Dr. Sebastian Gorka on “Defeating Jihad” — on The Glazov Gang.
Dr. Gorka unveils the winning strategy against Jihad, unmasks the Radical-in-Chief, describes the horrific scenario of a Hillary victory, and much, much more.
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2016/08/14/dr-sebastian-gor…-the-glazov-gang/
Mr Shah’s murderer was a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who had travelled to Glasgow to kill Mr Shah because he believed Mr Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed.” At this point the comfortable narratives of modern Britain began to fray.
If Mr Shah’s murderer had been a non-Muslim, there would be a concerted effort by the entirety of the media and political class to find out what inspirations and associations the murderer had. Specifically, they would want to know if there was anybody — especially any figure of authority — who had ever called for the murder of Muslim shopkeepers. Yet when a British Muslim kills another British Muslim for alleged “apostasy” and local religious authorities are found to have praised or mourned the killers of people accused of “apostasy,” the same people cannot bother to stir themselves.
Earlier this year there was a murder that shocked Britain. Just before Easter, a 40-year old shopkeeper in Glasgow, Asad Shah, was repeatedly stabbed in his shop; he died in the road outside. The news immediately went out that this was a religiously-motivated attack. But the type of religiously motivated attack it was came as a surprise to most of Britain.
Just about the only thing most Americans know about Benedict Arnold is that he was a traitor, the turncoat par excellence of America’s founding. Today, his name is synonymous with “traitor.”
Beyond that, we tend to know as little about Arnold as we do about the rest of the American Revolution. To the extent that it is still taught in schools, the War of Independence is presented as a rather tidy affair. The Founders issued the Declaration of Independence, George Washington and his army spent a hard winter at Valley Forge and then crossed the Delaware, there was an exchange of musket fire and cannonry at Yorktown, and that was that. A new nation was born: Happy Fourth of July.
The reality is of course more complicated — and vastly more compelling. The American Revolution was anything but tidy, and the war was unlike any previous military conflict. It was a world war that lasted more than eight years, spanned two oceans and three continents, involved four European powers, and saw the largest deployment of ships and troops ever assembled by the British Empire. From it emerged a wholly new form of government, proclaimed by a fledgling and fractious republic clinging to the edge of a vast unsettled wilderness.
In the middle of all this was Benedict Arnold, a war hero who earned the title “American Hannibal” for his daring but unsuccessful assault on Quebec early in the war. He went on to distinguish himself as a patriot and valiant battlefield commander willing to risk everything for victory. In the end, of course, he convinced himself that the real enemy wasn’t Britain but his fellow Americans, who were tearing the country apart. As far as Arnold was concerned, he betrayed his country to save it from itself.
No contemporary author is better suited to reintroduce readers to this high drama than Nathaniel Philbrick. Author of the award-winning books Mayflower and In the Heart of the Sea, Philbrick has a knack for cinematic depictions and dramatic pacing, and he uses these to great effect in his new book.
The Revolutionary War, writes Philbrick in his new book Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution, wasn’t just a rebellion against Great Britain; it was also a civil war “so widespread and destructive that an entire continent was seeded with the dark inevitability of even more devastating cataclysms to come.” Along the ragged edge of British-occupied New York, “where neither side held sway, neighbor preyed upon neighbor in a swirling cat-and-dog fight that transformed large swaths of the Hudson River Valley, Long Island, and New Jersey into lawless wastelands.” It was the same along stretches of the New England coast, where Viking-style raids by alternating boatloads of patriots and loyalists harassed towns and villages.
I can’t decide what’s more infuriating: Those e-mails suggesting inappropriate links between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation, or her campaign’s explanation of those e-mails suggesting that they think I’m a total, complete moron.
At the same time that Cheryl Mills was working as chief of staff in the secretary of state’s office, she was also conducting interviews for the secretary of state’s foundation. That is a textbook example of a situation that, at the very least, looks like someone using her public resources for personal gain. Any reasonable person can recognize that.
But the Clinton campaign — apparently hoping that voters completely lack critical-thinking skills – has released a statement in response insisting that all suspicions are completely ridiculous, that Mills was just doing “volunteer work for a charitable foundation,” and that “the idea that this poses a conflict of interest is absurd.”
That’s right . . . Mills was just doing it for fun! She was just like, “Hey I’ve got some time off . . . you know what my favorite thing to do in the whole world is? Watch TV? Drink wine? Nahhhhh, I want to go interview potential candidates for the Clinton Foundation! And she definitely chose that specific foundation solely because it was so great and fun, and definitely not because it was one that was run by her boss. How “absurd” to think that someone spending her free time doing work for her boss’ foundation might possibly indicate she was receiving anything from her boss for doing so. In fact, I’m sure they never even talked about it! And if you think otherwise, then you are the one who is being “absurd!”
Does anyone else hear how ridiculous that sounds?
When Hillary Clinton took office as secretary of state, she and her foundation agreed to conduct their affairs in a way that would not “create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts for Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.” Got that? Not even the appearance of conflict — and regardless of what you think about what actually happened, you still can’t deny that this is a situation where that “appearance” is definitely, glaringly, blatantly present.
Of course, Hillary Clinton knows all of this, and she knew it at the time. She’s a career politician. Not only was she well aware of how it would look, but she also knew enough about political media to have predicted that people would find out about it when she ran for president. But guess what? She did it anyway, which suggests that she believes that she doesn’t have to worry about what she does or how it will look. She just does what she thinks is best for herself, no matter how glaringly inappropriate, because she is confident that no matter what, she will never, ever have to suffer any real consequences for her behavior.
What’s even worse is that this attitude is par for the course for the Clintons. Whether it’s this kind of shady business with her slush fund foundation, or her husband Bill having a private chat with Loretta Lynch as the Department of Justice was deciding whether or not to indict her, it’s clear that the Clintons are so confident in their total power that they are certain they will never, ever have to answer for anything.
Investigations and indictments aside, we already know that the way Hillary Clinton conducted herself as secretary of state was dishonest, inadequate, and fueled by her own self-interest. Scandal surrounds this woman, and for her campaign to claim that it’s “absurd” — not even understandable but incorrect, but actually “absurd” — to be suspicious about the objectively suspicious behavior of a woman with an objectively suspicious track record is, objectively, insulting.
— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.
The early Cold War wisdom that “we must stop politics at the water’s edge” has never been entirely true. In endeavors as human as politics, no such altruistic aspiration ever will be. But Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s adage does reflect a principle critical to effective national security: The United States is imperiled when partisan politics distorts our understanding of the world and the threats it presents.
We’ve been imperiled for a long time now. The most salient reason for that has been the bipartisan, politically correct refusal to acknowledge and confront the Islamic roots of the threat to the West. It has prevented us from grasping not only why jihadists attack us but also that jihadists are merely the militant front line of the broader civilizational challenge posed by sharia supremacism.
Inevitably, when there is a profound threat and an overarching strategic failure to apprehend it, disasters abound; and rather than becoming occasions for reassessment of the flawed bipartisan strategy, those disasters become grist for partisan attacks. From 2004 through 2008, the specious claim was that President Bush’s ouster of Saddam Hussein created terrorism in Iraq. Now it is that President Obama is the “founder of ISIS,” as Donald Trump put it this week.
The point here is not to bash Trump. He is hardly the first to posit some variation of the storyline that Obama’s premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq led to the “vacuum” in which, we are to believe, the Islamic State spontaneously generated. Indeed, this narrative is repeated on Fox News every ten minutes or so.
The point is to try to understand what we are actually dealing with, how we got to this place, and what the security implications are. There is no denying that American missteps have exacerbated a dangerous threat environment in the Middle East to some degree. It is spurious, though, to suggest that any of these errors, or all of them collectively, caused the catastrophe that has unfolded.
The problem for the United States in this region is Islam — specifically, the revolutionary sharia-supremacist version to which the major players adhere. There is no vacuum. There never has been a vacuum. What we have is a bubbling cauldron of aggressive political Islam with its always attendant jihadist legions.
Germans with dual nationality will lose their German citizenship if they fight for militant Islamist groups abroad under new anti-terror proposals.
Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere also announced plans to speed up the deportation of foreign criminals.
He announced extra personnel, equipment and surveillance powers for the police.
But he rejected banning the public wearing of the burka (the Islamic full veil). And he resisted pressure to ease medical confidentiality.
Some of his conservative Christian Democrat (CDU) colleagues have urged a burka ban but Mr de Maiziere said it would be “problematic” and “you cannot ban everything that you reject”.
Mr de Maiziere was responding to recent attacks linked to militant Islamists. Two terror attacks by Islamist migrants shocked Germany last month – in Wuerzburg and Ansbach.
Citizenship debate
“I propose that German citizens who are fighting with terror militias in other countries, and take part in combat operations there, if they have a second nationality – and only then – they would lose German citizenship,” he told a news conference.
There was a move in France recently to deprive jihadists of their French citizenship, but it did not get through parliament.
German media report that the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) – the CDU’s coalition partners – strongly oppose any general ban on dual citizenship. The Greens are also against the idea.
For months experts and the media insisted that it was inconceivable and impossible for Muslim terrorists to enter Europe or America by pretending to be Syrian refugees. Now it’s just a fact of life. That’s the way it usually is with the left. The disastrous outcomes of their policies are denied and then they’re just a reality that we’re expected to cope with.
German intelligence services have evidence that “hit squads” from the Islamic State terror group have infiltrated the country disguised as refugees, the deputy head of Bavaria’s spy agency told the BBC Thursday.
“We have to accept that we have hit squads and sleeper cells in Germany,” Manfred Hauser, the vice president of the Bavaria region’s intelligence gathering agency, BayLfV, told the Today program.
“We have substantial reports that among the refugees there are hit squads. There are hundreds of these reports, some from refugees themselves. We are still following up on these, and we haven’t investigated all of them fully,” said Hauser.
Why do we have to accept them? Because we keep accepting Muslim migrants who claim to be refugees. We have to keep eating the whole bowl of candy wondering which of the pieces is poisoned.
The media’s outrage over the latest thing Trump said is not just bias, it’s ridiculous hypocrisy. After all much of the time Democrats have said the same things that Trump did. Including Dems like Hillary.
Trump called Obama and Hillary the founders of ISIS. The media swarmed. It’s apparently inappropriate to use such a figure of speech. Except that they had no problem with it when Hillary Clinton called Trump an ISIS recruiter.
“We have seen how Donald Trump is being used to essentially be a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism,” Hillary insisted on CNN.
Her campaign and the media blamed Trump for ISIS terror attacks.
Then in an interview with Business Insider, she quoted Hayden’s claim that Trump was a recruiting sergeant for ISIS.
“I think it was said just this week that the way Donald Trump talks about terrorism and his very insulting language towards Muslims is making him the ‘recruiting sergeant’ for ISIS.”
The media had no problem with this. Its problem with Trump’s founder comments has nothing to do with anything objective, but is entirely a function of their bias.
In the wake of the recent rise in Islamic terror attacks, German conservative officials are calling to ban the burqa, a traditional Muslim grabs that covers a woman’s entire body, usually donned by the most extreme devotees of the religion.
A handful of state interior ministers from the Christian Social Union and Christian Democratic Party (Chancellor Angela Merkel’s own party) drafted a proposal this week aimed at controlling the spread of radical Islam, cutting off the financing of terrorism-promoting mosques and banning Islamic dress that signals extremist affiliations.
“Freedom of religion is a central, fundamental right. However, religious extremism and the abuse of religious symbols have no place in Germany,” the proposal said, adding:
Freedom of expression is for us non-negotiable. The brutalization of our language and in particular hateful messages posted on social media will not be tolerated. We need to return to our civic virtues. Respect, courtesy and mutual consideration of one another are the foundations for a peaceful coexistence,” the proposal states.
Pointing to the fact that terror attacks in Germany have been mostly committed by Muslims with dual citizenship, the proposal called on Germans to decide where they stand.
“Dual citizenship is a huge obstacle for integration,” the proposal stated bluntly. “We object to this split loyalty. Whoever wants to engage themselves with the politics of foreign governments, we would advise to leave Germany. We call for people to make a conscious choice for the values of our free, democratic constitutional order.”
Moreover, the proposal addressed the politically-contentious issue of “uncontrolled immigration,” suggesting that it is a primary driver of violence in the country.
“Uncontrolled immigration and with that the link to people smuggling create unease within the population and simplify the process of sneaking into Europe for criminals and violent Islamist criminals,” the proposal asserted.
Leftist politicians have pushed back, arguing that the conservatives are straddling between between hate and xenophobia.
“Members of the Die Linke (Left Party) have already voiced criticism of the draft proposals. Bundestag Left Party member Frank Tempel told broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that a burqa ban proposal has nothing to do with fighting terrorism,” reports The Local.
The one percent of the one percent.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, released their tax returns on Friday.
For a person who left the White House “dead broke and deeply in debt” (in spite of stealing White House furniture and artwork), the Clintons have done very well in the succeeding years. For fiscal 2015, they reported an income over $10.6 million, significantly down from the $28.5 million they earned in 2014.
Yeah, running for president doesn’t leave people time for other income-generating activities. Either way, they are the 1% of the 1%!
Slightly over a third of their income went for income taxes, while another 10% went to charity. How thoughtful! How generous! Not really! Actually, how selfish!
Of the the $1,042,000 the Clintons gave to charity as listed on their return, $1 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation. The other $42,000 went to Desert Classic Charities.
In other words, the Clintons donated – tax-free, no less! – to themselves. The Saudis, the Algerians, and other wealthy and not so wealthy Muslim human rights-abusing countries and prominent Wall Street firms and individuals associated with them also donated to the Clinton Family Foundation.
Not that the donors expected any favors or such, of course – they just are as generous and concerned about the less fortunate as the Clintons. Yeah.
Oh, and not so by the way, and I know this will come as a shock, shock, shock!, the Desert Classic Charities partners with the Clinton Family Foundation. Boom!
Desert Classic Charities, the local non-profit entity that has organized the Humana Challenge in partnership with the Clinton Foundation (formerly the Bob Hope Classic) for 53 years, today presented 40 Coachella Valley charities with more than $2 million in donations[.]
And as for the Clinton Foundation itself, well, it has been called a “giant slush fund,” with such high overhead and such little charity that it was placed on a watch list by a charity watchdog group last year.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends. (snip)
In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand. (snip)
None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation. (snip)
Top Stories @ Fox News