Monday, January 23, 2017

HORRIFIC FLASHBACK: Muslim Parents Pour Acid Over Their Daughter for "Looking at a Boy."

She murdered her daughter for "honor"

This happened four-years ago in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

While this case is obviously extreme, honor killings and acid attacks against women by family members are fairly common in Pakistan, with thousands of them occurring each year.

One assumes these crimes are usually carried out by men. What makes this particular one even more horrific (if that's even possible) is that in this case, the mother seems to have been an equally guilty party. Indeed, she appears to have been the instigator.

Why so many families in Pakistan - many of them quite poor - have powerful acid stored in their homes is an interesting side question. 

There is so much horror in this news report - that terrible spot on the floor marking the location of the attack, the fact that the parents didn't even attempt to take their daughter to the hospital but rather hid her away as she suffered in agony, the grieving children, most of whom had no idea why their parents and sister were being taken away - the parents to prison, the sister to a hospital where she would later die.

And then of course, there's the almost calm expression on the mother's face as she matter-of-factly describes what happened and shows-off the splash burns on her arm:
Her mother Zaheen described the aftermath: "She (her daughter) said 'I didn't do it on purpose. I won't look again.' By then I had already thrown the acid. It was her destiny to die this way."
This young woman was murdered by her own parents for looking at a boy.

But I guarantee that those carrying the pro-Islam placards and signs at the recent Women's March do not "remember her name."

It was Anusha.

When a Feminist Threw Off Her Chador While Interviewing a Muslim Leader: "I'm going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now. There. Done."

Oriana Fallaci in 1963, with ever-present tape recorder and cigarette

Oriana Fallaci was arguably the premier interview journalist (male or female) of her time. Her Interview with History (1976), a compilation of her most famous interviews from the 1960's and 70's, was an almost required accessory for liberal coffee tables.

Fallaci self-identified as a feminist and indeed lived a sort of ideal feminist life as a successful, independent and outspoken writer, speaking truth to (usually male) power.

Most of her targets were "right-wing" leaders and governments. Famously, she had a romantic relationship with a leading member of the underground resistance during the dictatorship of the Greek Colonels.  

But by the time she died in 2006, she was vilified by most of the left, including the "official" feminist movement.

What happened?

Not much happened with Fallaci. It's true that at the end of her life she became more socially conservative on some issues, opposing abortion, for example. But the main thing is that she came to be identified as one of Italy's foremost opponents to Islam and the Islamization of the West.

Her views on Islam hadn't really changed. You can see the outlines of them in her interview with the Ayatollah Khomeini, below.

Rather, it was the left, and along with it, the feminist movement that had changed.

On the left, while it's true that there had always been an element that romanticized "third-world" ideologies and certain sorts of authoritarian movements, for a time those were kept in check by a general libertarianism, albeit its left-wing version. But over the years, as we we all know, most of that libertarian commitment faded.

The left used to champion free speech. Gradually it came to stand for censorship.

The left used to extoll the use of reason against all monotheistic religions (including Islam). That evolved into a hostility almost exclusively towards orthodox Christianity.   

At the same time, feminism become less about "women's issues" per se, and much more about adhering to and promoting the entire leftist line. Today, for example, you can be fervently "pro-choice" but be drummed out of the movement if you happen to be a contrarian on, say, the climate change issue.

Or if you are opposed to Islam.

As a Catholic, I obviously wouldn't agree with much of the leftist or feminist agenda of the 1970's. But there was a consistency, principle and, yes, honesty to it which the current leftist and feminist movements lack. In addition, back then, to be accepted as a member of either movement, you didn't have to follow the party line on everything. You could be Nat Hentoff (a social-justice activist and writer who opposed abortion).

No more.

Fallaci was disowned by the left. But in her last years she was adopted and welcomed by the anti-Islamization political opposition. She described herself as a "Christian-atheist," meaning, I think, that while she never publicly came to Christ or the Church, she came to appreciate what Christian civilization had brought to Europe as well as how much of what it created was at risk.

Read her two seminal books on Islam, The Rage and the Pride (2001) and The Force of Reason (2004). It's sharp stuff. Think of them as two book-length no holds barred interviews with Muhammed.

Then read Interview with History.

The following excerpt is from Fallaci's interview with the Ayatollah Khomeini, eight months after he took power in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I should say that one almost has sympathy for the aged tyrant as he keeps trying to retire from what has become a quite contentious grilling. "Now that's enough. I am tired, that's enough," Khomeini pleads, towards the end of the interview (shortly after the beginning of the portion quoted, below). But Fallaci keeps at it: "Please, Imam, there are many things I still want to ask you...."

The interview was published in the New York Times on October 7, 1979. This portion comes at about the two-thirds mark:
FALLACI: Death to Bakhtiar also (a transitional figure in the revolution), therefore. Imam Khomeini, haven't you ever forgiven anyone? Have you ever felt pity, sympathy for someone? And while we are at it, have you ever cried? 
KHOMEINI: I cry, I laugh, I suffer. Do you think I'm not a human being? With regard to forgiving: I pardoned the majority of those who caused us harm. I granted an amnesty to the police, to the gendarmes, to a lot of people. That is, to those who were not involved in torture or serious crimes. just granted an amnesty to the rebel Kurds. Thus I believe that I have demonstrated pity. But for those that we discussed before, there is no pardon, there is no pity. Now that's enough. am tired, that's enough. 
FALLACI: Please, Imam, there are many things I still want to ask you. For example, this chador that they made me put on, to come to you, and which you insist all women must wear. Tell me, why do you force them to hide themselves, all bundled up under these uncomfortable and absurd garments, making it hard to work and move about? And yet, even here, women have demonstrated that they are equal to men. They fought just like the men, were imprisoned and tortured. They, too, helped to make the revolution. 
KHOMEINI: The women who contributed to the revolution were, and are, women with the Islamic dress, not elegant women all made up like you, who go around all uncovered, dragging behind them a tail of men. The coquettes who put on makeup and go into the street showing off their necks, their hair, their shapes, did not fight against the Shah. They never did anything good, not those. They do not know how to be useful, neither socially, nor politically, nor professionally. And this is so because, by uncovering themselves, they distract men, and upset them. Then they distract and upset even other 
FALLACI: That's not true, Imam. In any case, I am not only talking about piece of clothing, but what it represents. That is, the condition of segregation into which women have been cast once again, after the revolution. The fact that they can't study at university with men, or work with men, for example, or go to the beach or to a swimming pool with men. They have to take a dip apart, in their chadors. By the way, how do you swim in a chador? 
KHOMEINI: This is none of your business. Our customs are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it. Because Islamic dress is for good and proper young women. 
FALLACI: That's very kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I'm going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now. There. Done. But tell me something. A woman such as I, who has always lived among men, showing her neck, her hair, her ears, who has been in war and slept in the front line in the field among soldiers, according to you, is she an immoral, bold and unproper woman? 
KHOMEINI: Your conscience knows the answer. I do not judge personal matters, I cannot know whether your life is moral or immoral, whether you behaved properly or not with the soldiers at the front. But I do know that, during my long lifetime, I have always been right about what I said. If this piece of clothing did not exist — the Islamic dress — women could not work in a useful and healthy way. And not even men. Our laws are valid laws. 
FALLACI: Even if the law permits man to have four wives, Imam? 
KHOMEINI: The law of the four wives is a very progressive law, and was written for the good of women, since there are more women than men. More women are born than men, and more men are killed in war than women. A woman needs a man, so what can we do, since there are more women than men in the world? Would you rather prefer that the excess number of women became whores — or that they married a man with other wives? And let me add another point. Even under the difficult conditions which Islam imposes on a man with two or three or four wives, there is equal treatment, equal affection, and equal time; this law is better than monogamy. 
FALLACI: But you are talking about laws and customs that go back 1,900 years ago, Imam Khomeini. Doesn't seem to you that the world has progressed since then? In observance of those laws, you have even resurrected the prohibition against music and alcohol. Tell me, why is it a sin to drink a glass of wine or beer, when you are thirsty or when you're eating? And why is listening to music a sin? Our priests drink and sing — even the Pope. Does this mean the Pope is a sinner? 
KHOMEINI: The rules of your priests do not interest me. Islam prohibits alcoholic drinks and that's all. It prohibits them in an absolute way, because drinking makes pet de lose their heads and impedes clear thinking. Even music dulls the mind, because involves pleasure and ecstasy, simi:ar to drugs. Your music, I mean. Usually your music has not exalted the spirit, it puts it to sleep. And it destructs our youth, who become poisoned by it, and then they no longer care about their country. 
FALLACI: Even the music of Bach, Beethoven, Verdi? 
KHOMEINI: I do not know those names...

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Pat Condell: "Feminists are such incorrigible whores to Islam. No offense."

Nice girls don't defend sharia

Pat Condell is always righteous. But this five-minute monologue about feminism and Islam is particularly good.

As an extra "treat," I have also attached a one-minute clip of "P**ssy Grabs Back" feminists at a German rally, doing the Allah-Akbar chant to a cheering crowd.

Condell calls it hypocrisy, which of course it is. But in turn, that prompts the question of why?

My feeling is that modern feminism isn't really about women's rights, just as the modern movement to promote and collaborate with Islam isn't about religious or human rights.

Rather, they're both merely about hatred. And one of the things feminism and Islam have in common is that they both embody hatred towards the same set of things - Christian values, liberal (in the good sense) values, tolerance and yes, even that much abused concept, diversity.

A Christian might sum it up by saying they both hate Christ. A non-Christian might sum it up by saying they both hate life.

We're both right.  


Saturday, January 21, 2017

When a New President, Dancing With His Wife, Was Cut In On by an Army Staff Sergeant

I found this part of last night's Armed Services Ball to be entertaining and even moving.

It began with Melania Trump making the best speech of the day. Here it is in its entirety:
Thank you all for your service. 
I am honored to be your first lady 
We will fight. We will win. And we will make America great again.
The mostly military audience loved it.

There is a certain amount of back and forth on the internet about whether comparing Melania Trump favorably to Michelle Obama is politically biased, sexist (overemphasizing her looks) or even racist. Now, Melania Trump is obviously a beautiful woman, as many also thought Michelle Obama was. But Melania also has an obvious grace, dignity and class that is quite striking and palpable. And that has nothing to do with politics or genes.

I'll take those three lines, above, over the last eight years of blather any time. And if you think the statement was brief because Mrs. Trump might have been at a loss for words, remember that she knows six languages.

Then the First Couple started to dance to the lovely Whitney Houston song, "I Will Always Love You." As is the tradition, they danced alone for a few minutes. Then Mr. and Mrs. Pence came out, followed shortly thereafter by their families.

But an equal number of unformed men and women from all branches of the military also walked out onto the stage. Two of them headed for the First Couple, where they proceeded to "cut in." And the others found partners among the family members.

The President danced with U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Catherine Cartmell of Newport, Rhode Island. Mrs. Trump danced with U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jose A. Medina of Ponce, Puerto Rico.

I wonder how one gets that honor. It will be quite a story for their kids.

If you haven't seen it already, I'll think you'll enjoy this short video.  

EXCLUSIVE: Shadilay! Pepe the Frog Hacks Women's March

UPDATE (3:25 PM CST): The hack is no more.

Today, thousands of fema-fascistos from all over the country descended on Washington for the post-inauguration "Women's March."

It's the Frumpsters vs. the Trumpsters.

They're marching against racial profiling, racist cops, abortion restrictions, climate change and Islamophobia. They're marching for Indians, unions, immigrants, transgenders, artists, Chicanas and endangered sea creatures.

I'm not sure why "Women" is in the title. Maybe it's just a marketing thing.   

The Women's March also has over 600 "Sister Marches" in all fifty states and many countries. Indeed, all seven continents are covered, with "eco-visitors" on an expedition ship actually holding two "marches" in the Ross Sea and the Antarctic Peninsula.

There's also a march in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Or so it seems.

This intrigued me when I saw it on the map. You can organize a leftist "Women's March" in Saudi Arabia? You can really do that?

But if one clicks through from the official site of the march, one finds that the Women's Sister March Riyadh is labeled "Shadilay - build the wall" and has a smiling and dancing Pepe the frog as its mascot. The Event was created by "Pepe The Frog" from "Pidgin, Saudi Arabia."

Pepe the Frog and his slogan "Shadilay" are surrealist alt-right pro-Trump memes.

The email contact for the march is a certain Hakim was actually interviewed three days ago for Romper:
"My friends and I have want to help the American women on their march against Donald Trump," wrote Aaminah Hakim, organizer of the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia sister march. "Unfortunately, we do not live in America; making us not able to match alongside the American women. But we can still march in solidarity with you! As of now, only a total of four of us (this including me) will march, but we hope to go as high as 1,000." More than 800 people have registered for the Riyadh march thus far.
Either Hakim is a sly Saudi-Arabian pro-Trump provocateur, or her particular page was hacked by Pepe. Either way, seeing Pepe the Frog dance a jig across Women's March Riyadh is very funny.

Of course, Islam is not very funny, especially for women. And people who march for women's rights while also marching for an ideology that is currently denying rights to hundreds of millions of women are also not very funny.

But that doesn't mean we can't laugh at them.


Friday, January 20, 2017

The Creepiest Defense Yet of Amoris Laetitia

Fr. Rogers of the College of Holy Cross

A certain Fr. Michael J. Rogers S.J. just published the creepiest defense yet of Amoris Laetitia. It was posted on Crux, which in fairness has published a diversity of views recently, some of them useful.

The basic idea of the article is that Catholic documents should read like the prose equivalents of 1970's era struggle sessions. Amoris is "murky," which is just how it should be. Teachers shouldn't teach by force unless you ask the wrong question, in which case you're expelled from the room and the rest of the class moves on.

The argument (such as it is) deserves mockery. Fr. Rogers deserves a class monitor. Not for his sake but for that of the kids. 

The actual text of the article is in black. My annotations are in red.
Pope Francis knew what he was doing in writing a document that provides few clear answers, while inviting the faithful to be concerned with the movements of the Spirit. He knows full well that life in the Spirit leads to the living of the law in its fullest, richest sense. Well, he didn't really write it, but fair enough. However, is this Catholicism or something else?
For three glorious years, I was a high school teacher. During those years I taught Religious Education to Freshmen and Sophomores at Boston College High School, and I have to admit that, while I genuinely loved my students and am still in touch with a good number of them, there was one type of question that came from them that I couldn’t stand. Glorious...genuinely loved my still in touch. This creeps me out.
Inevitably, I would get it before each test and usually, it had the same foundational reality foundational reality?. It would go something like this: “Mr. (I wasn’t a priest yet) Rogers, how do we answer the essay question?”
But there was no right or wrong way to answer the questions I posed them. There were certain guidelines that showed me that a student had engaged the material, had thought about it, and generally understood what it was about. Writing good essays (whatever the answers are supposed to be, or not supposed to be or whatever) is not merely about "engagement" with the material, etc. It's about giving logical arguments, expressing the arguments in good English, writing with effectiveness and style, and so on. And I should add, from someone who graded hundreds of philosophy papers, imprecision and ambiguity in defense of one's thesis, is usually a bad thing. Why was "Mr. Rogers" getting paid to not teach these things to his students? 
Some essays were, of course, better than others, but much more often than not they were good, honest attempts at answering the question such that the students received passing, and usually very good, grades. I'm sure being able to give "good, honest attempts" served his students well in college. 
The problem with the aforementioned question, though, was that underneath it was also the implicit question: “Could you please just give us the answer, or tell us what you want to hear so that we’ll get an A?” My students wanted answers. What idiots. But we still stay in touch. 
It’s not that easy. Actually, on certain issues, it is.
As any teacher will tell you, most of what you do when you try to teach is not merely delivering content nor is it pouring facts and figures into the brains of the youth so that they can spit them back. The educational project is rather about helping young people learn how to think and giving them the practical tools that they need to think critically. That's true to an extent, again depending on the subject or topic. But only to an extent. If you're teaching students the Catechism, you're teaching students the Catechism, not primarily teaching them to think critically about the Catechism.
It is never ultimately about passing a class, but rather, as most educators worth their salt will tell you, it is about passing at life. Puke. 
The image of those students, asking for the answers and not willing to struggle with the material Mao more than ever is, however, an image that came to mind several weeks ago when I deigned deigned? to post on twitter that the debate over Amoris Laetitia had gotten out of hand, and that it is time to accept the document and move on. What ever happened to thinking critically? 
The responses that I received pointed to a need for clarity, they demanded that I remove my tweet, and hounded me, many over the course of days, implying that such a lack of clarity was putting souls at risk. Full disclosure: I only made a few "demands" and they were written in pasted newsprint. And I only left ten messages on his cell phone, which I wouldn't call "hounding." 
The truth is that Amoris Laetitia is a murky document, it doesn’t give us quick and easy answers to our questions, and even famous footnote 351, which many take to be the place where the Holy Father allows divorced and remarried people to receive communion, is not obviously clear. This unfortunately reminds me of my kids' bathtub. But let's move on. 
Amoris Laetitia is a murky document second occurrence of "murky" - stop!, and how could it be anything but? It talks about some of the most wonderful and messy experiences of human life, places where things aren’t always immediately apparent, and where most of us are forced to simply do our best, hoping against hope that it is enough. Puke, again. Plus, divorce isn't wonderful, you stupid Jesuit. 
Pope Francis, having been both a pastor and a teacher before his role as universal teacher and pastor, knew full well what he was doing in writing a document which provides few clear answers while leaving the door open for the faithful to be concerned not so much with the letter of the law, but with the movements of the Spirit, knowing full well that life in the Spirit leads to the living of the law in its fullest, richest sense. That's deja-vu all over again (see the first paragraph, above). He taught writing? 
Of course, the problem with such an approach, in the classroom as much as in regular life, is that the obsession with having the correct answer, the need to be right, can often leave one missing the forest for the trees. People who seek the truth are irrationally obsessed. 
The need to be right, or more clever than the teacher my students tried to win, but I showed them means that those who worry about the famous footnote neglect that the document as a whole attempts to give families the tools that they need to never have to worry about that particular situation. Is he really arguing that people who truly "engage" with Amoris Laetitia will never get divorced?  
To paraphrase Cardinal Kevin Farrell in a recent Crux interview, the whole point of the document is to never have to concern oneself with being right about what footnote 351 does or doesn’t provide. Do you understand, Grasshopper?
If we spend time focused on one tree, or one footnote, we lose sight of the forest, or the document, which surrounds it. Yes master. I grock it. 
The goal of education, of teaching, whether it is in the classroom, the pulpit, or in a document like Amoris Laetitia, is not the memorization of rote facts, nor is it hoped that students will merely always be somehow justified because they are “right.”
Rather, the pedagogical enterprise is about imparting the skills and values that allow people to flourish as human beings. 
In short, the goal that is missed by so many critics of Amoris Laetitia is to help people be better rather than to be right.
The claim here, (such as it is) is insane. As if the Ten Commandments themselves should be criticized for literally inscribing rules into stone.
"Mr. Jesuit: Is it okay if I bludgeon my grandmother to death in order to steal her money and go on a date with Suzy?"
"I think it's better if you learn that for yourself."
"Mr. Jesuit: Is it okay if I sleep with Suzy tonight?"
"There are no right or wrong answers."
"Mr. Jesuit: Is it okay if I sleep with Johnny tonight?"
"That's a good question. Let's discuss it privately in my office."

I Was Alive and I Waited for This

Right here, right now.

In one hour, Donald Trump will take the Oath of Office.

Here is the Fox News Schedule (all times are in Eastern) for the remainder of the festivities. For all of its issues, Fox News is still the place to watch.
Friday, January 20 
8:30 a.m. - Private prayer service for Trump and his family at St. John’s Episcopal Church 
9:30 a.m. - Coffee date at the White House between the incoming and outgoing presidents 
11:30 a.m. - Swearing-in ceremony, with performances by Jackie Evancho, The Rockettes and more 
12:00 p.m. - Oath of office and Trump's inaugural address 
Afterward, Trump and Pence will attend the Congressional Lunch in the Capitol. 
3:00 p.m. - Inaugural parade 
7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. - Inaugural balls, which will be attended by the president-elect, vice president-elect and their wives. Below is information from the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee: 
The President-elect and Mrs. Trump and Vice President-elect and Mrs. Pence plan to attend all three inaugural balls to join in ringing in a new day in America.
Liberty and Freedom: The Official Presidential Inaugural Balls will take place at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center and, for the first time ever, the Presidential Inaugural Committee will provide all television networks the right to freely air the live two-hour show simultaneously in both balls, allowing Americans throughout the country to watch the President’s remarks and first dance with the First Lady. 
Liberty and Freedom: The Official Presidential Inaugural Balls will also feature special appearances from Sam Moore, Tim Rushlow and his Big Band, Silhouettes, The Rockettes, Pelican212, The Piano Guys, Circus 1903, Cache Olson, Lexi Walker, and Erin Boheme. The Salute to Our Armed Services Ball will feature special performances from Tony Orlando and Josh Weathers. 
The Salute To Our Armed Services Ball will take place at the National Building Museum. This ball is by invitation only, and tickets are being provided free of charge by the Presidential Inaugural Committee to invited guests, who include active duty and reserve military, Medal of Honor recipients, wounded warriors, military families, veterans, and first responders. 
Saturday, January 21 
10:00 a.m. - National Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral... we'll have LIVE coverage throughout the day starting at 6:00 a.m. ET on "Fox & Friends Weekend" and followed at 10:00 a.m. ET by Neil Cavuto on "The Cost of Freedom." 
You can also watch the ceremonies live at or on the Fox News Facebook page and interact with us on Twitter using #Trump45.