— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) July 8, 2026
Exactly.
The President acceded to a “cease fire” that only gave America’s sworn enemy time to regroup, and Iran an opportunity to demonstrate that it cannot be trusted to meet the terms of any treaty or agreement, as Barack Obama cynically and foolishly pretended when he sold out our country and Israel’s in the “palettes of cash for lies” deal.
Iran is in the grip of a sick culture that cannot accommodate the modern world. I’m sure Trump will be assailed by the usual suspects for calling the Iranian leadership “scum,” and probably the Pope as well, because, you know, humanity, redemption, yada yada.
Islam is a religion that celebrates lying to the enemy as a virtue. To trust the current Iran regime is a death wish.
I read about King Charles renouncing his traditional title and, I must confess, shrugged. Then a couple of well-regarded commenters suggested an EA post on the matter, so I rethought the issue.
In an annual review published for 2025-2026 reported by the U.K.’s Telegraph last week, the King who was previously been both “Head of Nation” and “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith” was revealed to now be “Head of Nation” and “Supreme Governor of the Church of England who protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”
“What is the king trying to say with this shift?” asks the conservative Western Journal. Its answer: “That the United Kingdom is not Christian, and that her monarch represents a non-Christian people — Muslims.”
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is it ethical for the King to do this, cowardly, just pragmatic or does it really matter at all?
In considering this, and I am strongly pulled to the last alternative, one must remember that Charles has always been drawn to progressive positions, and that, unfortunately, he is not very bright. The King is also hanging on with his metaphorical fingernails to a position that his own people increasingly see as anachronistic and superfluous, undercut by a royal family that has enmeshed itself with increasing acceleration in one scandal and embarrassment after another, some of which he participated in.
There have been two major incidents that brought my attention to this problem in the UK. I think we have all heard about Henry Nowak, but the fact that he died while being arrested for racism rather than having someone take care of him and arrest the kid who knifed him rather upset me. In case we are confused about the problem, at least in the US Karmelo Anthony was arrested rather than Metcalf, whom he had stabbed. However, a new report has come out regarding the Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and that, with the background of Henry Nowak, leads me to some conclusions. Read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it. I cried as I read it.
If it is too upsetting to read it all, here is an article about the report. It doesn’t hurt as much to read.
There are three main causes that I can see for this situation. The first cause, like the cause for much human suffering and trafficking, is poor structure, in this case, family structure. Most trafficked girls are either sold to traffickers or, as in many of the victim’s reports, from a less than ideal, often abusive, family structure. I don’t plan to discuss the problems or solutions to this, as it is a serious can of worms and the hardest to fix. If we work on the other two problems, this, while still an issue, will be less of one.
The next problem is that of Islam. Islam itself is not a good religion for a civilized society. We see that the Koran states that you may marry up to four wives and have as many concubines as you wish, as long as they are not Islamic women. Sex with prepubescent girls is also totally okay, with child marriage accepted and consummation recommended at the age of 9 with some versions of Islam suggesting it even earlier. Some Imams have said that it is better for a girl to not to become a woman (referring to her first period) in her father’s house, but instead in her husband’s. We also have the precepts in the Koran for how Muslims should behave in society, peaceful as the powerless, lying to unbelievers at any time, and when reaching a majority and having power, becoming brutal.
Before discussing the repercussions on society for those precepts, I think it is fair to address the concern that this is not all of Islam, the “religion of peace.” We can always have the discussion of what in a holy book is to be taken literally, figuratively, or even transiently. I know of many statements in the Bible that we could debate. However, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Koran is far more troublesome than the Bible. First, many Imams today proclaim the harsher rules, and the Imams who do not are almost always in non-majority Muslim countries, which could perhaps fall under the “lying to infidels” rule. If we compare that to how Jewish rabbis, protestant ministers, and the Pope relate to the Bible, you will see that the violence recommended in the Bible is not taken to be a command to take literally today by the majority, even in countries where Jews or Christians are the majority.
The second reason we should consider the Koran’s violence to still be considered a literal command instead of a figurative one is the sheer number of Muslims that follow it. We can look at Jews and Christians and see that the majority of followers of those religions do not follow the violent commands. Consider the commands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to stone homosexuals and witches. There aren’t many Christians who do either, and the majority loudly denounces people like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. We don’t see much of the Muslim world decrying other Muslim’s antisocial behaviors. The best we tend to get is, “that’s not how we follow our faith, so don’t blame us.”
There are some cultures and some immigrants, refugees and illegal aliens that a nation has good reason to avoid letting into its territory. Islamic culture and Muslims are a blazing example. Europe and the UK are learning this hard lesson—that cultural diversity is only a boon if a nation’s traditional culture is nurtured and protected—too late. It remains to be seen if the U.S. will.
The flashing neon sign that the Mad Left will pooh-pooh, shrug off, deny or refuse to acknowledge? This:
Nearly 70 dog breeds in the UK could be banned under proposed new legislation on the sham theory that they are “unhealthy.” A new 10-point checklist of “extreme” physical characteristics will decide which dogs will suffer from health problems due to certain physical characteristics. The excuses for banning the breeds include “mottled coloration,” “excessive” skin folds (like English bulldogs), “fat faces” (like pit bulls and mastiffs), “temperament,” bulging outward-turning eyes (pugs), drooping eyelids, being low to the ground (like Queen Elizabeth’s Corgis) and more.
Don’t kid yourself and believe that this assault on freedom and family has anything to do with canine health. This an assault on dogs by Muslims, who believe that dogs are “unclean,” as Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a recent social media post. This led Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) to reply, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” In response to that, Congressional Democrats are demanding that Fine be censured, because, after all, tearing down American culture is part of the current party’s mission.
[Apologies to all: I was so eager to get Steve’s Comment of the Day up that I forgot to add the headline!]
The historically literate, unrestrained Ethics Alarms veteran commenter Steve-O-in NJ returns to the familiar(to him) Comment of the Day podium making the case that Rep. Fine was not being one bit unreasonable and certainly not “Islamophobic” when he responded to a New York City Muslim activists assertion that dogs should not be kept as pets in the Big Apple with the quip, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
In casual conversation about Fine’s line (not to be confused with “a fine line” ) I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t feel he got the better of the exchange. One lawyer friend, known for his combative courtroom style, opined that the woman’s ‘Islam is right that dogs are dirty’ remark was such a metaphorical hanging curve ball that it would have been unethical not to hit it out of the park.
Islamic attitudes toward dogs vary. Some think of them as okay to use as working animals (herding, hunting etc.), but not pets. Judaism also for a time was anti-dog, and I think that ported over to Islam, same as the rule against pork.
I for one have never owned a dog, but I have known many, and I think they are useful in a number of ways, including as companion animals. They assist the disabled, protect and direct livestock, find people (or bodies), save those stranded on mountains, assist the emergency services, and even tow carts with Christmas trees or other evergreen decorations (the Bernese Mountain Dog is the usual breed for this). I’ll take a large gentle dog or an affectionate energetic dog (little yappy dogs are not my thing) over a hyper-religious neighbor who wants to tell me what to do any day. I’ve said a few times that Islam is not compatible with Western values, and this is just one other reason why it isn’t.
Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a social media post that dog poop littered snowdrifts in the city proved that dogs should have no place in society as indoor pets because, she wrote, “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”
Responding to this obnoxious assertion of foreign values and priorities over American ones, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) replied, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
Naturally the Mad Left exploded with horror and indignation, with the usual calls for the insensitive Republican’s resignation and worse. But the truth is, if we are being honest about our own culture and priorities, if every Muslim in the United States joined in a mass ultimatum stating, “This is non-negotiable. Either the United States gives up its dogs as house pets, or we’re leaving!” the overwhelming majority of Americans—including me—would say, “Gee, that’s a shame. Well, bye! Good luck in your future endeavors!”
The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Was it unethical for Rep. Fine to say what he did?
One of the most nauseating displays of grovelling to student bullies and censors was the topic of this post at Ethics Alarms in January of 2023. Erika López Prater, an adjunct professor of art history at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, was going to discuss a famous 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder. Knowing that Islam forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, she included a warning in her course syllabus that images of the Prophet Muhammad would be shown and studied in the course. Muslim students did not have to take the course. Students with concerns were told to to contact her, but none did. She again alerted students, at the start of the class, soany devout Islamic student could leave. No student left. But after Dr. López Prater showed the painting, a senior taking the course and who had remained for the class complained to the administration, and Muslim students who were not even in the course argued that the class was an attack on their religion.
So Hamline fired the professor. Emails to students and faculty agreed that she had engaged in “Islamophobic” conduct, and Hamline’s president at the time, Fayneese S. Miller, even issued an email saying that respect for the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.”
The ethics of this controversy are easy. How could Hamline College administrators screw it up so badly? That’s easy too.
An adjunct professor of art history at Hamline University (in Minnesota, where strange things are always happening), Erika López Prater, knew that Islam forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, so before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder, she alerted any Muslim students taking her class through her course syllabus that images the Prophet Muhammad would be shown and studied in the course. She directed students with any concerns to contact her. No student did.
Before the class in which paintings of Muhammad were about to be shown, she again alerted students in case anyone felt they needed to leave. No student left. But after Dr. López Prater showed a painting featuring the prophet, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Then Muslim students who were not in the course argued that the class was an attack on their religion. Guess what?
Hamline officials told Dr. López Prater that she was out. Emails to students and faculty pronounced the episode “Islamophobic.” Hamline’s president, Fayneese S. Miller, co-signed an email saying that respect for the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.” Continue reading →
As we face these challenging times, we at Ethics Alarms salute the heroes, the indomitable, the resolute and the vibrant, who endure with good will and good cheer for the well-being of the community. We are Americans, and we are in this together, and
IF I HAVE to listen to insincere, calculated, virtue-signaling crap like this many more times, something is going to ‘pop!’ in my head and I’ll be grabbing the nearest long, sharp implement and leaving the confines of these walls to begin the historic Alexandria Massacre.
Go ahead! Test me!
The rule in our house is that any channel that runs a commercial that begins with “In these..” or that shows someone wearing a facemask or looking at a webcam will be switched to another channel, never to be revisited during that day. If everyone follows this simple rule, and makes their policy known, maybe we’ll be able to halt this torture.
1. What’s going on here? Is the idea now to proclaim how biased the news media is and the double standards it uses and mock those of us who care by showing there’s not a thing we can do with it? Is that it? Governor Cuomo actually said at a press conference yesterday that the pandemic virus came from Europe in January and “no one knew” about it. “With all the sophistication, with all the public health organizations, with that whole alphabet soup of agencies, nobody knew the virus was coming from Europe,” the governor said, on the same day he finally retracted his deadly order requiring nursing homes to take in infected, elderly residents. Then he called the virus “The European Virus.” He really did. No, seriously. I’m not making this up.
The mainstream news media just ignored this idiocy yesterday, though President Trump calling the virus the Chinese virus, which except for the obscure papers Cuomo was apparently citing, is consistent with what most researchers have concluded about its origin, was attacked as racist because, you know, Big Lie #4. Cuomo’s atrocious decision to expose nursing homes has also been barely covered in the left-leaning media.
2. If you are wondering why Ethics Alarms hasn’t covered in any detail the apparent emerging evidence that President Obama was intimately involved in the scheme to frame Michael Flynn, it is because there is literally no news source I can trust. Conservative sources are stating outright that Obama is squarely in “What did the President know and when did he know it” territory, with declassified documents indicating that Obama was aware of the bogus investigation and efforts to railroad Michael Flynn. The mainstream media appears to be doing what it did during Obama’s entire 8 years, which is refusing to probe suspicious activities and events, and maintaining the illusion that our first black President must be seen to be as pure as the driven snow, because he was the first black President. Unless a non-right wing source or reporter plays the role of the Watergate era Washington Post and “Woodstein” to get the truth out, we will be kept in the dark…and you know what the Post says happens in darkness.Continue reading →
In this concise but rich Comment of the Day, Isaac takes on the challenge of re-writing the wildly inadequate and unconvincing apology offered by the Catholic priest who was pressured to recant his negative comments about Islam in a Sunday service.
The apology offered three days later by the chastened priest, Fr.Nick VanDenBroeke:
My homily on immigration contained words that were hurtful to Muslims. I’m sorry for this. I realize now that my comments were not fully reflective of the Catholic Church’s teaching on Islam.
Ethics Alarms 
In this concise but rich Comment of the Day, Isaac takes on the challenge of re-writing the wildly inadequate and unconvincing apology offered by the Catholic priest who was pressured to recant his negative comments about Islam in a Sunday service.
The apology offered three days later by the chastened priest, Fr.Nick VanDenBroeke:
Here is Isaac’s alternative, his Comment of the Day on the post, “Now THIS Is A Level 8 Apology!”… Continue reading →