If you want to understand why there is no peace in the Holy Land despite the best efforts of the Obama administration and the billion-dollar European “peace and human rights” industry, you owe it to yourself to read Catch the Jew! by Tuvia Tenenbom. This myth-shattering book became an instant bestseller in Israel last year, yet, Germany aside, it has largely been ignored in American and European media outlets and by the reigning Middle East punditocracy. Ostensibly, Tenenbom’s book is disdained because the author lacks the academic or journalistic credentials to be taken seriously as a commentator on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Though he speaks both Arabic and Hebrew, Tenenbom possesses no professional expertise on the modern Middle East, nor has he had any previous journalistic experience covering Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Islamist terror is not the product of Western policy. As David Cameron rightly notes, it is a global ideological network, with both violent and non-violent branches, and appears committed to enveloping everyone throughout the world.
But in the world of Giles Fraser, Baroness Warsi and friends, it seems as if terrorists are not radical, extremists are not extreme, and Islamism is not the product of Islamist ideas.
In June, Talha Asmal, a 17-year-old Muslim, became Britain’s youngest suicide bomber. In a vehicle packed with explosives, Asmal and three other jihadists attacked Iraqi forces at an oil refinery in the northern town of Baiji. Eleven people were killed.
When you travel to another country, you generally check to see how strong the dollar is against the local currency.
Yet even within the United States there’s a lot of variation between what a buck will get you in one state versus another.
According to a new analysis by the Tax Foundation, the states where $100 is worth the most are Mississippi, Arkansas and South Dakota. Meanwhile, go to D.C., Hawaii or New York and you’ll find that the same $100 gets spent the fastest.
Traitorous ‘sanctuary’ cities are only the tip of the iceberg.
The term “sanctuary” conjures up a place of safety and comfort and, indeed, in some dictionaries, those two terms are used to describe sanctuaries. Therefore pairing the two terms, “violent” and “sanctuary” in the same title may seem to constitute a contradiction in terms. As you will soon see, in this era of political corruption and intentional ineptitude, those two terms actually fit perfectly together.
While the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary in part, describes a sanctuary as, “a refuge for wildlife where predators are controlled and hunting is illegal” in so-called “Sanctuary Cities” such as San Francisco, predators are being granted sanctuary and innocent people are being hunted. Witness the senseless murder of Kathryn Steinle who fell victim to a predatory criminal alien, Francisco Sanchez, who easily entered the United States by running our borders with impunity on at least five occasions notwithstanding the fact that he has reportedly been convicted of committing seven felonies in the United States and yet was shielded by San Francisco’s sanctuary policies.
On June 27, right before the previous deadline determined by the P5+1 powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran to reach a nuclear deal, the municipality of Mashhad in northeastern Iran initiated a special program for kids. The nine-day event, promoted by the mullah-led regime in Tehran, took place in the framework of the 10th International Quran and Family Expo. It ended on July 6, the eve of the date when the nuclear negotiators had hoped to sign an agreement.
Called “The City of Resistance Games,” the program provided a host of activities for young children and teenagers. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which released a special dispatch on this semi-summer camp, all the activities were aimed at indoctrinating participants in the justice of the fight against Iran’s enemies, chief among them the United States and Britain. You know, two of the countries in the midst of deluding themselves that a deal with the Islamic republic would be better for global security.
Commentators are probably right in assessing that Brianna Keilar’s CNN interview with Hillary Clinton was not quite the love-in that many of us anticipated. (See Jim Geraghty’s review of the Clinton interview, here.) Still, you have to mourn the media’s lack of self-respect: as Jim pointed out in Wednesday’s Morning Jolt, Mrs. Clinton blatantly lied when she claimed, “I’ve never had a subpoena” from a congressional committee regarding Benghazi. There was nothing subtle about it. Clinton was totally banking on CNN’s inclination to let her slide.
Well, they don’t call it the Clinton News Network for nothing. It is the network of Candy Crowley, who in the middle of a presidential candidates’ debate couldn’t restrain herself from inappropriately challenging – and misleadingly correcting – Mitt Romney’s remarks about Benghazi. But somehow, when Benghazi came up in a one-on-one media interview setting, CNN couldn’t bring itself to call Mrs. Clinton on an obvious lie.
It’s not supposed to be an air superiority fighter. So why are the Air Force and the Navy pretending it will be?The jet is incapable of defending itself or American troops on the ground.
America’s military is being redefined but not by changes in strategy or evolutions of the threats we face. The redefinition is the unplanned result of budgetary constraints and bad choices of weapon systems we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to buy.
The two effects of this redefinition combine to make their sum greater than their parts. First, there are missions our forces are in the process of abandoning because their shrinking size doesn’t allow performance of them. Second, the ability to perform essential missions is being dangerously abandoned in the design of the most expensive weapons we are buying.
Ads by Adblade
Get up to $600 and trade commission-free for 60 days.
New Rule in New York Leaves Drivers Furious and Shocked
Stars like Aubrey O’Day soaped up & stripped down for some sultry selfie action.
For example, the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (the LCS, known in defense circles as the “little crappy ship”) is supposed to operate in shallow coastal waters. But as the Defense Department’s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said, it’s so lightly armed and armored it won’t survive in combat. Nevertheless, the little crappy ship is still being bought at a cost of about $475 million each.
Years before the killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, sanctuary cities were a hot issue in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. And as it happened, the three top figures in today’s Democratic party — Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton — were all running for president and were all grilled, in a single debate, about their stands on the question.
Only one — Biden — said he would not allow cities to defy federal immigration law. Obama sidestepped the question but managed to leave the clear impression he would allow sanctuary cities to continue. And Clinton made clear she would leave sanctuary cities untouched.
Australia’s Minister for Communications – Malcolm Turnbull – has sought to play down the threat Islamic State poses to world peace and security with these few throwaway unsubstantiated sentences during an address to the Sydney Institute on 7 July:
“… Da’esh is not Hitler’s Germany, Tojo’s Japan or Stalin’s Russia. Its leaders dream that they, like the Arab armies of the 7th and 8th century, will sweep across the Middle East into Europe itself.
They predict that before long they will be stabling their horses in the Vatican.
We should be careful not to say or do things which can be seen to add credibility to those delusions.”
Turnbull used the term “Daesh” – instead of Islamic State – on 16 occasions during his address.
Hillary Clinton has run a carefully stage-managed campaign so far in which she has repeatedly met with pre-selected crowds and avoided answering questions from the press. In the wake of her email scandal, several polls have shown that voters don’t believe she is an honest person, even if many are still willing to vote for her.
So it was a big deal this week when candidate Clinton gave her first big national televised one-on-one to CNN. Some have focused on the fact that she “played the victim,” blaming political opponents for many of her self-created problems. But more fundamentally, here are three falsehoods she told in the interview:
“I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages”
