In 2010, the bestselling atheist Richard Dawkins, in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post, called the pope "a leering old villain in a frock" perfectly suited to "the evil corrupt organization" and "child-raping institution" that is the Catholic Church. Nobody seemed to mind very much.

Three years later, in a throwaway Tweet, Professor Dawkins observed that "all the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though." This time round, the old provocateur managed to get a rise out of folks. Almost every London paper ran at least one story on the "controversy." The Independent's Owen Jones fumed, "How dare you dress your bigotry up as atheism. You are now beyond an embarrassment." The best-selling author Caitlin Moran sneered, "It's time someone turned Richard Dawkins off and then on again. Something's gone weird." The Daily Telegraph's Tom Chivers beseeched him, "Please be quiet, Richard Dawkins, I'm begging."

Arab foreign ministers arrived in Cairo on Sunday for an urgent Arab League meeting to discuss the Syrian crisis and the potential military strike on the country

A final resolution was passed Sunday urging the UN and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for."

The League's foreign ministers also said those responsible for the attack should face trial, as other "war criminals" have.

Read lots more at here.

Speaking at the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit in Orlando, Florida, conservative icon David Horowitz, head of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, took to the microphone to encourage conservatives to “fight fire with fire.”

Horowitz, who grew up in a Communist family and then spent his youth as a Marxist leader of the New Left, gradually became a conservative after recognizing that all of the measures he had fought for were wildly counterproductive – and recognizing that the leftist movement he supported was not a movement of the people, but of the elites. “Historically the upper classes have been movers of radical change,” Horowitz said. “The French Revolution was initiated by French aristocrats; Karl Marx was funded and promoted by a capitalist factory owner. And the Obama socialists who today threaten our way of life are swimming in wealth up to their eyeballs. The purpose of my making these observations is first to underscore how important the creators of wealth are to the battle facing us; they have to be active on the side of freedom and ready to support a grass roots army to fight in the trenches.”

The Mossos d'Esquadra [tn: Catalonian police] have created a register of Muslim women who wear the burka. In a story on its front page, the Catalonian newspaper El Periódico says that for the last year police officers have been noting down and registering cases of women who wear the niqab or burka.

According to this information, various police units of the Generalitat [tn: Catalonian government] have received instructions to note down and relay internally every new case of women dressed in these Islamic garments. Investigators see a relationship between the use of this attire and the flourishing of Salafism in the region.

The police of the Generalitat want to know how many niqabs and burkas are being used in Catalunya, in what areas, and, insofar as possible, identify the women who are wearing this garment.

The creation of this registry is related to the Generalitat's aim of banning the use of the full veil in public spaces.

Catalunya has been to the forefront of taking measures against the use of the burka, although they have not been free of controversy. Besides, the use of the burka has raised the question of religious liberty.

This is exactly the argument that was put forward in the judgement of the Supreme Court which struck down the burka ban in Lleida. The high court indicated that a town council had no power to regulate or take a decision in a matter concerning religious liberty.

Those who are wondering why Al Gore chose to publicly resurface in a Washington Post interview last Thursday with that paper’s ever-pliable Journolist founder Ezra Klein only need to look in three places.

First, there’s the recently revealed empirical evidence that the “global warming” movement’s claim of increased extreme weather event occurrences isn’t true. Second, there’s a new summary of historical research which blows up its infamous core “hockey stick” chart forecasting unprecedented, accelerating warming. Finally, there’s a new report due to arrive in a month from an increasingly desperate United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In late September, the IPCC, laughably described by the wire service AFP as “an expert body set up in 1988 to provide neutral advice on global warming and its impacts,” will release its next set of statist advocacy for a worldwide carbon-tax regime disguised as “scientific data.” Gore’s mission is clearly to start greasing the skids for the IPCC’s next round of hysteria.

Michael Coffman and Kate Mathieson are brave people. In an era of great peril, brought upon all of us by a sinister worldview originating in ancient Arabia, they are willing to say things in print that need to be said. For example:

Exactly. That’s why a new book by Coffman and Mathieson, Radical Islam At the Door In the House, is so compelling. A slim volume—on the lean side at that—the book can be read, for example, while one sits in a doctor’s waiting room (as I did). Indeed, only 85 pages of text are so jammed with information on America being overtaken by Islamic jihad there is no excuse for it not being read widely.

This isn’t reading for the faint-of-heart, but it is one of the most extraordinary books of 2013, and will especially be accessible and relevant for Christian audiences in America. Coffman and Mathieson have done their homework, and then some.

Remember the “Contrare” Sioux warrior from Little Big Man? He did everything backwards––said “hello” for “goodbye,” washed in sand instead of water. Our president is the foreign policy Contrare. He has gotten backwards every maxim of proven wisdom for dealing with the rest of the world. Teddy Roosevelt counseled, “Speak softly and carry a big stick,” but Obama has spoken loudly and carried a little stick. Churchill said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else.” Obama can be always counted on to do the wrong thing––before he’s tried anything else. The Roman general Sulla was “no better friend, and no worse enemy.” Obama has been no better enemy, and no worse friend.

The president’s malignant narcissism explains a lot of this incompetence. His belief in his own transformational personality has blinded him to reality, and given him the delusions of omnipotence more typical of a child. You have to go back to Neville Chamberlain to find a major world leader so dangerously deluded by self-regard. Whenever Obama speaks to the world, I’m reminded of Chamberlain preening before his cabinet during the Munich crisis, telling his ministers that he was “satisfied Hitler was speaking the truth,” and that “he had established some degree of personal influence over Herr Hitler,” and that Hitler “would not deliberately deceive a man whom he respected.”

The Danish Constitution's section 78, 2., states that "Associations that work or are looking to achieve their goals by violence, incitement of violence or similar punishable influence of people of different convictions, shall be dissolved by law."

This targets associations, not ideologies, and cannot simply be extended. But it can be used against Islamic organizations that openly call for killing of non-Muslims, apostates and critics of Islam and other illegal activities.

Anti-terror laws and other existing sections may also be used against such groups. Section 67 of the Danish Constitution is concerned with religious freedom, which is not a given in Denmark: "Citizens have the right to unite in communities to worship God according to their conviction, provided that nothing is taught or done which is contrary to good morals or public order."

Islam's holiest scriptures, the Quran and the Hadiths, include almost countless orders for Muslims to suppress, harm and kill non-Muslims. It also tells Muslim men to beat disobedient women, it allows paedophilia and its aim is to eradicate man-made law and install sharia world wide. Islam is, without any doubt, contrary to good morals and public order. Unfortunately, deviating from the literal interpretation of Islamic texts is - contrary to all other major religions - illegal according to the Quran and is punishable with death. When will our police and courts find the courage to enforce the law?