Murderer and Rapist is Also a Liar

Hussein Khavari was arrested over the rape and murder of 19-year-old medical student Maria Ladenburger in Freiburg, south-west Germany, in December last year 

                                         A young lad far from home

An Afghan migrant will be charged as an adult now that it has been discovered that the unaccompanied minor who raped and murdered the daughter of an EU official is also a liar.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Afghan asylum seeker Hussein Khavari, who claimed to be 17 when he raped and drowned 19-year-old medical student Maria Ladenburger last October, may have lied about his age to lessen the severity of his punishment.

Khavari, whom investigators have concluded is likely 22, raped and drowned the daughter of a legal adviser to the European Commission as she bicycled home after a party in Freiberg.

Investigators suspected that Khavari was lying when he said he was 17, as he had already told Greek authorities he was 17 back in 2013 before he came to Germany.

The new report on his age clears the way for prosecutors to charge him as an adult, meaning that if convicted, he could face a life sentence. 

Following his arrest, it emerged that he had been sentenced to ten years in jail in Greece after he threw a 20-year-old student off a cliff on the island of Corfu in May 2013. 

The assailant was given early release in Greece due to his alleged age, and entered Germany in 2015 as an unaccompanied minor.



Media Meltdown

MSNBC Host: It's Media's job to control what you think

The members of the Ministry of Truth are in a snit.

It’s been eight long years of mandated laudatory coverage of our first half black president with no dissent tolerated.  Any divergence from the Party line was met with accusations of racism. And instant banishment resulted should one mention any unflattering facts, any illegal conduct, any outright lies, on the part of The Great Expiator.

Then the media did their best to get that lying fraud Hillary elected. They hounded Trump for every trifle, while ignoring massive corruption, flagrant lies, and blatant slanders perpetrated by his opponent. They assured us all on an hourly basis that Trump had no chance, that every poll showed that Hillary was way ahead, that she had all but won based on early voting, that she was already assembling her cabinet, etc, etc.

And then she lost. And every network had their whole, and wholly Democrat, staff sitting up all night, waiting for Democrat operatives to somehow find that mythical warehouse filled with uncounted Hillary ballots that would save them. Alas!

But now things are different. Members of the media can compare President Trump to Hitler, suggest he may be mentally ill, speculate about possibilities for impeachment, call him a racist, accuse him of various forms of hate against numerous oppressed groups,  claim he has a secret alliance with Putin,  and still be genuinely mystified –and insulted –that he won’t call on them in a press conference.

They can support attempts at recounts, which can’t be completed because of massive fraud in Democrat-majority districts. They can claim “them Rooskies” interfered with the vote, without a shred of evidence of any kind. They can rely on the speculations of the “intelligence community” that they excoriated during the campaign. They can report on every townhall meeting –those same townhall meetings they ignored for eight years –as if the and BLM brownshirts in attendance were a more accurate gauge of the electorate than the electorate. And the bloody violence, the destruction of property, the assaults, the intimidation?  Not newsworthy.

What’s newsworthy to the media is the nightly national weather report, wherein cold winter weather, and warm summer weather, are depicted as strange aberrations to be blamed on “climate deniers” and other Republicans. And don’t forget the annual California mudslides, which, every year, year after year, are breathlessly reported by the members of the media –who were, after all, journalism majors.

They think Americans believe what they say. They think that appealing to the authority of the likes of Mika Bzrezinski and Joe Scarborough will convince Americans that lies are true. They are wrong.





Georgetown Professor Shills for Rape, Slavery

In a recent lecture at the International Institute of Islamic Thought,  Georgetown Professor of Islamic Civilization Jonathan Brown took as his topic “Islam and the Problem of Slavery.” In attendance  was freelance writer Umar Lee, who first published an account of the professor’s views. Prof. Brown himself uploaded a video of the lecture to youtube.

Lee was surprised to find that the lecture consisted of attacks against Western nations and China for their past practices of slavery, while excusing Islamic slavery, which is still practiced.

While the lecture was supposed to be about slavery in Islam Brown spent the majority of the lecture talking about slavery in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. When discussing slavery in these societies Brown painted slavery as brutal and violent (which it certainly was). When the conversation would briefly flip to historic slavery in the Arab and Turkish World slavery was described by Brown in glowing terms. Indeed, according to Brown, slaves in the Muslim World lived a pretty good life. 

Prof. Brown claimed that “slavery wasn’t racialized,” in Islamic societies, despite the constant use in the Arab world of the word abeed  (slaves) to refer to blacks generally and to African-Americans. And in slave-state Mauritania, it is the lighter-skinned “White Moors” who hold the darker-skinned Haratine in bondage.

“Slaves were protected by shariah (Islamic Law)” Brown stated with no recognition of the idealized legal version of slavery and slavery as it was practiced. In this version of slavery there is an omission of kidnappings, harems, armies of eunuchs, and other atrocities.

Further, the professor considers that slavery is not immoral, because, in his view, humans own other humans, and are owned by others in turn. And both Mohammed and the Quran allow slavery.

In Jonathan Brown’s view,  “being an employee is basically the same as being a slave.” (At Georgetown, the average base salary for an associate professor is $104,211. The work-load consists of about 3-5 hrs. / week of lectures or seminars, 3-4 hrs. / week of office hours, and a lot of writing and research, which intellectuals would probably do anyway.) I wonder if the 800,000 people currently enslaved in Muslim-majority Mauitania, or the Yazidi women still enslaved by ISIS, would agree.

Which brings us to the  professor’s view that “consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex.”  By “lawful,” he presumably means under shariah ,  which advocates many behaviors that are felonies in the United States, and in the West generally.  According to the professor,

consent is a modern Western concept and only recently had come to be seen as necessary (perhaps around the time feminism began to take root and women decided they wanted autonomy over their bodies). Brown went on to elaborate consent wasn’t necessary to moral and ethical sex and that the morality of sex is dependent on the lawfulness of the sex-partner and not consent upholding the verdict that marital-rape is an invalid concept in Islam.

So it naturally follows that one’s sex slave cannot withhold sex, since

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them.”

. . . which is not the sort of question that generally arises in the nation’s capital in this particular period of history,  so we have to wonder about the professor’s use of the present tense. Unless it is his specific intent to provide religious validation of ISIS, and Boko Haram.

Consent may indeed be a Western concept, and also, as we would say, a Western achievement. A Georgetown professor who, in 21st century America, still has intellectual misgivings about that concept, and about the concept of self-ownership, or “property in one’s person” as John Locke had it back in the 17th century, obviously shouldn’t be provided a forum by a major University.

Starbucks Announces Intent to Violate Civil Rights Act

New Starbucks slogan.

Starbucks has announced its intention to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — but they may not do enough actual hiring to do any actual violating.

Signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, the Civil Rights Act provides the bedrock for equal rights legislation in the US. The self-styled progressive multi-national corporation Starbucks believes that it need not obey the provisions of federal anti-discrimination law.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that in response to President Trump’s “refugee ban,”  the chain store would hire “10,000 refugees” in its stores worldwide. Depending on how many refugee hires would result from this vow, it seems scarcely possible without violating the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, religion, sex, color, or national origin.” Extensive hiring in the US would necessitate discrimination against those born here.

However, a mere token hiring in the US would probably keep the multi-national corporation on the right side of the law, if not on the right side of the truth. Starbucks is in the forefront of American “cultural imperialism,” with over 20,000 stores in 72 countries and territories.  So hiring fewer than one refugee per every two stores worldwide would let Howard Schultz keep his vow without actually having to hire a single refugee affected by Trump’s 90-day travel moratorium.  And this hiring wave will happen “over the next five years” according to the coffee poseur.

So what is virtue-signaling CEO Shultz actually doing for the Poor Refugees™?  Absolutely nothing.

Which will free up some time for the next Starbucks CEO –whoever replaces Howard Schultz –to deal with a growing number of employment discrimination suits brought by African Americans, older workers, those with disabilities, etc . . .

Rampant Islamofauxbia

Image result for help i'm being repressed

A Wisconsin college student has been arrested after he fraudulently claimed to be the victim of an anti-muslim hate crime.

The Beloit College student, 20-year-old Michael Kee, reported to police that his door and the wall outside his dorm room had been spray painted with anti-muslim graffiti, including threats. The incident was initially treated as a hate crime, but a police investigation revealed that the student had  painted the graffiti himself.

Police say his motive was a reaction to anti-Semitic message reportedly slid under the door of a Jewish student on campus, saying Kee had “observed how the Beloit College community had come together after the first reported incident and wanted similar attention.”

Kee has been charged with Obstructing, Disorderly Conduct, and Criminal Damage.

The actual hate crime — against the Jewish student –is still being investigated.