RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://carolineglick.com/europe-seeks-to-pin-down-president-trump-and-america/

National Security Advisor John Bolton said last Wednesday that while discussion of President Donald Trump’s decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has centered on the administration’s revulsion with its institutional anti-Israel bias, the move was really about restoring American control over U.S. foreign policy.

In his words: “We did talk about Israel [in setting out our reasons for leaving the UNHRC] because it’s singled out unfairly. But in many respects, Israel is, as the saying goes, ‘the canary in the mine shaft’ for the United States. Countries that attack Israel do so because they think it’s easier, but much of their criticism is really aimed at us.”

Bolton added, “Getting off of the council is an assertion of America’s determination to stick to its Constitution and not to recognize that there’s some ‘higher authority’ at the UN … to judge our performance or to give us advice on how to implement the constitution … That’s what this is about: self-government.”

The Trump administration’s determination to restore American power and independence in the international arena places it on a collision course with the European Union, whose perspective on the proper goal of international affairs is diametrically opposed to the administration’s.

American power abroad rests on military and economic power. Since the end of the Second World War, Europe has been militarily dependent on the U.S.

Rather than build their own military power to secure their interests and enable them to play a leading role in world affairs, European leaders have based their international position on their power as a voting bloc in international and transnational institutions, and on their collective financial power.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12522/canada-jihadis

The Canadian government is willing to go to great (and presumably costly) lengths to “facilitate” the return of Canadian jihadists, unlike the UK, for example, which has revoked the citizenship of ISIS fighters so they cannot return.

Attempts at deradicalization elsewhere have frequently turned out to be ineffective. In the UK, for example, a new government report shows that the vast majority of deradicalization programs are not only ineffective, but even counterproductive, and that those tasked with executing the programs “…would refuse to engage in topics over fears of bringing up matters of race and religion without appearing discriminatory”

In France, the country’s first and only deradicalization center closed in September 2017 after just one year, without having “deradicalized” a single individual. On the contrary, three participants reportedly behaved as if the center were a “Jihad academy”.

Canadians who go abroad to commit terrorism – predominantly jihadists, in other words – have a “right to return” according to government documents obtained by Global News. They not only have a right of return, but “… even if a Canadian engaged in terrorist activity abroad, the government must facilitate their return to Canada,” as one document says.

According to the government, there are still around 190 Canadian citizens volunteering as terrorists abroad. The majority are in Syria and Iraq, and 60 have returned. Police are reportedly expecting a new influx of returnees over the next couple of months.

The Canadian government is willing to go to great (and presumably costly) lengths to “facilitate” the return of Canadian jihadists, unlike the UK, for example, which has revoked the citizenship of ISIS fighters so they cannot return. The Canadian government has established a taskforce, the High Risk Returnee Interdepartmental Taskforce, that, according to government documents:

“… allows us to collectively identify what measures can mitigate the threat these individuals may pose during their return to Canada. This could include sending officers overseas to collect evidence before they depart, or their detention by police upon arrival in Canada.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12599/turkey-election-results

Despite Erdoğan’s clear victory, his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) performed worse than expected.

Erdoğan may not be too happy having to share power.

The national joy over the re-election of a man known best to the rest of the world for his authoritarian, sometimes despotic rule, is not surprising in a country where average schooling is a mere 6.5 years.

Millions of anti-Erdoğan Turks are now terrified of the prospect of further torment under an Islamist-nationalist coalition show run by a president with effectively no checks and balances.

Nothing could have better explained the Turks’ joy over their president’s election victory on June 24 than a cartoon that depicts a cheering crowd with three lines in speech balloons: “It was a near thing,” one says. “We would almost become free.” And the last one says: “Down with freedoms!”

Turkey’s Islamist strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, won 52.5% of the national vote in presidential elections on June 24. That marks a slight rise from 51.8% he won in presidential elections of August 2014. More than 25 million Turks voted for Erdoğan’s presidency. His closest rival, social democrat Muharrem Ince, an energetic former schoolteacher, won less than 16 million votes, or nearly 31% of the national vote.

The opposition candidate admitted that the election was fair. There have been no reports of fraud from international observers, at least so far.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270555/sweden-open-business-bruce-bawer

I try to be careful about these things, so I won’t give a thumbs-up – yet – to the new party Alternativ für Sverige. I want to know more about them. That said, the party leader, Gustav Kasselstrand, is saying all the right things. “What you read about Sweden on alternative news platforms is true,” he told an interviewer recently. “We are facing problems more severe than ever before in our history, where Swedes face a situation of being a minority within 20 years if nothing is done to stop the replacement of our people.” He added: “I would describe the problems in Sweden as some kind of low-intensive civil war (with gradually increasing intensity for each day).”

While I’m not yet sure what to make of Kasselstrand and his party, I do know what to make of the establishment they’re taking on. It’s a gang of liars. Case in point: recently the Council for the Promotion of Sweden Abroad – a joint effort by Sweden’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, Ministry of Culture, the Swedish Institute, Business Sweden and Visit Sweden – distributed a manual, Sharing Sweden, which explains to Swedish entrepreneurs how to attract tourism, business development, investment, trade, “cultural and scientific exchange,” and the like. The thrust is to project a “strong image of Sweden abroad.” This, admits the Council, is not easy nowadays, because, and I quote, “Sweden has been affected in recent years by negative rumours and in some cases outright disinformation, particularly in the areas of migration and integration.”

“Negative rumours”? “Outright disinformation”? Translation: the horrifying truth about our national mess of an immigration and integration policy has gotten out, and if we want to attract vacationers, investors, etc., we’ve got to double down on the denial.