 centuries. Only Islam has killed more people, and islam is non-western and they had 14 centuries!

Despite the genocidal nature of leftism, and the fact that they have always failed to deliver the goods and have always made economies poorer many so-called intellectuals - many of whom were well-to-do - chose and continue to choose leftism.

Kim Philby, Bill Ayers, Ernesto Guevara, Alger Hiss, even Francois Hollande and Barack Hussein Obama Junior were all educated and relatively wealthy folks who chose to fight for an ideology which has committed genocide and impoverished and virtually enslaved hundreds of millions of people.

Why did they do this? Is it for the same reason other have chosen jihadism?

I think it is. I think these people are egomaniacal utopianists who think they can bring about a better world for everyone - "whether you like it or not" - and are so sure of it that they are willing to lie, cheat, murder, use terror and even commit treason and genocide.

When Obama lied 30 times and told us over and over that "if we liked our healthcare, then we could keep our healthcare - period ... " he was willing to lie because he was convinced his leftist program was for our own good - democracy and truth be damned.

It is this sense of superiority, elitism and the utopianist urge that drives some people to become leftists and others to become jihadists.

Libertarians and conservatives on the other hand believe that humans and society are imperfectable; therefore libertarians and conservatives endeavor to create, not a perfect place, but a "more perfect" one - meaning one that allows individuals and families as much freedom to make their own lives what they want them to be; one that allows us each to pursue happiness in our own way. This is why libertarian and conservatives are so adamant about defending the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution: because they specifically limit federal power and generally limit all governmental power while asserting the inviolability of the individual - not because we are each perfect, but because we are each unique and imperfect in our own way. And this is why our families, and communities and states and nations are also imperfect. We merely have to respect each other's innate rights and do our best to get along to thrive in a society of greatest liberty and bounty - after all, prosperity is a by-product of liberty.

What keeps this from becoming a reality are the utopianist bullies of the left and of jihadism.

That's why we must defeat both.

OLD QUESTION: WHY DOES ANYONE BECOME A JIHADIST? NEW QUESTION: WHY DOES ANYONE BECOME A LEFTIST?

THE LEFT HAVE ARGUED FOR YEARS THAT POVERTY AND THE REMNANTS OF COLONIALISM ARE WHAT CAUSE OTHERWISE PEACEFUL, SWEET, TOLERANT, PROGRESSIVE MUSLIMS TO BECOME JIHADISTS WHO BEHEAD PEOPLE OR BURN THEM ALIVE WITH SEEMINGLY PIOUS GLEE.

"IF THEY HAD JOBS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BECOME JIHADISTS", THE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT TELL US.

IT'S A LOAD OF CRAP.

BINLADEN AND ZAWAHIRI AND ATTA (WHO LED THE 9/11 ATTACKS) WERE ALL EDUCATED AND WELL-TO-DO.

A JIHADIST IS AS LIKELY TO BE RICH AS HE IS POOR, EDUCATED AS IGNORANT.

BUT THEY ARE ALL DEVOUT MUSLIMS EMULATING THEIR PROPHET.

THE SEARCH FOR A HIDDEN REASON THESE PEOPLE CHOSE JIHADISM IS DRIVEN BY PUZZLEMENT:

IT IS STRANGE TO MOST PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AFFLUENT, TOLERANT, POST-ENLIGHTENMENT WEST THAT, GIVEN THE CHOICE OF BEING AFFLUENT AND EDUCATED...

... ANYONE WOULD CHOOSE A DISCREDITED IDEOLOGY WHICH HAS FOR 1400 YEARS PROMULGATED AND REAPED POVERTY AND WAR, IGNORANCE, MISOGYNY, TERROR AND MAYHEM.

SO - TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY - LEFTISTS BLAME THEIR FAVORITE BOGEYMEN:

IMPERIALISM; COLONIALISM - WHICH IN  THEIR MINDS INCLUDES ISRAEL; AND WESTERN RACISM WHICH  - IN LEFTIST IDEOLOGY - CREATED THIRD WORLD POVERTY AND WIDESPREAD FEELINGS OF RESENTMENT IN THE THIRD WORLD AS A RESULT.

AGAIN: THIS IS JUST TOTAL CRAP.

WE MIGHT AS WELL AS WHY EDUCATED, AFFLUENT PEOPLE IN THE WEST BECOME LEFTISTS!

LEFTISM GAVE US STALIN AND HITLER, AND MAO, AND POL POT - EVEN SADDAM AND ASSAD WERE BAATHISTS AND BAATHISM IS SOCIALIST AND LEFTIST.

THE FACT IS THAT LEFTISM KILLED MORE PEOPLE IN THE 20TH CENTURY THAN ANY OTHER WESTERN IDEOLOGY IN THE PRECEDING 20 CENTURIES.

ONLY ISLAM HAS KILLED MORE PEOPLE, AND ISLAM IS NON-WESTERN AND THEY HAD 14 CENTURIES!

DESPITE THE GENOCIDAL NATURE OF LEFTISM, AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS FAILED TO DELIVER THE GOODS AND HAVE ALWAYS MADE ECONOMIES POORER...

MANY SO-CALLED INTELLECTUALS - MANY OF WHOM WERE WELL-TO-DO - CHOSE LEFTISM.

KIM PHILBY, BILL AYERS, ERNESTO GUEVARA, ALGER HISS, EVEN FRANCOIS HOLLANDE AND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JUNIOR WERE ALL EDUCATED AND RELATIVELY WEALTHY FOLKS WHO CHOSE TO FIGHT FOR AN IDEOLOGY WHICH HAS COMMITTED GENOCIDE AND IMPOVERISHED AND VIRTUALLY ENSLAVED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

WHY DID THEY DO THIS?

IS IT FOR THE SAME REASON OTHER HAVE CHOSEN JIHADISM?

I THINK IT IS.

I THINK THESE PEOPLE ARE EGOMANIACAL UTOPIANISTS WHO THINK THEY CAN BRING ABOUT A BETTER WORLD FOR EVERYONE - "WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT" - AND ARE SO SURE OF IT THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO LIE, CHEAT, MURDER, USE TERROR AND EVEN COMMIT TREASON AND GENOCIDE.

WHEN OBAMA LIED 30 TIMES AND TOLD US OVER AND OVER THAT "IF WE LIKED OUR HEALTHCARE, THEN WE COULD KEEP OUR HEALTHCARE - PERIOD ... " HE WAS WILLING TO LIE BECAUSE HE WAS CONVINCED HIS LEFTIST PROGRAM WAS FOR OUR OWN GOOD - DEMOCRACY AND TRUTH BE DAMNED.

IT IS THIS SENSE OF SUPERIORITY, ELITISM AND THE UTOPIANIST URGE THAT DRIVES SOME PEOPLE TO BECOME LEFTISTS AND OTHERS TO BECOME JIHADISTS.

LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES ON THE OTHER HAND BELIEVE THAT HUMANS AND SOCIETY ARE IMPERFECTABLE.

THEREFORE LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVATIVES ENDEAVOR TO CREATE NOT A PERFECT PLACE, BUT A "MORE PERFECT" ONE - ONE THAT ALLOWS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AS MUCH FREEDOM TO MAKE THEIR OWN LIVES WHAT THEY WANT THEM TO BE.

THAT'S WHY LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVES ARE SO ADAMANT ABOUT DEFENDING THE US DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE US CONSTITUTION:

BECAUSE THEY SPECIFICALLY LIMIT FEDERAL POWER AND GENERALLY LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL POWER WHILE ASSERTING THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

NOT BECAUSE WE ARE EACH PERFECT, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE EACH UNIQUE AND IMPERFECT IN OUR OWN WAY.

AND THIS IS WHY OUR FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES AND STATES AND NATIONS ARE ALSO IMPERFECT.

WE MERELY HAVE TO RESPECT EACH OTHER'S INNATE RIGHTS AND DO OUR BEST TO GET ALONG TO THRIVE IN A SOCIETY OF GREATEST LIBERTY AND BOUNTY.

AFTER ALL, PROSPERITY IS A BY-PRODUCT OF LIBERTY.

WHAT KEEPS THIS FROM HAPPENING ARE THE UTOPIANIST BULLIES OF THE LEFT AND OF JIHADISM.

WE MUST DEFEAT BOTH.

MIGHT A QUARANTINE OF ALL ISLAMIC NATIONS NOT FIGHTING JIHADISM MAKE ECONOMIC, MORAL, AND NATIONAL SECURITY SENSE?

ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY ISOLATING ISLAMIC NATIONS WHICH DON'T DO ENOUGH TO STOP ISLAMO-TERROR GROUPS - 

(OR WHICH TOLERATE ISLAMO-MISOGYNY, A FORM OF SLAVERY) -

WOULD PUT POWERFUL LEVERAGE ON THEM WHILE PROTECTING US.

THAT WOULD MEAN ENDING ALL TRADE WITH THEM AND BANNING THEM FROM ALL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS - SUCH AS THE UN, THE IMF, THE WB THE ICC THE WTO, ETC.

AND ENDING ALL IMMIGRATION AND TOURISM WITH THEM.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE SAUDI ARABIA, TURKEY, IRAQ, IRAN, INDONESIA, MALAYSIA, YEMEN, ET AL.

NOT EGYPT OR JORDAN - WHICH ARE ACTIVELY FIGHTING AND KILING THE ENEMY AND TAKING STEPS TO END THE ENEMY'S EFFORTS AT POLITICAL POWER WITHIN THEIR OWN NATION.

IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD TIME TO DO THIS WITH OIL NOW 50% LOWER THIS YEAR THAN LAST YEAR.

MORE HERE.

MORE HERE, TOO.

ALSO, MORE HERE.

INSTEAD OF A GASOLINE TAX, WHY NOT BAN "ISLAMIST OIL"?

HOT AIR:

With GDP on the rise, the unemployment rate falling, and gas prices lower than they have been in years, the public is finally starting to feel good about the economy. Despite the underreported fact that the labor participation rate is as low as it has been since 1977 and there are nearly 100 million Americans who are not participating in the labor market, those Americans who are working feel as good about the economy as they have since the mortgage market collapsed in 2008. 

These factors have also led American lawmakers on the left and the right to agree that it is a perfect time for new taxes. Specifically, a new tax on gasoline. 

Sorry, it’s not a “tax,” it’s a “user fee” for Americans who drive on highways with the aim of replenishing the depleted Highway Trust Fund. Just don’t think too hard about the millions of Americans who avoid highways or who use gasoline in tools like lawnmowers or gas-powered generators. For them, it’s no misnomer to call it a “tax.” 

For the political class in Washington, the biggest impediment to imposing new “fees” on the American public is the fact that they are often paying attention. Given the prevailing economic conditions, lawmakers have some reason to believe that average Americans are finally looking the other way.

INSTEAD OF  GASOLINE TAX, THEY SHOULD BAN OIL FROM NATIONS WHICH PRACTICE OR SANCTION SHARIA, AID JIHADISTS OR TERRORISTS, OR HAVE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MISOGYNY.

IOW: MOST ARAB/MUSLIM NATIONS.

IF SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN AND RUSSIA ARE GOOD, THEN SO TOO WOULD THIS BE GOOD.

MARZ FRAMES OTTAWA TERRORIST ATTACK AS A GUN CONTROL ARGUMENT

He's made a comment about the attack and near infiltration of a government office in the Canadian parliament by a jihadist, discussing the topic as if it were something a lot simpler:

Canada seems to be reeling and horrified by the kind of senseless gun violence America has sadly become desensitized to. #StaySafeOttawa
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 22, 2014

Here we go again. This was not a simple matter of a crackpot with no serious political leanings attacking politicians. This was a case of a Muslim convert who was influenced by the Koran (although his father was already a Muslim who'd taken part in Libyan jihad). Does Marz also think the massacre at Fort Hood was simply a superficial case of gun violence? The reality is that it's a case of homegrown jihadism that's eating up countries like Canada and Britain, and the USA. It should be noted that it was thanks to a RCMP member with a gun that the filthy jihadist in Canada was stopped before he could enter an office where a lot of politicians were gathered.

Here's also another tweet by Marz about Gamergate:

If you don't understand why #GamerGate is really about misogyny, ask your girlfriend to explain it to you.
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 22, 2014

Ah, but does Marz understand that books like Identity Crisis and Avengers: Disassembled are built on misogynistic components? Does he even come to terms with how degrading Emerald Twilight is? Sure, he's written a few books in the past with female leads, and co-stars who were just as prominent, at companies like the defunct Crossgen, and now at Top Cow/Image. But he's occasionally given signs he hasn't fully learned his lesson since the time he'd written Emerald Twilight and the fridge scene (like when he wrote the finale for the Kyle Rayner run in Green Lantern), and that makes it hard to be certain he really understands these issues as well as he could.

And what if mine/your girlfriend/wife/relative is somebody who doesn't care much for computer games, and when she decides to look into the topic further, finds it's more about biased, politicized journalism involving petty arguments on the least problematic elements like T&A, and a belief that partisan politics should be injected into computer games? What then? What if she also decides the 3 women involved aren't people she'd want to hang around either, or even some of the folks against Gamergate? And what if she couldn't care less that Intel decided to remove their ads from Gamasutra and had no interest in reading that dopey website anyway? Marz shouldn't assume every women takes the same position on video games, not even other leftists, some of whom could also be part of the Gamergate movement. But then, does that mean he does have a problem with leftists in comicdom who've tolerated misogyny? Unfortunately, he's never written an op-ed in the same vein as Chuck Dixon did about the industry complaining about issues like that, and it doesn't look like he'll ever try to speak out against bad things happening at the Big Two seriously, so I honestly don't know why he's bothering to lambast Gamergate.

Gracious, some of these #GamerGate supporters are saying mean things about me. Whatevah ... oh, I say, WHATEVAH ... shall I do?!
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 23, 2014

Okay, I'll offer some advice. Don't act like journalists are incapable of doing something bad and making mistakes. Besides, what were J. Jonah Jameson and Bethany Snow created for? And tone down all that leftism. Even some of Marz's fellow leftists may have done that already, and if they did, it could benefit comicdom better.

BIN LADEN, ZARQAWI, AHMADINEJAD, AND OTHER SO-CALLED "LEADERS" OF JIHADIST GROUPS ARE A DISTRACTION FROM CORE PROBLEM

MUCH HAS BEEN MADE OF LATE ABOUT HOW BJ CLINTON SAID - ON 9/10/01 - HE COULD HAVE KILLED BIN LADEN BUT DIDN'T.

MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT HOW OBAMA "GOT" BIN LADEN; "BIN LADEN IS DEAD AND GM IS ALIVE" BECAME A MANTRA OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.




AHMADINEJAD WAS VILIFIED BY MANY, AND MANY SEE HIS SUCCESSOR AS A PRESIDENT OF IRAN THE WEST CAN MAKE A DEAL WITH.

BUT IRAN IS NOT ANY EASIER TO DEAL WITH NOW THAT AHMADINEJAD IS GONE.

ALL THIS PERSONALIZATION OF THE CURRENT GLOBAL WAR IS A DISTRACTION FROM THE REAL CORE OF ENEMY'S POWER, AND THE REAL SOURCE OF THE THREAT WE FACE.

IT IS NOT A WHO; IT IS A WHAT.

IT MATTERS NOT WHO LEADS

• ISIS OR 
• IRAN OR 
• THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OR 
• HAMAS OR 
• BOKO HARAM OR 
• AL SHABAB OR 
• AQAP  

OR ANY OF THE OTHER JIHADIST GROUPS.

WHAT INSPIRES JIHADISM IS NOT THE CHARISMA OF CURRENT LEADERS, BUT A FUNDAMENTALIST, LITERAL DEVOTION TO ISLAM AND A DESIRE TO EMULATE ISLAM'S "PROPHET".

AND THAT'S WHAT MUST BE ERADICATED IF WE ARE EVER TO WIN THIS 1400 YEAR OLD WAR.

KILLING BIN LADEN DID NOT DECREASE GLOBAL JIHADISM OR JIHADIST ATTACKS ONE BIT.

IN FACT, SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE AND BEGAN HIS INCESSANT APPEASEMENT IF GLOBAL JIHAD JIHADIST ATTACKS HAVE STEADILY INCREASED.

WE NEED TO ATTACK JIHADISM, ISLAMO-MISOGYNY, AND ISLAMO-COLONIZATION AND ISLAMIFICATION EVERYWHERE USING EVERY TOOL: DIPLOMACY, SANCTIONS, AND WAR.

EVERY STRONGHOLD OF ISLAMISM SHOULD BE BOMBED TO SMITHEREENS: BOKO HARAM'S; ISIS'S; ALL OF THEM.

AND HERE IN THE WEST, THAT MEANS DEPORTING OR JAILING EVERY IMAM WHO CALLS FOR ESTABLISHING SHARIA AND ISLAM-ONLY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND A MORATORIUM OF MOSQUES IN THE WEST.

DEMOGRAPHICALLY SPEAKING, UNLESS THE WEST DOES THIS IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE EUROPE GOES THE WAY OF BYZANTIUM.

The conquest of Constantinople followed a seven-week siege
that had begun on Friday, 6 April 1453.

JUST SAYING...