RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274276/tale-two-cities-bruce-bawer

For the last couple of days, journalists and politicians all over London have been wringing their hands in despair over the disrespectful treatment accorded to a stellar Englishman. No, not Tommy Robinson. Kim Darroch. Sorry: Sir Kim Darroch. Yes, he’s a guy – Kim as in Kim Philby or Kim Jong Un, not Kim Novak. Since 2016, not that you or I would’ve known it, he’s been the UK Ambassador to the US. Before that he was Britain’s National Security Advisor, and before that he was his country’s Permanent Representative to the EU, an organization of which he is known to be exceedingly fond. In short, a career diplomat with predictable PC politics.

And the kind of faceless civil servant whom the public never notices until, as happened the other day, a scandal erupts around him. On July 5, the Mail on Sunday reported on leaked secret cables in which Darroch described the Trump White House as “dysfunctional,” “unpredictable,” “diplomatically clumsy and inept,” and torn by factional conflict, said that Trump himself had led a life “mired in scandal” and might well be indebted to “dodgy Russians,” and warned, after the President’s recent state visit to London, that Trump’s USA “is still the land of America First.”

On wonders: why keep some jerk on the payroll for this kind of stuff when you can get the same thing twenty-four hours a day on CNN or MSNBC? One also wonders: what kind of fatuity, or chutzpah, does it take for an envoy representing the worst prime minister and lamest government in modern British history to describe the most successful American president of our lifetimes as dysfunctional and inept? And one further wonders: did Darroch, while serving in Washington during the last days of the Obama administration, ever once express concern about Barack’s and Hillary’s numerous scandals and “dodgy” foreign connections?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/10/donald-trump-knows-boris-man-get-brexit-done-resuscitate-uk/

It is perhaps unsurprising that the British ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, felt the need to resign after Donald Trump’s condemnation of comments he made in leaked diplomatic cables. But the ambassador’s critical views of the White House point to a wider problem.

Despite the success of the president’s state visit to Britain, Trump and Theresa May have long been worlds apart in terms of vision, outlook and approach. There is no chemistry between them, and May has shown little interest in building a partnership with Trump, frequently siding with the EU over the US on foreign policy matters. The special relationship has been left weakened.

This week’s diplomatic spat will not, however, alter the reality that the alliance will be in a far better place once May steps down. Here in Washington, the expectation is that Boris Johnson will be in Downing Street on July 24, and will immediately be America’s most important ally. For the US, a Johnson premiership represents a powerful opportunity to reignite the special relationship.

The US is not taking sides in the Tory leadership contest, but there is an acute understanding in the Oval Office that Johnson represents a distinctly pro-American outlook with a deep-seated affinity for the transatlantic alliance. Johnson, after all, was born in New York, and was until recently a US citizen. He has been a frequent visitor to the US and is well known in political circles here.

This bodes well for Britain. Many Americans admire Johnson’s record as mayor of London, and view him as an exciting personality, with a dash of Churchillian brilliance, who is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom and get things done.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/who_really_speaks_for_gazans_.html

The Hashemite king of Jordan claims to speak for the Gazans. So do Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the Muslim Brotherhood (and its backer, Qatar). Now two native Gazans speak out.

……”Why Is nobody listening to the voice of Gazans?

As the prospect of Middle East peace phases in and out, one has to realize that it’s been a long and nasty 13 years since Hamas ruthlessly took over Gaza in a coup disguised as an election.

The ups and down experienced by Gaza’s citizens have netted not just 2 wars, but economic problem after economic problem. As complaints have risen, a variety of spokespeople have stepped forward. They represent 2 specific types of representations. The first comes from the “Government”, and in all cases such as Jordan, Qatar, and others, these are either Kings or Dictators, or both. The second comes from groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas.

What ties these groups together is a series of anomalies, all of which raise two very important questions: “How can they speak for Palestinians?” And, “If not them, then who?”

The Hashemite King of Jordan claims to speak for the Gazans, but how can he when he has a country’s needs to represent? He openly states that he is the sole “moderate” negotiator between the Palestinians and Israel and the West, but under Abdullah’s 20-year reign, what has he negotiated? All he has done is line his pockets at the expense of Palestinians.

The Muslim Brotherhood claims to represent us, but how? As far as we know, this terrorist organization is so destructive that most Islamic countries do not allow them to operate.  They are classified as terrorists.  But apparently their best friend is the King of Jordan because he allows them to operate.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) – the recognized governing body – represents no one except the needs of Abbas and his leaders, who live in luxury both in and out of the country.  They are impudent, and quite frankly, no one pays attention to them. For example, Gaza is being strangled by Hamas, who is supposed to take orders from the PA, yet they don’t.

Hamas is a political party that thrives on dictatorship, crushing the people, and lying to the world.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-iranian-vessels-tried-to-block-u-k-ship-from-passing-through-strait-of-hormuz-11562822874?cx_testId=30&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s

DUBAI—Iranian ships attempted to impede the passage of a U.K.-flagged commercial vessel through the Persian Gulf, the British Defense Ministry said, a move that threatens to escalate already high tensions in the region.

Three Iranian vessels tried to block the BP PLC -run tanker British Heritage in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday but were turned away by the presence of a U.K. warship, according to the ministry.

The incident is likely to further spook international shipping markets and investors and could accelerate U.S. moves to build a coalition of states to protect commercial vessels near Iranian waters, after a series of attacks on ships in recent months.

Front-month West Texas Intermediate futures recently were up 0.5% to $60.69, while Brent futures were 0.4% higher at $67.26.

The British Royal Navy frigate, HMS Montrose, issued verbal warnings to the Iranian ships before they backed away, the ministry said Thursday.

“We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region,” it said, adding that the attempt to block the British Heritage’s passage contravened international law.

A spokesman for the ministry added that the British Heritage had since left the Persian Gulf.

BP didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tommy Robinson GUILTY! Ezra Levant reacts – YouTube

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/07

Can successful and thriving communities and societies be built by letting people keep more of their own money, while granting them the freedoms they need to pursue their own destiny? Radical socialists and cultural marxists would think otherwise- surely a society left to its own devices would only degenerate into a stratified one where wealth is hoarded and culture is tainted by commercial motives rather than one where the pie is grown for everyone, and unique cultural identities are upheld. Yet historical episodes, from Ottoman-era Bulgaria to modern Hong Kong demonstrate otherwise.

Lower taxes offer the opportunity for the accumulation of enormous wealth for individuals, and society at large. Encouraging aspiration comes with the understanding that presumably, the empowered individual is best placed to resolve his or her own issues while spending their own money expediently. Rather than government cronies serving cultural and economic edicts to society and the individuals who comprise it, the intersection of open markets and civil society instead offer a more compelling alternative that doesn’t require centralised power or dipping into people’s pockets.

Hong Kong is a beacon of economic freedom is a region of the world that has long been under threat of Communist totalitarianism. Hong Kong is ranked number one on the Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Economic Freedom Index, a position it has held since the index’s inception in 1995. The city’s rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency, and open markets, all contribute to this rating.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14516/united-nations-free-speech

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/can-anyone-beat-boris/

The question looms large over the future of the Tory party, British politics, and Brexit.

‘Can Boris Beat Boris?” the Remainer classes have been wondering since Boris Johnson and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt emerged two weeks ago from the scrum of Tory leadership hopefuls to take their campaigns to the party grassroots, which will finally choose between them. It’s not so much a question as a heartfelt plea from leading figures in the May Cabinet, including Theresa May herself and chancellor Philip Hammond, many Tory placeholders (thirty is the latest figure) lower down, their sympathizers in the media, the establishment, and the metropolitan chattering classes.

With less than two weeks to go before by the 22nd of July, when the votes will be counted, it’s starting to look like Boris may try to beat himself, but he won’t come near to succeeding.

That’s because Boris is the firm — no, undislodgeable — favorite of most Tory activists. And that in turn is not only because they have long liked his deceptively Bertie Wooster-ish public persona, but because he has become a progressively firmer Brexiteer in the three years since he declared for Leave in the 2016 referendum. And, finally, achieving Brexit is what the Tory leadership election is all about.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14517/iran-new-terrorist-network

US, British, French and other Western bases in the region are the most likely targets for future terrorist attacks, and a number of Western governments are understood to have responded by ordering their military and diplomatic missions in the region to upgrade security arrangements.

The discovery of the African network follows recent revelations of Iran’s attempts to expand its terror network in Europe, as well as other parts of the globe including Latin America and the Middle East.

The Iranian cells are said to be active in a number of African countries including Sudan, Chad, Ghana, Niger, Gambia and the Central African Republic.

Last month, The Jerusalem Post, quoting from an intelligence report from the German state of Hesse, claimed that Iran was one of the main state actors involved in espionage in Germany. It said Iran was involved in the illicit procurement of technology for weapons of mass destruction.

As Iran intensifies its efforts to establish a global terror network, new evidence has emerged that highlights the regime’s attempts to establish a terrorist infrastructure in Africa.

Western security officials claim the Iranian initiative in Africa has been launched in response to the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the controversial nuclear deal signed between Tehran and the world’s leading powers in 2015.

The objective of the African-based terror network, Western security officials say, is to establish a group of so-called “sleeper cells” that can be activated to attack Western targets if tensions between Iran and the West result in a serious escalation in hostilities. US, British, French and other Western bases in the region are the most likely targets for future terrorist attacks, and a number of Western governments are understood to have responded by ordering their military and diplomatic missions in the region to upgrade security arrangements.

The discovery of the African network follows recent revelations of Iran’s attempts to expand its terror network in Europe, as well as other parts of the globe including Latin America and the Middle East.

Intelligence officials say the new terror network has been established on the orders of Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds Force, the elite section of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that has responsibility for overseas operations.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274243/slavery-report-nigeria-american-anti-slavery-group

Among the most disturbing aspects of the long-running civil war in Nigeria has been slavery. Conflicts between the Muslim majority and the 40% Christian minority have led to the growth of terrorist violence in which the taking of Christian slaves has become a source of compensation for Islamic fighters.

The recent rise of jihad organizations like ISIS affiliate Boko Haram has been the main source of contemporary slave raids. The most infamous incident of a slave raid was Boko Haram’s abduction of 276 Christian schoolgirls in the town of Chibok on April 14, 2014 which inspired Michelle Obama’s “#BringBackOurGirls” hashtag. Most slaves are young girls, kidnapped and kept as the concubines of the Islamic soldiers.

Though the U.S. State Department’s 2018 human rights report on Nigeria mentions that the number of slaves captured and owned by Boko Haram terrorists today could be in the thousands, the full number is as of now “unknown.”

The human rights organization Open Doors USA has also ranked Nigeria as no. 12 on its list of the countries most guilty of persecuting and massacring Christians.

History and Background

Nigeria has been a major center of black slavery for centuries. The Portuguese and Spanish plied the coast hunting for slaves and making deals with both black and Arab slave raiders as early as 1471. But with the spread of Islam centuries earlier, slavery spread as well, as Islamized blacks enslaved non-Muslim blacks. While Europeans likely encouraged the growth of slavery through increasing overseas demand, decades after all white nations banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery persisted on an enormous scale within the Muslim caliphates. By the nineteenth century, it is estimated that in the northern Nigerian province of Kano alone — the most prosperous within the powerful Sokoto caliphate — as much as half of the total population were slaves.