Friday, July 22, 2016

I was Wrong About Trump. He’s not IN the Establishment. He Just Solves Their Biggest Problem.

When I’m right, I’m right. When I’m wrong, I’m often very wrong. I’ve been blessed with the former more often than being humbled by the latter, but in the case of Donald Trump’s coziness with the Republican Establishment, I’m ashamed that I didn’t see the writing on the wall months ago. I’m sure many did, but it never even crossed my mind until I watched every televised moment of the Republican National Convention. Like a revelation that makes me literally smack my own forehead for being so blind to it before, I finally realized why the GOP has been embracing Trump since a few weeks before the Iowa caucus and why they’ve embraced him cautiously but heartily ever since.

In short, he’s their ticket to rid the party of the chains that have been holding it back for decades (at least in the Establishment’s opinion). Trump is, in their view, the end of the Republican party being associated with the fight for social conservatism. With Trump, the GOP is unhindered by the Christian right albatross that hung from their neck and prevented them from winning a large number of elections for five decades.

Trump is political freedom for the Republican party. Now, they can embrace the liberal ideas that are favored by populists. Transgender bathrooms – Trump’s all about freedom of identity but leave it to the states. Abortion – Trump claims to be pro-life but it’s a fight that he won’t take on as President. Traditional marriage – an antiquated notion and not on his agenda whatsoever. Religious liberty – good for a Tweet or a sound byte but he knows that as long as he stays to the right of Hillary Clinton, he doesn’t have to say much other than promising good judges appointed to the Supreme Court and botched attempts of exuding religiosity.

Unlike any other convention, they can talk about defending LGBTQ rights (while avoiding privacy and safety concerns for women and children) and get cheers from a populist crowd. Unlike other conventions, they can have an prayer to the god of Islam and everyone suddenly feels inclusive. Unlike other conventions, they can discuss gender pay gaps, covering daycare expenses, and mandating pay scales without a plan of how they’ll pay for it and the people will cheer because Ivanka is their newest darling Democrat.

Just in case anyone started sniffing around their liberal agenda, they got a “Christian conservative” in Mike Pence to be the other end of the ticket. The Vice President has no power, of course, but it’s great for show. Joe Biden is pro-life. That really helped out the cause the last eight years.

The bonus for the GOP is that Trump is very much in favor of big government and big spending. While everyone was focused on the convention, Trump’s team quietly abandoned over 2/3rds of the tax cuts that helped convince some naive conservatives that he’d be a fiscally responsible nominee. He was… up until the point that he had the nomination. Then, he dropped $7 trillion in tax cuts and nobody noticed because the circus was in town.

I assessed the GOP’s embrace of Trump and assumed that he made himself appear malleable to their wishes. That was likely a small part of it, but more importantly they saw in him an opportunity once and for all to detach the party from the anchors of social conservatism that had made Independence vote against them in multiple races for a long time. Now, they’ve got themselves a social justice warrior in Republican clothing. The days of big budget Republican initiatives are in style and ready to win elections. This is why we need a new conservative party.

via Soshable

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Lost in the Non-Endorsement is the Fact that Everything Cruz said was Righteous

Ted Cruz willfully put himself in the middle of a Trumpstorm by speaking at the Republican National Convention and not endorsing the nominee, Donald Trump. He is, once again, the most hated man in Washington DC as many of his peers will see this as a betrayal of the will of a plurality of the Republican party. All they wanted him to do was sell out his principles and values and endorse the man who trashed him for months, called his wife ugly, and accused his father of perpetrating the most famous murder in American history.

That’s all.

Every bit of focus from the media will be on the fact that Ted Cruz asked people to “vote their conscience” up and down the ticket and to focus on defending the Constitution. He spent a good amount of time talking about defending freedom. He even congratulated Trump for winning the nomination. He did not utter the words, “I endorse Donald Trump,” and for that he will be vilified.

What’s missed is the fact that calling on people to vote their conscience SHOULD be enough to get them to vote for the GOP nominee. After all, if the Republican party is on the side of conservatism, freedom, and defending the Constitution, then it should be an easy leap to associate “voting your conscience” with voting for the Republican nominee. The problem is this: telling people to vote their conscience doesn’t necessarily mean voting for Trump. It’s the saddest state of political affairs when a Republican nominee going up against the corrupt Hillary Clinton cannot be definitively proclaimed as the vote of one’s conscience.

Cruz said to vote for those who will defend the Constitution. That, too, should be a no-brainer for the Republican nominee in any other year. The Republican party is one that should live and breath by the doctrines of the Constitution. That should not be in doubt. By telling people to vote for the defender of the Constitution in 2016, there’s simply no guarantee that Trump is that person. In fact, he’s said more things throughout the campaign that go against defending the Constitution than even Clinton. She butchers her interpretation to fit her goals, but at least she attempts to stay within its bounds. Trump, unfortunately, does not know those bounds because he does not know the Constitution.

While meeting with GOP Senators earlier this month, he was asked what he would do to uphold Article I powers in the Constitution. This, of course, refers to the powers granted to Congress. Trump’s response was that he’d uphold Article I, Article II, Article XII, and all the rest. Unfortunately for Trump, there aren’t 12 Articles in the Constitution. There are 7. Even worse, he unwittingly declared that he would uphold his own powers as President which are detailed in Article II. That’s the problem we’re facing with President Obama; he has attempted to expand Article II powers which is exactly what had the GOP Senators concerned. Trump, who clearly knows absolutely nothing about the document that is to be defended by the office he’s running for, is the first GOP candidate in modern history to be arguably less protective of the Constitution than the Democratic nominee.

Ted Cruz proved very clearly that he’s fearless, principled, and has a clear understanding of the things that Trump needs to know. That Republicans will bash him for expecting people to vote for freedom, conscience, and defense of the Constitution is the clearest sign of the downfall of the party itself. Trump has killed the GOP. It’s time for a new conservative party to be formed immediately.

via Soshable

Sunday, July 17, 2016

The Problem with Attacking Trump is that Everyone Knows Him Already

This has been arguably the strangest Presidential election cycle in modern history. I take a little pride in knowing that I’ve been mostly right about things; I didn’t underestimate Trump when the pundits were saying he’d drop out quickly, for example. One thing I completely missed was the way that the media would be able to take him down once he secured the nomination. They might not be able to for one extremely clever (or lucky) reason: we know him already and we’re either already aghast or we’ve accepted him for who he is.

His supporters generally fall into one of three categories:

  1. Trump’s Our Hero. These folks see him as an extraordinary man who talks like everybody else. He’s not a politician in their eyes, so he’s the perfect outsider to clean up DC. His views might rock the boat but that’s exactly what this country needs.
  2. Trump Might Just Work. There are plenty of Republicans out there, perhaps even close to a majority, who have accepted that he’s going to be the nominee and have embraced him despite occasionally cringing at the prospects. They aren’t 100% sold on his plans, but they feel like there will be enough checks and balances to prevent him from destroying the country. Then, there’s also a chance that his ideology might be effective.
  3. Trump isn’t Hillary. This is likely a close second as far as representation within the pro-Trump group. They don’t like him but they feel he’ll do less damage than Hillary. At least he has the letter (R) next to his name, right?

As for his detractors, they seem to be pretty unified. Trump would be a disaster as the President. He lacks the basic geopolitical knowledge to operate intelligently as Commander-in-Chief and has demonstrated a complete lack of ability when it comes to picking the right people for jobs. He can’t seem to organize a campaign properly, let alone a country, and if it weren’t for the non-stop coverage the networks gave him over his competitors, he would have fallen off the map long ago. The list of negatives could be turned into a book, but they all have the same basic theme: Trump shouldn’t be given the power of the office of President of the United States.

Regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, you know one thing very well: Trump himself. You know what he says. You know how he acts. You know that whatever he says today might be completely different tomorrow. You know that he doesn’t know much about how to operate a country and you know that in dozens of endeavors other than real estate and entertainment he’s been a dismal failure. You know that he was born into an empire and would be retired telemarketing company manager if he had the average American’s background.

You know all of this and you’ve made up your mind. Oh, you might claim to be undecided, but your decision will not be based upon new information you learn about Trump himself. You’re waiting to see if anything in the world makes it more appealing to have Trump in charge than Clinton. You’re waiting to see if either or both major party candidates implode. You may be on the fence to the point that you’ll make your decision after the debates, but one thing you’re not waiting for is to learn more about Trump or his policies.

That’s why Trump can’t be attacked. There’s nothing he can do that would surprise people anymore. There are very few things that could pop up from his past other than something criminal that would surprise you. I once thought that the media would line up interviews and tell-all exposés from people he’s wronged in the past and that after enough of them, his popularity would drop. I now believe I was wrong. He’s aired his dirty laundry and made it this far. There’s probably not enough dirty laundry left out there that can make a difference.

He’s misogynistic. We know that. There won’t be any Miss Universe contestants who can paint him as a pig and change anyone’s mind about him.

He uses racism as a wink-wink attribute. In other words, he won’t be blatantly racist but he’ll leave enough doubt so that racists can embrace him. We know that. An interview with a former employee that details how Trump called him a derogatory, bigoted name won’t make an impact on voters.

He has average intelligence. We know that. Any proof of how dumb he really is will be dismissed by the general population.

Whether by accident or as a calculated play, he has already shown us the best and worst of Donald J. Trump. Nothing the news can say or do will sway our perspectives on him. We know his shortcomings and we’ve either accepted them or not. From a campaign perspective, this is a nightmare for left-wing media. It’s a disaster for the Democratic party. It’s a conundrum for the Clinton campaign. Win or lose, Trump’s fate will not be determined by anything new we learn about him. We already know what we need to know to make a decision.

via Soshable

Sunday, July 10, 2016

After Orlando, Benghazi report, email travesty, and Dallas shooting, Trump should be demolishing Hillary. He’s not.

Pundits often like to look at the past and make comparisons, particularly in Presidential elections. They don’t always look at the circumstances, so we’ll do that before getting to the meat of the issue. I’ll keep it short to keep my blood pressure at bay.

In 2012, President Obama maintained a solid lead on Mitt Romney through the majority of the general election cycle for one reason and one reason only: Obama’s weak point was Obamacare and Romney was the absolute wrong candidate to take him on. The GOP declawed itself that year by nominating the one candidate who had no credibility attacking something that he indirectly helped create.

In 2008, John McCain was an old white guy following an unpopular Republican incumbent with a running mate that only inspired the most faithful Republicans. The cards were stacked against him from the start.

This year, the cards are all stacked in the GOP’s favor. Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee is a huge benefit for Republicans. Actions taken by the Obama administration that need correcting gives us another leg up. Lastly is the news: it’s nearly all in our favor. We learned in 2004 that this can be a very powerful motivator; George W. Bush probably would have lost if John Kerry had been trusted to fight terrorism and the Middle East wars.

Orlando’s terrorist attack favors the GOP. The failures of the Benghazi report favors the GOP. The fact that Hillary is not getting indicted is great news for the GOP (if we’re willing to play that card properly). Then, there’s the Dallas shooting which highlights the failures of the left to handle racial tensions the right way. All of this means that the GOP candidate should be walloping ANY Democrat, let alone someone like Hillary.

We have all of the cards. They have one. They have the Trump card. The left, which should be giving up on the Presidency and focusing on creating a check and balance campaign to win the Senate, is positioned to sweep. In a year when we could have finally had a conservative in the Reagan camp leading the country, the GOP was overrun by low-information voters.


via Soshable

Monday, July 4, 2016

The Democrats Want to Abolish the Death Penalty

Depending on which study you read, the death penalty is either a good or poor deterrent for crime. Capital punishment has been shown in other countries to be effective, but in the United States it’s still a major question. To me, it’s not a matter of effectiveness but rather economics. The death penalty prevents the most horrific people in the country from sucking taxpayer dollars to keep them living.

Cold? Obviously, and probably not the popular reasoning for it, but sometimes we have to go to extremes to have an understanding of how to fight the rhetoric from the left. You see, the new and improved Democratic party platform will include language to put an end to the death penalty. Townhall mentions it briefly in their post about the leftward lurch of the party in their platform, particularly as it relates to abortion.

I’m very much pro-life, but it gets plenty of coverage. The death penalty does not. It needs to be left up to the states as it currently is. Then, the states must be convinced that adopting it is the right thing to do whether as a deterrent or simply as a fiscally responsible policy.

The post The Democrats Want to Abolish the Death Penalty appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven

Los Angeles Doesn’t Want You To Know If You’re Hiring a Criminal

Let’s face it. Nobody prefers anyone with a criminal record over someone who doesn’t when they’re hiring people. It’s a reasonable expectation for a business to want to have a glimpse of the value system of  a candidate. Their criminal history is one way to do that.

Why, then, is Los Angeles so against the idea of asking an applicant if they were convicted of a crime?

This is criminal in and of itself. It will make insuring businesses based in LA more expensive. It will put people at risk. I’m not suggesting that criminals don’t deserve a second chance. I’m suggesting that businesses deserve to know if they’re hiring criminals. It’s not rocket science.

The post Los Angeles Doesn’t Want You To Know If You’re Hiring a Criminal appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven

The BDS Movement Must Be Exposed

To the uninitiated, the BDS anti-Israel movement might actually seem righteous. Based upon leftist spin in mainstream media, anti-Israeli decrees and policies at the United Nations, and lukewarm rhetoric from the current White House, one might be easily led to believe that Israel is the bad guy and that the Palestinians deserve to be part of a two-state solution. Whether that’s true or not is up for debate, but what most don’t realize is that the BDS movement is not promoting a two-state solution.

This is likely a surprise to many since they have been led to believe that BDS wants equality for Palestinians. In fact, they want superiority for Palestinians. They want to to turn Jews into the minority in the only country they can call their own. They want a return to what was once called Palestine. What they fail to understand is that it was Judea before it was Palestine. It’s easy to see why this is misunderstood; even Wikipedia says that Judea is the southern part of “Palestine” rather than acknowledging Israel.

The LA Times has a nice piece (hard to believe, I know) that highlights the problems with the BDS movement and the plight of Israel as a nation today.

As long as we allow the false perception that the BDS movement is working towards equality, we’ll never be able to truly help our only full-blown ally in the Middle East. Unlike all other “allies,” they work with us on everything. The same cannot be said about any other Middle East country, even Saudi Arabia.

The post The BDS Movement Must Be Exposed appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven

Hillary has the Second Highest Candidate Unfavorable Rating Ever

Any other year, this would be a headline that Republicans would be cheering over and sharing with all of their liberal friends. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton’s dismal 33% unfavorable rating is only the second worst in the 60 years that Gallup has surveyed with this question. The worst is her Republican nemesis. Donald Trump’s unfavorable is 42%, To put it into perspective, it’s almost double what Mitt Romney had in 2012 and is more than double what John McCain had in 2008.

As the LA Times points out, getting an unfavorable rating means getting the lowest or second-lowest rating on a 10-point scale. In other words, it wasn’t just people saying they disapprove of him. They assigned him a favorability number of either 1- or 2-out-of-10.

There are many of us who would rate both of them as a 1 on a 10 pt. scale and that’s a huge dilemma, particularly for conservatives. When we’re faced with a liberal liar and a liberal scoundrel as our two options, we’re forced to try to discern the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, I can’t see myself ever willfully voting for a liberal even if both options fit the bill.

Here’s how the poll results came out:


Highly Favorable and Highly Unfavorable Ratings of Major Party Presidential Nominees, 1956-2016

Based on U.S. adults; Ranked by % highly favorable


Nominee Highly favorable Highly unfavorable
% (+4 to +5) % (-4 to -5)
1956 Oct 18-23 D. Eisenhower 57 4
1964 Oct 8-13 L. Johnson 49 5
1960 Oct 18-23 J. Kennedy 43 5
1984 Sep 21-24 R. Reagan 43 18
1976 Sep 24-27 J. Carter 42 5
1972 Oct 13-16 R. Nixon 41 11
1968 Oct 17-22 R. Nixon 39 8
1960 Oct 18-23 R. Nixon 37 8
2008 Oct 23-26 B. Obama 37 22
2012 Oct 27-28 B. Obama 36 24
2004 Oct 22-24 G.W. Bush 34 23
1956 Oct 18-23 A. Stevenson 34 16
1980 Oct 10-13 J. Carter 31 17
2012 Oct 27-28 M. Romney 30 22
1976 Sep 24-27 G. Ford 29 9
1968 Oct 17-22 H. Humphrey 29 11
1984 Sep 21-24 W. Mondale 28 15
2008 Oct 23-26 J. McCain 28 20
1992 Oct 23-25 B. Clinton 27 15
1980 Oct 10-13 R. Reagan 26 16
1992 Oct 23-25 G.H.W. Bush 25 18
2004 Oct 22-24 J. Kerry 22 22
2016 June 14-23 H. Clinton 22 33
1972 Oct 13-16 G. McGovern 21 20
1964 Oct 8-13 B. Goldwater 17 26
2016 June 14-23 D. Trump 16 42
2016 nominees are presumptive; Dates for all years except 2016 are final pre-election; No data for 1988, 1996 and 2000


via Soshable

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Hillary Clinton and the Need for “The Untouchables”

In the movie The Untouchables, FBI prohibition officer Eliot Ness played by Kevin Costner had to form an autonomous squad of agents who could pursue Al Capone without risk of being corrupted. This dramatized retelling of real events highlights a time in law enforcement history when such things were required, but we’re well beyond the need for such a task force today, right? In a world with the Clintons, “untouchables” are exactly who we need.

This is not going to be a conspiracy theory article. We’re not going to bring up any of the mysterious deaths that have surrounded the Clintons over the decades nor will we discuss the apparent suppression of information perpetrated by those in the press, law enforcement, and the highest ranks of government in efforts to protect them. The current issue dogging them is Hillary’s use of a private email server.

As with every other past Clinton scandal, this one appears to be heading in the direction of non-accountability. There’s only one thing that can prevent that from happening at this point. We need untouchables to take the investigation from where it is today and walk it all the way through to indictment and trial. Whether she gets convicted or not will (hopefully) be dependent on the facts of the case, but the FBI needs to do everything it can to make sure that it gets that far if they feel the evidence warrants it.

For us, we need to be aware of the different forces that are out to derail them.

Mainstream Media

Today, Hillary was interviewed by the FBI for 3.5 hours. The media is already spinning it:

The meeting means the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server for official business as secretary of state is coming to an end.

Technically, the statement by CNN could be true. In a criminal investigation, evidence is gathered and then the suspect is usually brought in for questioning, but based upon the answers there can be more investigation required afterwards. At this point, left-wing mainstream media will do everything it can to downplay the importance of the investigation altogether.

The Justice Department

Almost every conservative news outlet rejoiced at the statement by Attorney General Loretta Lynch that she would accept the recommendations of the FBI in this investigation. What these same news outlets (and pretty much everybody else) missed is that her statement was simply a bone tossed in a different direction to diffuse the bad press they were receiving after the “secret” meeting with Bill Clinton earlier this week.

At no point has the Justice Department indicated they wouldn’t accept the recommendation of the FBI. Those rejoicing need to see this for what it really is: misdirection. Nothing changed. Bill meeting with Lynch was not a miscalculation. It was exactly what they need to do in order to get the information they needed and deliver the message they wanted to the Attorney General. They were fully aware there would be bad press and they new that it could be mitigated, but the risks were worth taking. They diffused the bad press with Lynch’s proclamation that was read by some as her removing herself from the equation, but no such thing happened.

The Justice Department will still decide whether or not there’s an indictment. They cannot be trusted, which is why we need the FBI to truly step up.

The Untouchables

This investigation is unlike any in history. It has implications that will affect the whole world. Many references by conservative media indicate that FBI Director James Comey is trustworthy and honorable. I don’t know enough to pass judgment but I trust those who seem to trust him, so let’s assume it’s true. If so, he has been working to make sure that this investigation is handled properly and without undue influence from anyone.

The problem is that there are other humans involved. Where there are humans, there is the potential for corruption. The scope of this investigation means that there are those within it who the Clintons can influence. This is why the public eye and the voice of the people is so important today.

Nearly all of the information available to the public indicates that Hillary Clinton lied multiple times about her emails. It points to a very high likelihood that national security was put at risk as a result of Hillary’s decisions. Lastly, the political pressure that is being placed on the FBI in general and Comey in particular means that as much pressure in the opposite direction must be applied. We need to let them know that we will not accept anything short of an indictment without very clear evidence that she doesn’t deserve it, evidence that we haven’t seen yet. If she’s not indicted and no evidence is presented about why she wasn’t, we’ll know the FBI was influenced.

The point is this: stop rejoicing. Hillary Clinton is a deceptive, manipulating corrupter of everything she touches. Until there’s an indictment, it’s the duty of every patriotic American to let them know that we’re watching and that we won’t accept the kind of political maneuvers that turned the Benghazi investigation into a nothingburger.

Al Capone had people killed, suppressed information, bullied enemies, and committed countless crimes, but he was eventually brought down by something mundane – tax evasion. Will the Clinton’s similar tale of corruption and alleged evils end with their downfall through an equally mundane crime?

via Soshable

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Contradiction: Feminists Fight for Abortion but Enable Islam

This was going to be a long, detailed argument for liberals to explore with links to examples of horrendous treatment, sexual assault, and relegation of women at the hands of Islamic men as they spread around the world. For the sake of my blood pressure, I stopped researching after around a dozen links. The crimes were saddening. The willful ignorance and outright enabling by liberals across the globe and especially in western societies infuriated me, so the research portion is up to you.

Women are inferior within Islamic societies. In western societies such as Europe where they are getting a foothold, women are objectified in ways should never be tolerated. In America, the news is being hushed in an effort to placate the sensibilities of the left. After all, American liberals have plenty of babies to kill; why would they want a distraction such as the existential threat of Islam?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University and the folks at Prager University did a nice job of highlighting these issues. Here’s the transcript followed by their video.

Culture matters. It ‘s the primary source of social progress or regression. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the status of women. The Judeo-Christian culture —and perhaps a more apt word is civilization—has produced over time the law codes, language and material prosperity that have greatly elevated women’s status.

But this progress is not shared everywhere.

There are still hundreds of millions of people that live in a culture—the Islamic, for instance—that takes female inferiority for granted. Until recently, these cultures—the Western and the Islamic—were, for the most part, separated. But that is changing. Dramatically so.

Large numbers of immigrant men from the Middle East, South Asia and various parts of Africa have brought a different set of values to the West, specifically Europe.  More than a million arrived in 2015 alone. More are on the way.

As a result, crimes against girls and women—groping, harassments, assaults and rape—have risen sharply. These crimes illustrate the stark difference between the Western culture of the victims and that of the perpetrators.

Let me be clear: not all immigrant men, or even most, indulge in sex attacks or approve of such attacks, but it’s a grave mistake to deny that the value system of the attackers is radically different from the value system of the West. In the West women are emancipated and sexually autonomous. Religiosity and sexual behavior or sexual restraint is determined by women’s individual wishes. The other value system is one in which women are viewed as either commodities (that is, their worth depends on their virginity), or on the level of a prostitute if they are guilty of public “immodesty” (wearing a short skirt for example).

I do not believe these value systems can coexist. The question is which value system will prevail. Unfortunately, this remains an open question.

The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men.

One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny.  But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case.

Common among many Western feminists is a type of moral confusion, in which women are said to be oppressed everywhere and that this oppression, in feminist Eve Ensler’s words, is “exactly the same” around the world; in the West just as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

To me, this suggests too much moral relativism and an inadequate understanding of Sharia law. It is true that the situation for women in the West is not perfect, but can anyone truly deny that women enjoy greater freedom and opportunities in the United States, France and Finland than they do in Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Other feminists have also argued that non-Western women do not need “saving” and that any suggestion that they “need” help from Western feminists is insulting and condescending to non-Western women.

My perspective is a practical one: any efforts that help Muslim women—whether they live in the West or under Islamic governments should be encouraged. Every effort to pressure these governments to change unjust laws should be supported.

Western feminists and female Western leaders have a simple choice to make: either excuse the inexcusable, or demand reform in cultures and religious doctrines that continue to oppress women.

Nothing illustrates this better than what happened in Cologne, Germany on New Years Eve, 2015. That night, during the city’s traditional celebrations, numerous German women (467 at the last count) reported being sexually harassed or assaulted by men of North African and Arab origin. Within two months, 73 suspects had been identified, most of them from North Africa; 12 of them have been linked to sexual crimes. Yet, in response to the attacks, Cologne’s feminist Mayor Henriette Reker issued an “arm’s length” guideline to women. Just “keep at an arm’s length” distance between you and a mob of Arab men, she advised Cologne’s female population, and you will be fine.

Mayor Reker’s comments underline the seriousness of the problem: a culture clash is upon us. The first step in resolving it is to unapologetically defend the values that have allowed women to flourish. Feminists with their organizations, networks and lobbying power need to be on the front lines on this battle. Their relevance depends on it. And so does the well being of countless women, Western and non-Western.

I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.

via Soshable