Ministry of Public Works recently announced that work is progressing on the upgrade of Jamal Abdul- Nasser Street. He added the project, which includes the construction of bridges, slopes, roads and traffic diversions is 49 percent to stage of compl…
Kurdish fighters have gained control over about 70 percent of Syria’s strategic town of Kobani across from the Turkish border, a Britain-based monitoring group says.
The Israeli regime has made a quick reaction to a request by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for Palestine to join the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Saudi Arabia’s publicly announced beheading tally has reached its highest level in the last five years with 83 accounts for 2014.
Originally published by Veritas International Enterprise.
Muslim attempts at “reformation” continue to be limited to words not actions. A few days ago, efforts to set a minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia “received a blow after the Grand Mufti said there was nothing wrong with girls below 15 getting married.”
Two years earlier, the justice ministry began pushing for setting a minimum age in the Arabian kingdom. According to Gulf News, “It submitted an integrated study on the negative psychological and social effects of underage marriages to religious scholars and requested a fatwa that sets a minimum age.”
However, the ulema—the “religious scholar,” the learned ones of Islamic law—responded by totally ignoring the request. Saudi Arabia’s highest religious authority, its Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, shrugged the whole matter off by saying “There is currently no intention to discuss the issue.” In other words, case closed.
Although the brief Gulf News report focuses on the age 15, going back to earlier reports when the justice ministry began bringing this issue up, one discovers that the issue at stake is full-blown pedophilia.
Back in 2011, for example, Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”
Appearing in Saudi papers, the fatwa complained that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase”—likely a reference to the justice ministry’s advocacy—“posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”
Fawzan insisted that nowhere does Sharia (or Islamic law) set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relied on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was six or seven, “consummating” the marriage—or, in modern/Western parlance, raping her—when she was nine.
The grand point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as nine can be married, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever. The only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her “husband.” Fawzan documented this point by quoting Ibn Battal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:
The ulema [Islam’s scholars and interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was six when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was nine [that is, when she was deemed capable].
Fawzan concluded his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his exclusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”
Once again, case closed.
Fawzan, of course, is not the first to insist on the legitimacy of pedophilia in Islam. Nor is this just some theoretic, abstract point; the lives of countless young girls are devastated because of this teaching. Recall, for instance, the 8-year-old girl who died on her “wedding” night as her “husband” raped her; or the 12-year-old who died giving birth to a stillborn; or the 10-year-old who made headlines by hiding from her 80-year-old “husband.”
Finally, it should be borne in mind that Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz—the highest Islamic authority in the land of Islam’s birth—not only dismisses calls to place an age restriction for marriage, but is the same Grand Mufti who called for the destruction of all Christian churches on the Arabian Peninsula (as first reported here).
The consistency makes perfect sense. After all, in the eyes of non-Muslims, or “non-believers,” Sharia law is nothing less than a legal system built atop the words and deeds of a seventh century Arab, whose behavior—from pedophilia and sex-slavery to war mongering and plundering to destroying non-Muslim places of worship—was very much that of a seventh century Arab.
Don’t miss scholar of Islam Louis Lionheart on The Glazov Gang discuss The Case of Mohammad and Aisha:
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Recently, I claimed that everyone—politicians, academics, and media commentators—who promoted the idea that police brutality is a national “epidemic,” or even a “growing concern,” as one self-styled libertarian put it, share some culpability for the murders of the two NYPD officers who were gunned down in their vehicle right before Christmas.
More specifically, they are responsible, obviously, not for intending or consciously encouraging the murder of police, but for creating a climate for police officers that’s even more hostile than that in which officers must spend their days and nights. After all, we don’t need Richard Weaver to inform us that “ideas have consequences.” Even simpletons and liars will concede this much.
And only simpletons and liars can deny that this idea—the idea of a “pandemic” of police brutality sweeping the nation—has the consequence of endangering police officers.
Yet this idea isn’t just dangerous.
It is also a lie. And it is a huge lie at that.
“Police brutality” is an all-purpose piece of rhetoric that, as such, can mean anything and everything—and, thus, nothing at all. When anti-police misologists—a “misologist” was the word that the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant used when referring to an enemy of reason—sound off about “police brutality,” they are referring to the police’s unjustified use of force.
Now, all but anarchists concede that police are authorized to use force when necessary and when it’s proportionate to the situation in question. When, however, the force deployed is unnecessary and/or excessive, then the force is unjustified. This—the unnecessary and/or excessive use of force—is “police brutality.”
So, is this a growing national phenomenon, an epidemic?
Not even close.
According to the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), in 1999, of 44 million people who had face-to-face interactions with police officers, less than one-half of one percent was “threatened with or actually experienced force.”
Notice, the assertion here isn’t that less than one-half of one percent—it bears repeating: one-half of one percent!—was subjected to the use of unjustified force; the claim is that of 44 million, this miniscule fraction of people were either threatened with—threatened with—or subjected to the use of force per se.
What this in turn means is that the number of people who were “brutalized” by police is even smaller than “less than one-half of one percent.”
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), of a national population estimate of roughly 240, 000,000 comprised of people of 16 years of age or older, of those who dealt with the police in some capacity in 2002, 2005, and 2008, 1.5%, 1.6%, and 1.4%, respectively, were either threatened with or subjected to force by the police.
In 2008, 22% of those falling into the latter group admitted that they “argued with, cursed at, insulted, or verbally threatened the police.” Twelve percent reported that they were “disobeying” and/or “interfering” with police.
Of the 84% of people who felt that the threat or use of police use force was “improper,” only 14% filed a complaint.
To further underscore just what a whopper of a lie is the notion that “police brutality” is a nationwide epidemic, consider this: Among those included in the class of people who have had to deal with police are those who have called on the police for assistance. And among those who have done so, about 85 percent claimed to have been “satisfied with the police response.” Moreover—shocker of shockers!—Hispanics (86%) and blacks (85%) were slightly more satisfied than were whites (83%). Finally, about 90 percent of people who requested police assistance said that they would do so again.
Only in the fevered imagination of the cop-hating ideologue is “police brutality” a national crisis, or any sort of crisis.
Of course, none of this is to deny that there are bad cops. Genuinely abusive police officers, like those who abuse their power and authority anywhere, deserve to be crucified. But there is zero justification for abstracting from these relatively few instances a rule encompassing police officers generally.
Numbers aside, just some rudimentary common sense—a rare commodity nowadays, and practically nonexistent among the police-hating ideologues—should determine that in this Age of the Camera—a time in which everyone and their mother is armed with surveillance apparatus—the police have no real option but to be better behaved than ever before.
Jeremy Bentham described the doctrine of “natural rights” as “nonsense on stilts.” The dogma—and make no mistakes about it, for the anti-police misologists, this is nothing less than a dogma—that “police brutality” is an epidemic, a crisis, blah, blah, blah, is indeed nonsense on stilts. But it is more than this: It is nonsense that kills.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
This year’s Glazov Gang 2014 Episode of the Year Award goes to two special episodes — each of them joined by a stellar titan who is on the front-lines of the culture and terror war courageously defending our civilization’s freedom.
One of the winning episodes was with Dinesh D’Souza, acclaimed conservative author and filmmaker who is the author of the book, America: Imagine a World Without Her – which is also a major motion picture.
We are honored to present the special episode, “America: Imagine a World Without Her,” below.
The Glazov Gang team extends special thanks to all of our guests, viewers and supporters and wishes all of them a happy, healthy and successful new year.
To watch previous Glazov Gang episodes, Click Here.
There’s no candy coating the truth: Obamacare has had a very terrible, horrible, crappy, none-too-happy year. What it really means is that the victims of Obamacare — taxpayers, health care consumers, health care providers, employers and employees — have had a hellish, nightmarish 2014.
Let’s start with premiums. President Candy Land promised that he’d “lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” But premiums for people in the individual market for health insurance have spiked over the last year. In fact, Forbes health policy journalist Avik Roy and the Manhattan Institute analyzed 3,137 counties and found that individual market premiums rose an average of 49 percent.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services itself admitted this month that average premiums will rise at least five percent for the lowest-cost plans offered by federal Obamacare health care exchanges. Democrats’ reaction? Obamacare rate shock doesn’t matter … because government is redistributing the burden and taxpayers are footing the bill! HHS crowed this week that nearly 90 percent of exchange enrollees received public subsidies in order to pay their premiums.
“Affordable” doesn’t mean what White House truth-warpers says it means — just like everything else they’ve spewed about the doomed federal takeover of health policy in America.
As the White House tries to hype year-end enrollment numbers and hide Obamacare-imposed cancellations, just remember that the administration got caught this fall cooking the books by including 380,000 dental plan subscribers that have never been counted before. Innocent oopsie? The “erroneous” inflation just happened to push the Obamacare enrollment figures over the president’s 7 million goal, while fudging the attrition of more than 1 million enrolled in Obamacare medical insurance plans.
A “mistake was made,” HHS ‘fessed up after GOP investigators discovered the Common Core math antics. Lying liars. Caught red-handed.
So, how about: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?” Well, not if he or she isn’t practicing anymore. After scoffing at conservative warnings for years that socialized medicine-light would create doctor shortages, Obamacare cheerleaders can no longer whitewash the grim reality. The Physicians Foundation found that 81 percent of doctors believe they are “either overextended or at full capacity.” Another 44 percent said they “planned to cut back on the number of patients they see, retire, work part-time or close their practice to new patients.”
Analysts on all sides of the debate agree that massive cuts in Medicaid payments to primary care doctors, which take effect on Jan. 1, will reduce patient access. Meanwhile, a Commonwealth Fund survey found that 26 percent of American adults waited six days or more to see a doctor — with only Canada and Norway performing worse.
A separate physicians’ staffing company’s poll, reported by the left-wing New York Times, found that patients “waited an average of 29 days nationally to see a dermatologist [,] 66 days to have a physical in Boston and 32 days for a heart evaluation by a cardiologist in Washington.”
Translation: If you like your doctor, it doesn’t mean you’ll get to see your doctor. Tick, tick, tick.
How about Obama’s pledge to lower costs? A Congressional Budget Office reported earlier this year that implementation will cost taxpayers $2 trillion over the next decade. That’s just the direct costs. Obamacare’s job-killing regulations continue to discourage businesses from expanding and force more bosses to slash hours to avoid the employer mandate.
Based on estimates by Harvard and University of Chicago economists, health care policy analyst John Goodman concludes that the “indirect cost to the economy … equals more than $8,000 per household per year — or four times the size of the direct budget outlays.”
This includes the tax on innovation. As I’ve reported over the last four years, Obamacare’s reviled medical-device tax has forced companies to cut back on research and development, in addition to catalyzing layoffs of at least 33,000 workers over the past year. A recent study by the New York Federal Reserve found that half of the state’s medical device manufacturers were bracing for “considerably” higher health care costs as a result of Obamacare rules. These include “higher deductibles, increased copays, higher out-of-pocket maximums and an increased employee contribution to the premium.”
Who’s “stupid” now? The fallout from intrepid Philadelphia investment adviser and citizen researcher Rich Weinstein’s exposure of Obamacare architect/deceiver Jonathan Gruber has only just begun. Far worse than Gruber’s insult of American voters, Weinstein notes, is the annual $250 billion tax grab at the heart of Gruber and Company’s scheme. Obamacare’s so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive health plans was purposely “mislabeled,” Gruber said in video uncovered by Weinstein, in order to pass a tax that will eventually hit all employer plans.
Separately, insurers have been lobbying for a total taxpayer bailout of an estimated $1 billion in 2014. Meanwhile, beleaguered Obamacare non-profit “co-ops” that were supposed to lower costs have sucked up $2 billion in loans to date and hundreds of millions more in emergency solvency funding this year.
The worst is yet to come. Before the midterms, panicked and politically driven Obama bureaucrats delayed premium payment deadlines, high-risk insurance pool cancellations and onerous “meaningful use” mandates on health providers grappling with Obamacare’s disastrous top-down electronic medical records rules. Those chickens will come home to roost in 2015.
One silver lining: A total of 16 Senators who voted for the federal health care takeover either failed to win re-election or declined to run for re-election.
Good riddance to them and farewell to Obamacare’s annus horribilis.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
An ISIL Takfiri militant from New Zealand has accidentally revealed his whereabouts by posting tweets.