Police Praise Homeowner for Shooting Home Invasion Suspect, Saving Family


Police in Warren, Ohio, praised a homeowner who shot a home invasion suspect in order to defend his family early Tuesday morning.

WKBN reports that Ken and Heather York were asleep when their dog began to growl and they heard the sound of glass breaking. Ken observed, “He was making all kinds of noise. I thought burglars were supposed to be quiet.”

Ken then armed himself and confronted the suspect, 48-year-old Billy Morrow, Sr.

Ken said Morrow looked at the gun and allegedly said, “What size gun is that?” Ken responded, “Big enough to kill you.” He said Morrow responded by allegedly charging at him.

So Ken fired once, striking Morrow in the arm, ending the alleged threat.

Afterward Ken said, “What are you supposed to do? I can buy other sh**, but I can’t replace my life or hers.”

The Youngstown Vindicator reports that Warren Police Department Capt. Robert Massucci said Ken fired “just out of fear of this guy.” Massucci praised the way York handled the situation.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Chuck Grassley to Chief Justice John Roberts: You Rebuked Trump — But Sat Silent Through Obama’s Abuse


U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts offered rare public criticism of the President of the United States on Wednesday when he pushed back against President Trump’s claim Tuesday that an “Obama judge” had blocked his effort to deny asylum to those entering the country illegally.

But as outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) later noted, Roberts was silent when President Barack Obama attacked the Court during the State of the Union address in 2010:

Likewise, Roberts said nothing when Obama bullied the Supreme Court on numerous occasions — and even appeared to yield to Obama’s pressure.

In 2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.

With six of the nine justices sitting silently in the House of Representatives, Obama told the nation their ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

Democrats leapt to their feet in applause. Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words, “Not true” — and never attended another State of the Union address.

But Roberts said and did nothing to defend the Court from Obama’s unprecedented assault on its independence.

In April 2012, when oral arguments in the Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius) appeared to go against the administration, Obama warned the Supreme Court against overturning the law, attacking the very idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” His aides later scrambled to explain that the president — once a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago — certainly accepted the idea of judicial review.

But Roberts did not defend the court’s prerogatives. In fact, Roberts buckled, effectively rewriting the law to save Obamacare — perhaps even reversing his original vote.

On Monday evening, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from implementing President Trump’s November 9 proclamation that asylum requests would no longer be granted to those arriving in the U.S. illegally. In speaking to reporters, Trump criticized the decision of the “Obama judge,” adding that he considered it a “disgrace.”

On Tuesday, in response to queries from the Associated Press, Chief Justice Roberts said in a statement: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” His views were widely reported as a rebuke to the president himself.

In response, Trump tweeted — with unusually restrained language — that Roberts was wrong, and that President Obama’s appointees, along with the courts of the Ninth Circuit more generally, were reliably opposed to all of his immigration policies. That made those courts the forums of choice for radical left-wing groups favoring amnesty — and they were frequently wrong, he implied, as judged by how frequently they were reversed.

Trump later added:

Though Trump has often criticized judges, raising concerns during the election about his commitment to judicial independence, in practice he has arguably shown greater deference to the courts than Obama, even earning praise from the judge who stopped the family separation policy at the border.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

You don’t need anyone’s help to “survive” Thanksgiving

Tomorrow, most of the nation will pause to give thanks and spend time with friends, family and loved ones. For some of you who apparently spend more time soaking in the political pool than is good for your mental health, this apparently creates a number of challenges. It’s become something of an annual tradition for authors to offer sage advice on how you can “survive” Thanksgiving if you are forced to share a meal with family members who don’t share your political persuasions. You find examples everywhere, and it’s not just conservatives versus liberals or Democrats against Republicans. There are guides out there telling you how to “survive” dinner if you’re a vegan.

Twitter is chock full of such dispensers of wisdom.

Predictably, the New York Times was ready to help the progressive masses cope with their Trump-loving relatives.

Don’t mention President Trump

A SurveyMonkey audience poll conducted last year found that Mr. Trump was the biggest culprit in hijacking Thanksgiving dinner, with 37 percent of respondents saying mention of the president was most likely to start an argument.

The feeling cut across party lines, with Mr. Trump the most common answer among self-identified Democrats, Republicans and independents.

(If you’re wondering: In 2014, 11 percent of Americans indicated that President Barack Obama was most likely to spur an argument.)

Allow me to offer a slightly different perspective. We, as humans, spend a significant portion of our collective effort attempting to solve problems which we created for ourselves. You have zero need to discuss anything to do with politics at the Thanksgiving dinner table. If somebody brings it up, the rest of the group can agree to give them an exasperated look, mixed with comments along the lines of, “Really? We’re trying to eat dinner.”

If the rest of the family isn’t inclined to go along with the no-politics policy, pick your plate up and go into another room to eat and flip on the television. I bet there’s a football game on. It might just give the rest of them a clue.

And if you’re the one who suddenly feels the urge to chime in on the relative evil or greatness of the President, you have a safety mechanism at hand. Grab your fork, pick up a big chunk of turkey, potatoes and stuffing and shove it in your mouth. Be sure to chew your food at least fifteen times before swallowing so you can enjoy every morsel. In other words, shut up.

It’s Thanksgiving. You don’t need to convert everyone to your cause, nor do you need to tolerate others trying to do so to you. This isn’t a problem unless you participate in making it one. Be thankful. Remember that you are surrounded by the people who are supposed to be your most fundamental support network, just as you are supposed to be part of theirs. This isn’t long division, people. Eat drink and be merry for at least once per year.

The post You don’t need anyone’s help to “survive” Thanksgiving appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Report: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Pushed A Top Executive To Publicly Disavow Support For Trump, Then Fired Him


In one of the most shocking stories to get little media coverage this year, The Wall Street Journal reported ten days ago that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg pressured a top executive at his company to apologize for his support of President Trump in the 2016 election, and issue a letter just before that election explaining that he had switched his support to libertarian Gary Johnson.

According to reporters Kirsten Grind and Keach Hagey, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says that he was put on leave and then fired for his support for Trump. The Journal reported:

In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the donation simmered, Facebook executives including Mr. Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s yearslong support of Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the conversations and internal emails viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Luckey ended up negotiating a $100 million settlement, an acceleration of stock awards and bonuses that he would have received thanks to his sale of Oculus VR to Facebook in 2014. Facebook, for its part, denied that Luckey was fired for his political views. But Luckey was a supporter of President Trump’s for years, going back to 2011, when he urged Trump to run for president by mail. In September 2016, The Daily Beast reported that Luckey had given a $10,000 donation to NimbleAmerica, an anti-Hillary ad group focused on trolling the Democratic candidate. Luckey then apparently posted on a Reddit chain under a pseudonym regarding Clinton:

Hillary Clinton is corrupt, a warmonger, a freedom-stripper. Not the good kind you see dancing in bikinis on Independence day, the bad kind that strips freedom from citizens and grants it to donors.

Facebook employees complained about Luckey both via message boards and at a town hall, with engineering director Srinivas Narayanan writing, “Multiple women have literally teared up in front of me in the last few days,” and some developers stating that they wouldn’t work with Luckey. Luckey denied he had posted about Clinton under a pseudonym, and added that he was a libertarian who would vote for Gary Johnson.

The Journal report continues:

“I need to tell you that Mark [Zuckerberg] himself drafted this and details are critical,” Facebook Deputy General Counsel Paul Grewal wrote to a lawyer for Mr. Luckey in a September 2016 email, attaching an early draft of the statement, according to the emails reviewed by the Journal. The draft said Mr. Luckey wouldn’t be supporting Mr. Trump in the election. Mr. Luckey has told people he did vote for Mr. Johnson, but only to avoid having his credibility questioned if he was asked about the issue under oath in unrelated litigation. The apology went through many drafts, and Mr. Luckey ultimately approved changes suggested by Facebook, according to people familiar with the process.

Facebook has consistently denied political bias in its programming. But Zuckerberg himself has admitted the company’s left-leaning tendencies, explaining to Congress that Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place.” Conservative companies have accused Facebook of tailoring its algorithms politically, damaging conservative traffic particularly in early 2017; according to Western Journal, Facebook has now corrected its algorithms to distribute traffic more equitably. Still, Silicon Valley’s overwhelming Leftist bias has been on full display in cases ranging from Twitter’s banning process to Google’s firing of James Damore. The story of Palmer Luckey is just another black mark on Silicon Valley’s record.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

On Thanksgiving, Holiday Survey Reveals Americans Find Family Most Meaningful


Just in time for the quintessential American holiday Pew Research Center released the results of a survey to find out what people find most meaningful in their lives.

And as we gather around Thanksgiving tables across the country, it turns about family tops the list for most of us.

Pew conducted two surveys in late 2017; one asking open-ended questions to allow respondents to say in their own words what made life most meaningful and another that let them pick from a list of choices.

“Across both surveys, the most popular answer is clear and consistent: Americans are most likely to mention family when asked what makes life meaningful in the open-ended question, and they are most likely to report that they find “a great deal” of meaning in spending time with family in the closed-ended question,” Pew reported.

But aside from family, Americans had a wide range of what is important in their lives — one third cited career, nearly a quarter said stable finances and one in five named their religious faith, friendships, hobbies and activities as important to their happiness.

There were, however, more nuanced answers that reveal what makes Americans find meaning in their lives.

Pew reported: 

In the closed-ended question, the most commonly cited sources that provide Americans with “a great deal” of meaning and fulfillment (after family) include being outdoors, spending time with friends, caring for pets and listening to music. By this measure, religious faith ranks lower, on par with reading and careers. But among those who do find a great deal of meaning in their religious faith, more than half say it is the single most important source of meaning in their lives. Overall, 20 percent of Americans say religion is the most meaningful aspect of their lives, second only to the share who say this about family (40 percent).

Among the other key findings from the surveys:

• Americans with high levels of household income and educational attainment are more likely to mention friendship, good health, stability, and travel. A quarter of Americans who earn at least $75,000 a year mention their friends when asked to describe, in their own words, what makes life meaningful, compared with 14 percent of Americans who earn less than $30,000 each year. Similarly, 23 percent of higher-income U.S. adults mention being in good health, compared with 10 percent of lower-income Americans. And among those with a college degree, 11 percent mention travel and a sense of security as things that make their lives fulfilling, compared with 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, who name these sources of meaning among those with a high school degree or less.

  Politically conservative Americans are more likely than liberals to find meaning in religion, while liberals find more meaning in creativity and causes than do conservatives. Spirituality and faith are commonly mentioned by very conservative Americans as imbuing their lives with meaning and fulfillment; 38 percent cite it in response to the open-ended question, compared with just 8 percent of very liberal Americans – a difference that holds even when controlling for religious affiliation. By contrast, the closed-ended question finds that very liberal Americans are especially likely to derive “a great deal” of meaning from arts or crafts (34 percent) and social and political causes (30 percent), compared with rates of 20 percent and 12 percent among very conservative Americans.

• Regardless of their particular religious denomination, black Americans are more likely than others to mention faith and spirituality when describing (in the open-ended question) what gives them a sense of meaning.3 Fully three-in-ten black Americans (30 percent) mention spirituality and faith, compared with 20 percent of whites and 15 percent of Hispanics.

• Younger Americans less likely to mention religion, but draw more meaning from learning than older Americans. Just 10 percent of U.S. adults under age 30 mention spirituality, faith or God when describing (in the open-ended question) what affects their sense of meaning. By contrast, three-in-ten adults ages 65 and older mention religion when describing what makes their life meaningful and fulfilling.

You can find the methodology for the Pew survey here.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

When Muslims Rape European White Women, Whose Fault Is It?


European women are to blame for being raped by Muslim men.  Such is the latest position – the latest apologia – being offered by those dedicated to exonerating undesirable Muslim behavior, particularly in the context of accepting more Muslim migrants into the West.


On October 14, seven Muslim migrants raped a teenage German girl in a park, after drugging her at a disco in Freiburg.  (At least she survived; in a similar case that occurred a week earlier in Italy, the drugged rape victim was left murdered.)  Bernhard Rotzinger, the police chief of Freiburg, responded by saying, “We cannot offer citizens an all-risk insurance [against crime], but I can advise this: Don’t make yourself vulnerable by using alcohol or drugs.”



Similarly, after mobs of Muslim migrants sexually assaulted as many as one thousand women on New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany, the city’s mayor, Henriette Reker, called on the women, the victims – not their male rapists – to make changes: “The women and young girls have to be more protected in the future so these things don’t happen again.  This means they should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up.  For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves.”


Such advice against alcohol, drugs, and reckless behavior would be more respectable had it not been made under duress.  As it is, it is a cop-out.  Or, as a November 8 report discussing the aforementioned rape in Freiburg puts it, “[t]he focus on prevention is a good thing, but also shows how German authorities and media barely hold the migrant crisis responsible for the disaster that is unfolding in Germany.  Political correctness has caused officials to put the blame for the criminal acts on the women instead of Merkel’s guests.”


These are hardly the first times officials “put the blame for the criminal acts [of Muslim men] on the women.”  Nor is this phenomenon limited to Germany.  For instance, after a 20-year-old Austrian woman waiting at a bus stop in Vienna was attacked, beaten, and robbed by four Muslim men – including one who “started [by] putting his hands through my hair and made it clear that in his cultural background there were hardly any blonde women” – police responded by telling the victim to dye her hair:


At first I was scared, but now I’m more angry than anything.  After the attack they told me that women shouldn’t be alone on the streets after 8pm.  And they also gave me other advice, telling me I should dye my hair dark and also not dress in such a provocative way.  Indirectly that means I was partly to blame for what happened to me.  That is a massive insult.


Likewise, Unni Wikan, a female professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo in Norway, insists that “‘Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes,’ because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative.  The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: ‘Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.'”


So much for the feminist claim that women are free to dress and behave as promiscuously and provocatively as they want – and woe to any man who dares cite this as justifying his sexual aggression.  Apparently, this feminist refrain does not apply to Muslim men.


But perhaps the greater irony of all these excuses is that, from the very start of Islam 14 centuries ago, European women – even chaste nuns – have always been portrayed by Muslims as sexually promiscuous by nature.


This is easily discerned by examining medieval Muslim perceptions – and subsequent treatment – of European women, as documented throughout Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (see American Thinker review here).  Consider Muslim views concerning neighboring Byzantine women, who came to represent all European or Christian women to Islam.


As one Western academic of Muslim origin (rather euphemistically) explains:


The Byzantines as a people were considered fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origins were highly valued. … The Arabs’ appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed.  For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet).  Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar [the yellow (haired?) or pale people]?”


Muhammad’s question was meant to entice the man to join the Tabuk campaign against the Romans and reap its rewards – in this case, the sexual enslavement of attractive women. In other words, as “white-complexioned blondes, with straight hair and blue eyes,” to quote another academic, Byzantine women were not so much “appreciated” or “highly valued” as they were lusted after.  (All quotes in this article are sourced from and documented in Sword and Scimitar.)


Any sense of compliment ends there.  Muslims habitually portrayed Europe’s Christian women, as contemptible and corrupt infidels, beginning with those they first encountered in neighboring Byzantium, as sexually promiscuous by nature – perhaps simply to support the fantasy that they were eager to be sexually enslaved.  Thus, for Abu Uthman al-Jahiz (b. 776), a prolific court scholar, the females of Constantinople were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; “they find sex more enjoyable” and “are prone to adultery.”  Abd al-Jabbar (b. 935), another prominent scholar, claimed that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium” – so much so that even “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”


For all these reasons and more, European women, typified by neighboring Eastern Roman women, became Islam’s “beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control,” as Nadia Maria el-Cheikh, author of Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs, explains:


Our [Arab-Muslim] sources show not Byzantine women but writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female – constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity.  In our texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality[.] … While the one quality that our [Muslim] sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative.


Such fevered fantasies – which “are clearly far from Byzantine reality” – existed only in the minds of Muslim men and “must be recognized for what they are: attempts to denigrate and defame a rival culture. … In fact, in Byzantium, women were expected to be retiring, shy, modest, and devoted to their families and religious observances. … The behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.”


Clearly, little has changed some 1,400 years after the founding of Islam: European women continue to be seen as naturally promiscuous and thus provoking Muslim men into raping them.


Thus, in the United Kingdom, a Muslim man explained to a British woman why he was raping her: “you white women are good at it.”  Another Muslim man called a 13-year-old virgin “a little white slag” – British slang for “loose, promiscuous woman” – before raping her.


In Germany, a group of Muslim “refugees” stalked a 25-year-old woman, hurled “filthy” insults at her, and taunted her for sex.  They too explained their logic to her – “German girls are just there for sex” – before reaching into her blouse and groping her.  A Muslim man who almost killed his 25-year-old German victim while raping her – and shouting “Allah!” – asked afterward if she enjoyed it.


In Austria, an “Arabic-looking man” approached a 27-year-old woman at a bus stop, pulled down his pants, and “all he could say was sex, sex, sex,” prompting the woman to scream and flee. 


In Australia, a Muslim cabbie groped and insulted his female passengers, including by saying, “All Australian women are sluts and deserve to be raped.


In short, the ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of European women is alive and well – irrespective of the latter’s behavior – and continues justifying the Muslim rape of Western women. 


Yet, even in this, Islam can turn to those “progressive,” godless elements that dominate Western society for cover.  For, just as “the Left” has worked long and hard to portray Islamic intolerance, violence, and terrorism as the West’s fault – because of the crusades, because of colonialism, because of cartoons, because of Israel, because of freedom of speech – it now adds “because of Western promiscuity” to the list of reasons that “provoke” Muslims to behave like Muslims.


(For many more examples of Muslims sexually objectifying Western women throughout history, see the author’s new book, Sword and Scimitar.)










European women are to blame for being raped by Muslim men.  Such is the latest position – the latest apologia – being offered by those dedicated to exonerating undesirable Muslim behavior, particularly in the context of accepting more Muslim migrants into the West.


On October 14, seven Muslim migrants raped a teenage German girl in a park, after drugging her at a disco in Freiburg.  (At least she survived; in a similar case that occurred a week earlier in Italy, the drugged rape victim was left murdered.)  Bernhard Rotzinger, the police chief of Freiburg, responded by saying, “We cannot offer citizens an all-risk insurance [against crime], but I can advise this: Don’t make yourself vulnerable by using alcohol or drugs.”


Similarly, after mobs of Muslim migrants sexually assaulted as many as one thousand women on New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany, the city’s mayor, Henriette Reker, called on the women, the victims – not their male rapists – to make changes: “The women and young girls have to be more protected in the future so these things don’t happen again.  This means they should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up.  For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves.”


Such advice against alcohol, drugs, and reckless behavior would be more respectable had it not been made under duress.  As it is, it is a cop-out.  Or, as a November 8 report discussing the aforementioned rape in Freiburg puts it, “[t]he focus on prevention is a good thing, but also shows how German authorities and media barely hold the migrant crisis responsible for the disaster that is unfolding in Germany.  Political correctness has caused officials to put the blame for the criminal acts on the women instead of Merkel’s guests.”


These are hardly the first times officials “put the blame for the criminal acts [of Muslim men] on the women.”  Nor is this phenomenon limited to Germany.  For instance, after a 20-year-old Austrian woman waiting at a bus stop in Vienna was attacked, beaten, and robbed by four Muslim men – including one who “started [by] putting his hands through my hair and made it clear that in his cultural background there were hardly any blonde women” – police responded by telling the victim to dye her hair:


At first I was scared, but now I’m more angry than anything.  After the attack they told me that women shouldn’t be alone on the streets after 8pm.  And they also gave me other advice, telling me I should dye my hair dark and also not dress in such a provocative way.  Indirectly that means I was partly to blame for what happened to me.  That is a massive insult.


Likewise, Unni Wikan, a female professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo in Norway, insists that “‘Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes,’ because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative.  The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: ‘Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.'”


So much for the feminist claim that women are free to dress and behave as promiscuously and provocatively as they want – and woe to any man who dares cite this as justifying his sexual aggression.  Apparently, this feminist refrain does not apply to Muslim men.


But perhaps the greater irony of all these excuses is that, from the very start of Islam 14 centuries ago, European women – even chaste nuns – have always been portrayed by Muslims as sexually promiscuous by nature.


This is easily discerned by examining medieval Muslim perceptions – and subsequent treatment – of European women, as documented throughout Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (see American Thinker review here).  Consider Muslim views concerning neighboring Byzantine women, who came to represent all European or Christian women to Islam.


As one Western academic of Muslim origin (rather euphemistically) explains:


The Byzantines as a people were considered fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origins were highly valued. … The Arabs’ appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed.  For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet).  Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar [the yellow (haired?) or pale people]?”


Muhammad’s question was meant to entice the man to join the Tabuk campaign against the Romans and reap its rewards – in this case, the sexual enslavement of attractive women. In other words, as “white-complexioned blondes, with straight hair and blue eyes,” to quote another academic, Byzantine women were not so much “appreciated” or “highly valued” as they were lusted after.  (All quotes in this article are sourced from and documented in Sword and Scimitar.)


Any sense of compliment ends there.  Muslims habitually portrayed Europe’s Christian women, as contemptible and corrupt infidels, beginning with those they first encountered in neighboring Byzantium, as sexually promiscuous by nature – perhaps simply to support the fantasy that they were eager to be sexually enslaved.  Thus, for Abu Uthman al-Jahiz (b. 776), a prolific court scholar, the females of Constantinople were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; “they find sex more enjoyable” and “are prone to adultery.”  Abd al-Jabbar (b. 935), another prominent scholar, claimed that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium” – so much so that even “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”


For all these reasons and more, European women, typified by neighboring Eastern Roman women, became Islam’s “beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control,” as Nadia Maria el-Cheikh, author of Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs, explains:


Our [Arab-Muslim] sources show not Byzantine women but writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female – constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity.  In our texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality[.] … While the one quality that our [Muslim] sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative.


Such fevered fantasies – which “are clearly far from Byzantine reality” – existed only in the minds of Muslim men and “must be recognized for what they are: attempts to denigrate and defame a rival culture. … In fact, in Byzantium, women were expected to be retiring, shy, modest, and devoted to their families and religious observances. … The behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.”


Clearly, little has changed some 1,400 years after the founding of Islam: European women continue to be seen as naturally promiscuous and thus provoking Muslim men into raping them.


Thus, in the United Kingdom, a Muslim man explained to a British woman why he was raping her: “you white women are good at it.”  Another Muslim man called a 13-year-old virgin “a little white slag” – British slang for “loose, promiscuous woman” – before raping her.


In Germany, a group of Muslim “refugees” stalked a 25-year-old woman, hurled “filthy” insults at her, and taunted her for sex.  They too explained their logic to her – “German girls are just there for sex” – before reaching into her blouse and groping her.  A Muslim man who almost killed his 25-year-old German victim while raping her – and shouting “Allah!” – asked afterward if she enjoyed it.


In Austria, an “Arabic-looking man” approached a 27-year-old woman at a bus stop, pulled down his pants, and “all he could say was sex, sex, sex,” prompting the woman to scream and flee. 


In Australia, a Muslim cabbie groped and insulted his female passengers, including by saying, “All Australian women are sluts and deserve to be raped.


In short, the ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of European women is alive and well – irrespective of the latter’s behavior – and continues justifying the Muslim rape of Western women. 


Yet, even in this, Islam can turn to those “progressive,” godless elements that dominate Western society for cover.  For, just as “the Left” has worked long and hard to portray Islamic intolerance, violence, and terrorism as the West’s fault – because of the crusades, because of colonialism, because of cartoons, because of Israel, because of freedom of speech – it now adds “because of Western promiscuity” to the list of reasons that “provoke” Muslims to behave like Muslims.


(For many more examples of Muslims sexually objectifying Western women throughout history, see the author’s new book, Sword and Scimitar.)




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Illegal Deported 2 Years Ago Arrested in Murder of Store Clerk in Houston


An illegal immigrant, who was back in the country after being deported in 2016, is being charged in the murder of a convenience store clerk during an armed robbery in Houston.

Jose Bonilla-Ortiz, 18, was arrested on Saturday in the fatal, Nov. 10 shooting of 48-year-old Faruk Bhuiya, according to local KTRK-TV.

Bonilla-Ortiz was caught on surveillance video entering the convenience store with another unidentified man, the station reported.

TRENDING: Watch: Crazed Antifa Woman with Purple Hair Punches, Spits at, Tries To Assault #HimToo Activist

Bonilla-Ortiz and Bhuiya struggled over a security door that the Bhuiya tried to close, according to prosecutors.

Then, Bonilla-Ortiz fired once and struck Bhuiya in the face, who then died at the scene.

Bhuiya’s widow, Phyllis Bhuiya, offered her sympathy for the suspect’s mother, according to The Houston Chronicle.

“I feel bad for this boy’s mother. His life is ruined. Ruined for nothing, absolutely nothing,” Bhuiya said.

Is it time to end illegal immigration?

However, Bhuiya wants Bonilla-Ortiz to pay for the crime.

“I want him punished for what he did. He didn’t just take my husband. He took someone’s son, someone’s stepfather,” she said. “He wasn’t just my husband. He was a lot of things to a lot of people.”

Bonilla-Ortiz, who is being held at a $250,000 bond, was previously deported two years ago, according to the Chronicle.

He is originally from Honduras, KTRK reported.

RELATED: Video: Furious Mexicans Protest Caravan Illegals, Head to Shelter To ‘Kick Them Out’

Yet he was back in the country, to allegedly kill a man who was also an immigrant to the United States — from Bangladesh.

While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals, it’s undeniable that this senseless tragedy could’ve been avoided with proper immigration control.

There is absolutely no reason to be permissive toward illegal immigration, especially when some of them are bound to be violent.

This isn’t the only tragedy that could have been avoidable with proper immigration policy.

On Sunday, a police officer was shot at by an illegal immigrant in Arkansas during a traffic stop. Thankfully, he survived, but that’s not the case for many other victims.

Previously, President Donald Trump came under fire from the left-wing establishment media for a campaign ad showing an illegal immigrant bragging about murdering two police officers.

“Who else will Democrats let in?” the ad asked.

After every single tragedy, Democrats remain unconcerned about who illegally enters our country.

It’s time to stop the madness and take control of our borders.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Seattle Law School Stops ICE Internship Program To Prevent Illegal Alien Students From Feeling ‘Unsafe’


All about feelings.

Via Law and Crime:

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, commonly known as ICE, is no longer welcome at the Seattle University School of Law due to its “current policies and practices.” The school has announced that it has suspended an externship program law students were previously able to participate in for course credit and work experience after concerns were raised to school administrators that ICE’s presence on campus could frighten undocumented students.

According to the Seattle Times, a third-year law student named Alex Romero, who hopes to become an immigration lawyer, spotted ICE reps at an externship fair table in September and was unnerved by it. The Romero complained to administrators that this might scare undocumented students and said ICE’s presence runs counter to the school’s mission.

The school, a Jesuit Catholic private university, didn’t immediately make a decision about the program. Romero told the school newspaper, the Seattle Spectator, that he “prepared arguments on why this is inappropriate at our school and contrary to our mission and a list of other arguments.”

“The law school weighed the argument [that] the school has an ample responsibility to provide different options for different students and weighed it heavier than my arguments,” he added. Romero, however, started a petition and heightened pressure from additional students resulted in the school siding with his argument.

Externship program director Jill Dutton explained that after students raised concerns that the “ICE presence at our annual Externship Fair caused them to feel unsafe” it was concluded that there was a “real possibility” that placing a student with ICE “may force them to act unethically or unlawfully.”

Dean Annette Clark sent out a statement to say that “as educators, lawyers, and soon-to-be-lawyers, we hold particular power and bear a special responsibility to be peacemakers and to assist those who are suffering due to the unjust operation of our legal system, laws, and their enforcement.”

As a result, Clark said, that the externship placement program was suspended.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Donald Trump Fires Back at Supreme Court Justice John Roberts


President Donald Trump fired back at Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday for denying the partisan differences between appointed judges.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump wrote.

Roberts criticized the president’s description of a San Francisco judge appointed by former President Barack Obama as an “Obama judge” on Tuesday after he ruled against Trump’s effort to restrict asylum entry for migrants crossing illegally through the Southern border.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Roberts said that Americans should be “thankful” for the “independent judiciary” in the United States.

Trump said he supported the idea of an independent judiciary, but that the Ninth Circuit Court continued to rule against his authorities on border security, despite their rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court.

“Please study the numbers, they are shocking,” Trump wrote. “We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

Trump also criticized the left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, noting that it always ruled against him.

“It’s a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit,” Trump said at the White House. “That’s not law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court like the travel ban and we won.”

 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com