Displaying posts published in

December 2017

Several Injured as Driver Deliberately Plows Into Melbourne Crowd More than a dozen people were injured By Robb M. Stewart in Melbourne and Rob Taylor in Canberra

A man rammed a car into pedestrians and Christmas shoppers in a bustling area of Australia’s second-largest city on Thursday, injuring more than a dozen people, in an act that police said was deliberate.

Police in Melbourne said they arrested the male driver of the vehicle at the scene, along with another man, and that several of those injured were in critical condition.

“At this stage we believe that it was a deliberate act. However, we do not know the motivation,” Commander Russell Barrett of Victoria Police told reporters.

Witnesses said a white sport-utility vehicle accelerated after running a red light and plowing into pedestrians at high speed adjacent to Flinders Street Station, one of Melbourne’s busiest transportation hubs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-plows-into-pedestrians-in-central-melbourne-1513842409?cx_testId=17&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=0&cx_tag=related?cx_campaign=poptart&mod=cx_poptart#cxrecs_s

The incident occurred near the location of a similar incident in January, when a driver plowed through a pedestrian mall, killing four people and injuring 20 others. That incident wasn’t terrorism-related.

The January incident, coming after terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.K. in which attackers used vehicles to mow down pedestrians, prompted Australia’s government and police countrywide to strengthen defenses in an effort to guard against vehicle-based attacks. Concrete or metal poles were erected at popular locations and more armed police have been patrolling the nation’s streets.

Earlier this month, police in Sydney began patrolling with military-style rifles for the first time. Other deterrent measures have included fences and additional installations of CCTV cameras, as well as improved screening procedures across the country.

Heavily armed officers had parts of central Melbourne locked down after Thursday’s incident, which occurred at the start of rush hour at about 4:30 p.m. local time, during the busy Christmas shopping period.

An ambulance-service spokesman said at least 13 people had been transported to hospitals, while two others were being assessed by paramedics at the scene.

“The intersection was full of pedestrians and he just plowed through,” one bystander, who gave his name only as Jim, told Australian television, describing the car as a white Suzuki traveling fast. CONTINUE AT SITE

Russia’s Longest-Serving Political Prisoner Alexei Pichugin deserves Amnesty International’s help. By Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Dec. 20 marks the fourth anniversary of what will, in my life, always be a day of rebirth: my release from a Russian prison, where I had been jailed for 10 years by Vladimir Putin for crimes I did not commit. I remember my police escort, as he walked down the boarding ramp of the plane that was to take me to Berlin, telling someone on his walkie-talkie that I was on board. I remember the door closing.

Later I learned how many governments and people had applied pressure for my release. Among them was Amnesty International, which added me to its “prisoners of conscience” list in 2011.

On this, the anniversary of my freedom, I again thank AI—and I am urging it to put its weight behind Russia’s longest-serving political prisoner, Alexei Pichugin, who is stuck in the same vortex that entrapped me.

Mr. Pichugin, a former midlevel supervisor in the security office of Yukos Oil, was arrested in 2003 and has been convicted of multiple murders based on “evidence” fabricated by the Kremlin’s minions. Western democracies and even Interpol have decreed his case to be political and devoid of real evidence. In short, Russia holds Mr. Pichugin hostage, in hope that he will buy his freedom by giving false testimony against me.

There are protocols, I know, for determining who is a prisoner of conscience, as well as academic debate on the precise meaning of the term. I can tell you the simple test I apply. For 14 years and counting—more than 5,000 days—Mr. Pichugin has held in his hands the key to his freedom: All he needs to do is bear false witness against me and other Yukos executives. Lie, and walk free.

Every day, he wakes to that invitation. Every day, he refuses. There is only one way to describe his condition: Mr. Pichugin is a prisoner of conscience.

Obama’s Pass for Hezbollah Charges that he killed a probe of the terror group to get his Iran deal.

The Iran nuclear deal was the Holy Grail of Barack Obama’s second term, and it’s no secret he subjugated other priorities and relationships to get it. But now come allegations that he also killed a U.S. investigation into drug running by the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Josh Meyer of Politico reported Monday that former U.S. officials say the Obama Administration quashed a Drug Enforcement Administration investigation into Hezbollah’s transnational crime networks. Senior Obama officials deny it, but Politico reports compelling evidence.

After 9/11 the DEA launched investigations into Venezuelan crime syndicates, links between Colombian drug-traffickers and Lebanese money-launderers, and the “suspicious flow of thousands of used cars” from the U.S. to Benin, Mr. Meyer explains. The U.S. military was also investigating links between Iran and Shiite militias with improvised explosive devices that killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers. “All of these paths eventually converged on Hezbollah,” he writes.

By 2008 the DEA had “amassed evidence that Hezbollah had transformed itself” into a global crime syndicate “that some investigators believed was collecting $1 billion a year from drug and weapons trafficking and money laundering,” Mr. Meyer reports. DEA’s Project Cassandra was born to take down the Hezbollah operation by busting its “innermost circle.”

President Trump’s security strategy: the impact on Israel: Yoram Ettinger

resident Trump’s national security strategy – as enunciated on December 18, 2017 – reflects a realistic assessment of clear and present threats to the US, rejecting the politically-correct worldview of the foreign policy establishment, which has been crashed, repeatedly, against the rocks of reality. It provides a prescription for the enhancement of the flourishing, mutually-beneficial US-Israel relationship.

Contrary to the US and West European government, academic and media foreign policy establishment – which are highly critical of Israel and top heavy on wishful-thinking concerning the supposed Arab Spring, ostensible democratization and peaceful coexistence of the Arab World – Trump recognizes the complex and inherently brutal reality of the Middle East. Trump is aware of the lethal threats posed by Shiite (Ayatollahs) and Sunni terrorism and the threats posed by the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Apparently, Trump does not embrace the myth of the Palestinian issue as – supposedly – a core cause of regional instability, a crown-jewel of Arab policy-makers, nor the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

According to Trump, apologies, appeasement and multilateralism have been replaced by America-first patriotism, the independence of unilateral US military action, the resurgence of the US posture of deterrence, an expanded defense budget and peace-through-strength.

Will Israel leverage these principles in its own battle against Islamic/Arab terrorism and its public relation posture in the US?

Christopher Heathcote The Struggle with Confederate Statues

‘Certain grievances about Confederate memorials are legitimate. Others are steeped in a shocking level of ignorance. And that’s the problem evident even at this distance. Far from being guided by Lincoln’s better angels in human nature, the recent behaviour of some self-appointed moral sentinels appears more inclined to attention-seeking, stirring trouble, unsettling communities, causing division, feigning distress, staging shouting matches, and not caring an iota for historical truth.”
In New York, a church removed the plaque from a tree planted on its grounds by Robert E. Lee. That same day in far-off San Diego, the bronze dedication to Jefferson Davis was stripped from the highway which bears his name. Forgiveness and historical perspective are lately in very short supply.

They swung into hushed action in early morning a few months ago, just before 1.30 a.m. on Monday, April 24. A large contingent of New Orleans police barricaded off Iberville Street and Canal Place, temporary lighting was set up, and police snipers were stationed on a parking garage and other buildings with a clear view overlooking the Battle of Liberty Place monument.[1]

Then trucks and equipment from the demolition company arrived. On each vehicle the firm’s name and logo were concealed by masking tape and cardboard, while workers had been issued with bulletproof vests, yellow helmets and bandanas which they tied across their faces to prevent identification. A cherry-picker was carefully moved into place, with a tarpaulin positioned to obstruct view of actual work, then, at about 3.00 a.m. a couple of workmen, armed with grinders, started removing the top section of the obelisk.
This essay appears in the December edition of Quadrant.
Click here to subscribe

Once that first section had been levered away then dropped on a flatbed truck, at 3.15 a.m., the New Orleans mayor’s office issued a press statement formally announcing that the Battle of Liberty Place monument was being removed, and that another three divisive public statues—of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, of General Robert E. Lee, and of General P.G.T. Beauregard—would likewise be going in weeks to come. The statement explained that private funding from unnamed sources was paying for the work, and that “details about future statue removals will not be provided to the public” for safety reasons. The city mayor, Mitch Landrieu, emphasised that the removal “sends a clear and unequivocal message” about New Orleans’s focus on celebrating “our diversity, inclusion and tolerance”. He went on:

Relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. This is not about politics, blame or retaliation. This is not a naive quest to solve all our problems at once. This is about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile—and most importantly—choose a better future.

The Jefferson Davis statue was whisked away on May 11, followed six days later by the equestrian statue of General Beauregard. The Robert E. Lee memorial looked like a tougher proposition. Modelled on Nelson’s Column in London, the general’s statue surveyed New Orleans from atop a sixty-foot column rising from a twelve-foot earth mound in a traffic island. The media confidently predicted a delay before complex work could occur. But only two days later the city council and police moved in a lightning operation, with a crane swinging the bronze figure free of its column on May 19.

It can be baffling for Australians to fathom present efforts in America seemingly to purge certain cities and towns of Civil War-related memorials. Why are statues being removed? Is art being censored? Are unpalatable aspects of history now to be erased? Various academics and artists here worry the trend resembles political correctness taken to extremes. Matters are not clarified by a sensationalist media which has reported contentious removals without explaining the deeper history of these memorials; because most have been the symbolic focus of bitter troubles festering in their communities for generations.

Take the Battle of Liberty Place monument in New Orleans. This commemorated an attempted armed coup in 1874 by a renegade group, the Democratic White League, which was seething at the result of Louisiana’s post-Civil War elections. Comprising former Confederate soldiers, League members deemed the elections invalid because blacks had been allowed to vote and stand as candidates.

So on September 19, 1874, the 5000-strong League rode en masse into New Orleans intending to unseat the state governor, William Kellogg, and his black lieutenant-governor, Caesar Antoine, both Republicans. In a pitched fire-fight on Canal Place, the League easily defeated the outnumbered city police and state militia, who sustained over 100 casualties. The League then occupied the state house, armoury and several nearby buildings, intent on taking control of the state and installing a white Democrat leadership. But after three days they fled the city when news broke that a sizable force of federal troops was on its way.

Does Trump Threaten Science? Part 3 By Peter W. Wood

On December 7, the American Association of University Professors issued a thirteen-page statement, “National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom,” that attacked President Trump in particular and conservatives in general as “anti-science.” In Part I of this three-part essay, I gave the historical background to the popular leftist attack on conservatives for their “anti-science.” In Part II, I showed that both left and right sometimes act on non-scientific grounds to forestall valid research and scientifically sound applications. “Anti-science” sounds bad, but the term is just a polemical way of phrasing the recognition that science can’t always be left to itself to decide what to do. Other principles of a moral and intellectual nature must sometimes supervene, to prevent, for example, heedless forms of human experimentation. Bringing these principles to bear inevitably involves political action, and in that sense the politicization of science isn’t always bad. It depends on the principles—and the politics.

In Part III, we will look at exactly what principles and politics the AAUP has in mind in its attack on Trump.

China

Nearly half of the AAUP’s report, “National Security, the Assault on Science, and Academic Freedom,” deals with the supposed threat to science posed by the U.S. Government’s efforts to protect national secrets from leaking to hostile foreign governments. At the center of this is U.S. concern about China, and Chinese researchers in America inappropriately sharing research with colleagues in China. One of the co-authors, Temple University physics professor Xiaoxing Xi, was arrested May 21, 2015 on charges that he had disclosed a device called a “pocket heater” to Chinese colleagues. The pocket heater is a patented technology for making “thin films of the superconductor magnesium diboride.” The charges were eventually dropped and Xi is now suing for “malicious prosecution.”

The report cites other researchers likewise charged with stealing secrets or otherwise passing inappropriate information to China, including Wen Ho Lee, Guoqing Cao, Shuyu Li, Xianfen Chen, Yudonng Zhu, and Allen Ho. The charges in most of the cases were dropped or ended in minimal findings. Anyone who has followed the cases closely, however, knows that charges get dropped in spy cases for lots of reasons. After the Justice Department dropped the case against Wen Ho Lee, FBI Director Louis Freeh told the Senate Judiciary and Select Intelligence Committees that “each and every one of the 59 counts in the indictment” could be proven, but a trial “posed serious obstacles to proving the facts without revealing nuclear secrets in open courts.”

The legal presumption of innocence, in other words, has to be taken with a grain of salt, at least in some of these cases. Prosecuting spies is extremely difficult. I’m not quite so ready as the AAUP to consider the U.S. counter-intelligence as comprised of bumbling xenophobic fools, haplessly undermining the legitimate international exchange of ideas.

Mueller’s Sinister Coup Attempt The special counsel threatens the rule of law by stealing Trump transition documents. December 20, 2017 Matthew Vadum

The unprecedented theft of thousands of likely privileged Trump transition emails by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller’s investigators is yet more proof that the open-ended fishing expedition is continuing to move forward with its effort to reverse the results of the 2016 election.

News of the misappropriation of the email tranches comes weeks after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) urged that Mueller quit or be fired, saying the independent prosecutor has “indisputable” conflicts of interest.

“We are at risk of a coup d’état in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly-elected president of the United States,” Gaetz said, echoing earlier remarks by writer Michael Walsh who asserts the Left is engaged in a “rolling coup attempt” against President Trump.

Monday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” author Mark Steyn said, “I see no reason at all why a guy who is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in an election that took place on November the 8th should be able to seize, effectively, an incoming government’s entire confidential communications between each other in the period after the election took place. That seems to be entirely unwarranted by Mueller.”

Trump himself was more restrained in his rhetoric.

He said “a lot of lawyers thought that was pretty sad,” in reference to the purloining of the transition records by Mueller’s office. “Not looking good. It’s not looking good,” Trump said.

“It’s quite sad to see that,” Trump said. “My people were very upset.”

“I can’t imagine there’s anything on them, because as we said there’s no collusion,” he added. “There was no collusion whatsoever.”

Until somebody delivers a coup de grâce to this disgraceful coup attempt, the push could last the entirety of Donald Trump’s presidency. The end of the investigation is nowhere in sight. Although White House lawyers had said Mueller’s probe would conclude by year’s end, members of the independent prosecutor’s team reportedly said recently that the investigation will spill over into 2018 – at least.

Commissioned to investigate the Left’s ridiculous Trump-Russia electoral collusion conspiracy theory, Mueller, with his scorched-earth, shock-and-awe tactics, remains the Left’s best hope to drive the 45th president of the United States from the White House. Democrats still refuse to accept that the irretrievably corrupt Democrat Hillary Clinton was flattened by Republican Trump in the election 13 months ago. Working with the Deep State, former President Obama launched his own insurrection against the Trump administration even before it came into being.

Europe’s “Arab Street” Rises Up by Douglas Murray

Hamas called for a “Day of Rage” — as opposed to the days of peace and harmony the terrorist group ordinarily calls for — but this did not spill out very far.

In Stockholm, meanwhile, the new “locals” contented themselves with setting light to the Star of David rather than to real live Jews as their compatriots in Gothenburg had tried to do.

The fabled “Arab Street” had been meant to rise up. And it did rise up. But not in the Arab world… instead it lit up in Europe.

It is now a fortnight since President Trump made his historic announcement about the status of Jerusalem. The speech which announced that America would drop the pretence that Jerusalem is not the capital of the State of Israel was relayed live around the world. Across the major networks and the world’s front pages the response was almost unanimous. They proclaimed this a major foreign policy blunder which would lead to any number of problems including — many predicted — an immediate “third intifada.”

The world’s cameras immediately turned to Bethlehem where a small group of enterprising Palestinians burned an American flag for the cameras. This picture went around the world. Otherwise, not very much appeared to be happening. Hamas called for a “Day or Rage” — as opposed to the days of peace and harmony the terrorist group ordinarily calls for — but this did not spill out very far. The Friday immediately following the announcement might have been a flashpoint, tempers being famously frayed after the act of afternoon worship. And yet, as the BBC’s veteran reporter Jeremy Bowen tweeted from the scene, “At Damascus Gate in Jerusalem press pack outnumbering demonstrators.” The fabled “Arab Street” had been meant to rise up. And it did rise up. But not in the Arab world.

In London, the American Embassy was the scene of a protest called for by a number of prominent left-wing and Labour party activists as well as a some Muslim groups. The Labour MP Andy Slaughter was among those who addressed the crowds. This swiftly arranged protest soon degenerated into the usual anti-Semitic rally, with the crowds chanting “From the Rivers to the Sea Palestine will be free” (that is “There will be no Israel at all, not even a sliver of the land”). And the crowd also chanted “Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad, sa yahud”. That is, “Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning.” For the crowd outside the American embassy in London, threatening Jews with the memory of the seventh century obliteration of a Jewish community near Medina was clearly an entirely appropriate move.

Rampant Pedophilia in Pakistani Madrassas by Lawrence A. Franklin

A recent Associated Press probe provided accounts of the rampant pedophilia, allowed to go unchecked due to a combination of factors, among them the fact that most of the victims are from poor and vulnerable families. Those who do try to complain are often bribed or threatened into silence.

Islamic judicial officials, and even civil court judges, usually urge those accused of sexual abuse to offer “blood money” to the victim or the family in exchange for withdrawing the complaint and “forgiving” the perpetrator.

Well-connected violators reach out to community leaders, particularly in rural areas, and persuade them to pressure parents of victims into keeping silent by accusing them of bringing shame to their villages or warning them that they will be subject to counter-charges of blasphemy.

Sexual abuse of young boys and girls in Pakistan’s madrassas (Islamic schools) continues to be both pervasive and suppressed, according to the latest “Cruel Numbers” annual report by Sahil, a child-protection NGO operating in four of the country’s main provinces.

A recent Associated Press (AP) probe provided accounts of the rampant pedophilia, allowed to go unchecked due to a combination of factors, among them the fact that most of the victims are from poor and vulnerable families. Those who do try to complain are often bribed or threatened into silence. As a result, the head of Sahil said, the 359 cases reported by the media over the past decade are “barely the tip of the iceberg.”

A mere fraction of sexual-abuse allegations has reached the court adjudication stage, and only a handful of the perpetrators in those cases have been indicted; very few have been convicted. Islamic judicial officials, and even civil court judges, usually urge those accused of sexual abuse to offer “blood money” to the victim or the family in exchange for withdrawing the complaint and “forgiving” the perpetrator.

The Trump’s Camp Strategy with Regard to Mueller by Alan M. Dershowitz

The Trump team is probably not going to seek to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. To do so would be to provoke Trump’s crucial supporters in Congress. Instead, they seem to be seeking to discredit him and his investigation. This is apparently designed to achieve two possible results: the first is to put pressure on the Special Prosecutor to lean over backwards in order to avoid any accusation of bias against Trump and his team. Mueller cares deeply about his reputation for integrity and will want to emerge from this process with that reputation intact. Accordingly, he may err – consciously or unconsciously – in favor of Trump in close cases so that the public will regard him as unbiased and fair-minded.

This is a classic tactic used by lawyers, athletic coaches, business people and others in how they deal with decision makers. The great Red Auerbach, former coach of the Boston Celtics, once told me that when he screams loudly at officials, he generally gets the next close call in his favor. I have heard the same from baseball managers regarding balls and strikes.

This is a somewhat risky strategy in the context of law, because attacking the decision maker could also backfire. Whoever thinks about using this tactic should understand the particular decision maker against whom it is directed. Mueller seems like an appropriate target because of his concern for his reputation for fairness.

Even if this tactic were not to work, the attack on Mueller gives the Trump team some legal weaponry in the event of an indictment or a recommendation for impeachment. If a significant portion of the country believes that the Special Counsel was unfair, this could help in legal proceedings before judges or jurors.

So attacking Mueller may appear to be a win-win tactic for the team – certainly a lot better than firing Mueller. Fortunately for the Trump team, Mueller has played into their hands by his sloppiness in conducting the investigation. He has been incautious with his choice of personnel – too many of them seem biased against Trump, not only by their backgrounds, but by their tweets and messages. When you go after a President, you must be Caesar’s wife – above suspicion or reproach. Mueller seems to be failing the Caesar’s wife test. Moreover, the manner by which he acquired emails and other documents from the Trump transition team may raise some legal questions. The same may be true if he used the questionable dossier against Trump as a basis for securing warrants.