Turkey’s Tradition of Murdering Christians by Robert Jones

Turkey’s countless agreements with Western organizations do not seem to have reduced the hatred for Christians there.

In Turkey, it is “ordinary people” who murder or attack Christians, then the judiciary or political system somehow find a way of enabling the perpetrators to get away with the crimes. Most of these crimes are not covered by the international media and Turkey is never held responsible.

While Muslims are pretty much free to practice their religion and express their views on other religions anywhere in the world, Christians and other non-Muslims can be killed in Turkey and other Muslim-majority countries just for attempting peacefully to practice their religion or openly express their views.

“Multiculturalism,” which is passionately defended by many liberals in the West, could have worked wonders in multi-ethnic and multi-religious places such as Anatolia. But unfortunately, Islamic ideology allows only one culture, one religion, and one way of thinking under their rule: Islam. Ironically, this is the central fact these liberals do not want to see.

On 26 July, the northern French town of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray witnessed a horrific Islamist attack: Two Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists killed an 85-year-old priest, Jacques Hamel, in his church during Mass. Two nuns and two churchgoers were taken hostage.

The terrorists, who had pledged allegiance to ISIS and, shouting “Allahu Akbar”, slit the throat of the priest and captured the bloody episode on video, according to a nun who escaped the assault.

Such Islamist attacks might be new to EU member countries but not to Turkey. For decades, so many innocent, defenseless Christians in Turkey have been slaughtered by Muslim assailants.

Christians in Turkey are still attacked, murdered or threatened daily; the assailants usually get away with their crimes.

In Malatya, in 2007, during the Zirve Bible Publishing House massacre, three Christian employees were attacked, severely tortured, then had their hands and feet tied and their throats cut by five Muslims on April 18, 2007.

Nicola Sturgeon, how welcome are Jews in Scotland?

August is festival month in Edinburgh. A massive celebration, delivered through a collective of independent arts and cultural festivals. Just one of these, the ‘Edinburgh Festival Fringe’, is the largest arts festival in the world.

At the ‘Fringe’ event this year, scheduled for August 17, is the ‘International Shalom Festival’. Described as a one-day celebration bringing together Jews, Arabs, Christians and other minorities, that all co-exist together peacefully in Israel. Yet once again, as Israeli artists perform inside Scotland, demonstrations are being arranged in protest.
Edinburgh protests

As far back as 1997, during the Oslo peace talks, antizionists attacked Israeli performers at the festival. In 2008 the Jerusalem Quartet concert was disrupted, in 2012 it was the turn of the Batsheva Dance Troupe. In 2014, anti-Israel activists called on the venue to cancel a show with Israeli performers, and local police forced the venue to incur additional security costs. In turn, the venue demanded additional funds from the performers.

So in 2015, Haaretz reported that for the first time in years, Israeli performances were not hosted at the festival at all. This silencing of the Israeli voice is celebrated as a victory by the anti-Israel activists. The voice that seeks dialogue and accommodation is being silenced.

The festival is not the only place in Scotland such opposition is seen, less than two years ago a worker at an Israeli cosmetics stall in Glasgow had a ‘burning liquid’ thrown at her. The university space is also rabid, with events being called off due to protests, and Jewish students at universities are “denying or hiding” their identity because of discrimination. These events, including the protests at Edinburgh, are all connected.

Yet here is a simple fact. Israel is by far the most diverse nation in the Middle East. Despite the accusations of the protesters, there is not a single nation in the region that is as free, as democratic, as liberal or as diverse as Israel. Not one. What else sets it apart from all of its neighbours though, is another simple fact. It is the only nation in the world that is Jewish.

According to the 2011 census, there are just under 6000 Jews currently living in Scotland and this year marks 200 years since the first Jewish congregation was founded, ironically in Edinburgh. But in reality, how welcome are the Jews in Scotland? When I use the word ‘welcome’, I don’t refer to the lack of a Hitlerite doctrine, or wish to gauge whether gangs of antisemites seek out symbols that adorn Jewish houses to begin targeting the inhabitants. I simply ask how free are Jewish people to celebrate their Jewish identity publicly?
Zionism

Which brings me back to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The protesters suggest that Israeli money is funding the Shalom Festival and then embark on a sickening exercise to follow ‘Jewish money’, from the organisers back to the embassy of the only democratic nation in the Middle East.

So what is this protest, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish? Well primarily, it is clear that the protest is anti-peace. The essence of the Shalom Festival is co-operation, the diverse and inclusive nature of Israel. And support for dialogue, the underpinnings of the international position over a two state solution. What the protesters are standing against isn’t a settlement or Israeli army action, but rather a core element of Jewish belief – Zionism. The very existence of Israel.

Labour Life Peer Lord Livermore on Israel

‘My Lords, I wish to use the short time available to argue for a better understanding of Israel. This task is urgent because we see now a disturbing resurgence of anti-Zionism that is bordering on the antisemitic, particularly, I regret to say, in sections of the left in British politics.

Israel is not of course above criticism. It is right that where necessary we should be critical of Israeli policy, conduct and behaviour.

But too often this legitimate criticism of specific actions taken by Israel obscures the reality of Israel. When this reality is not heard, it creates a space for those with uglier motivations to build support for grotesque analogies between Israel and apartheid South Africa or even Nazi Germany.

I fear that on the left today what is in jeopardy is support not just for the conduct of Israel but for the concept of Israel. We see senior figures praising as friends those who are committed to the violent destruction of the Jewish homeland.

Indeed, we now have the perverse situation where people who consider themselves to be progressive oppose Israel in the belief that they are standing up for liberal values and human rights, but in doing so side with totalitarian Islamist regimes that abuse human rights and prohibit basic liberties.

I believe that it is the duty of progressives to stop the slide from opposition to specific policies of Israel towards opposition to the very existence of Israel. I want us to make the progressive case for a country where women have the right to vote, dress as they wish and say what they wish in a region where, too often, they are segregated and subjugated; for a country that is committed to the free practice of religion for all in a region where religious minorities are frequently suppressed and persecuted; for a country where gay people are not discriminated against, tortured, detained or executed, as they are almost everywhere else in the region; and for a country with a free press, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary and strong trade unions, all lacking in almost all neighbouring countries.

There is nothing progressive about siding with those who oppose the very values that we as a society strive to represent, and there is nothing progressive about seeking to extinguish a beacon of democracy, modernity and pluralism in the Middle East.’

ON THE RECORD: WHERE THEY STAND ON FOREIGN POLICY BY DAMIAN PALETTA

The next U.S. president will confront a deeply unsettled world, from a Middle East in turmoil to a Europe struggling to contain an outbreak of terror attacks. Russia is expanding its influence and challenging its neighbors. China is flexing its powers both militarily and on the trade front. With many Americans weary from more than a decade of war, a miscalculation on any of these pressure points could have combustible consequences. Here’s a look at where the two candidates stand on foreign policy.
Russia
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has sought to expand its power and international clout in recent years, often in ways that have heightened tensions with the U.S. Russian hackers have penetrated networks all over the world, including the highest levels of the U.S. government. Russia has also threatened numerous neighbors in recent years, backing separatists in eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea in 2014.
Donald Trump I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia—from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.— April 27 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has floated the idea of creating a new alliance with Russia, saying a reset of relations is necessary to help ease tensions in Syria and elsewhere. President Putin has said complimentary things about Mr. Trump, which the GOP candidate has said expresses good faith. The perceived warmth between the two men, as well as the close ties between Moscow and some of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, have led some in the U.S. to posit that a Trump presidency would be a boon to Mr. Putin.
Mr. Trump has rejected the assertion by some Democrats that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s network and leaked emails in an effort to help the GOP nominee. In July, he invited Russia to unearth some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state, a statement that alarmed lawmakers from both parties.
Hillary Clinton Well, my relationship with [Putin], it’s—it’s interesting. It’s one, I think, of respect. We’ve had some very tough dealings with one another. And I know that he’s someone that you have to continually stand up to because, like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can unless you do. — Jan. 17 debate in South Carolina »

Mrs. Clinton has called Mr. Putin a “bully,” and has described the relationship between the U.S. and Russia as complicated. During the 2008 presidential election, she said Mr. Putin “was a KGB agent, by definition he doesn’t have a soul.” Mr. Putin later responded by saying, “I think at a minimum it’s important for a government leader to have a brain.” As secretary of state, she worked to broker more cooperation between the two countries. In 2009, she posed with Mr. Putin for a photo-op in which they pushed a big, red “reset” button.
By the end of her tenure, however, she wrote a private memo to the president warning that relations with Russia had hit a low point and the “reset” in relations was over, according to people who saw the document. In reaction to Mr. Trump’s call in July for Russia to seek out her emails, a top foreign-policy adviser to the Clinton campaign said “this has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent.”
China
The U.S. and China have had a complicated relationship for decades, as both nations are economically entangled and seen as super powers in different regions of the world. The U.S. is frequently at odds with China on issues like trade and foreign policy, but U.S. leaders have often stopped short of attempting to punish the communist country for its behavior, fearful that it could make problems worse. China is also one of the few countries that has influence in some of the most repressive parts of the world, such as North Korea, and it also holds a tremendous amount of U.S. debt.
Donald Trump China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest jobs theft in history.— June 28 speech »

Mr. Trump has bashed China persistently from his opening speech as a candidate, describing it as one of the U.S.’s top adversaries, particularly when it comes to economic policy. Mr. Trump says he would label China a currency manipulator, crack down on hacking, and threaten the Chinese government with steep tariffs if it doesn’t agree to rewrite trade agreements.
He would also expand the U.S.’s military presence in the South China Sea as a deterrent to China’s territorial claims to artificial islands there. He said he would toughen rules against the theft of intellectual property and combat subsidies China offers to boost exports. He opposes the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade agreement which includes the U.S., Japan and 10 other countries.
Hillary Clinton Countries like Russia and China often work against us. Beijing dumps cheap steel in our markets… So I know we have to be able to both stand our ground when we must, and find common ground when we can. — June 2 speech in San Diego »

Mrs. Clinton has been a constant critic of China’s human-rights record. She has called the current U.S./China dynamic “one of the most challenging relationships we have,” but she has also said the two countries share a “positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.”
During her time as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton said she pushed hard for China to agree to new greenhouse-gas emission standards. She also gave a 2010 speech that focused on internet freedom and criticized China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan for having “stepped up their censorship of the internet.” The speech mentioned China 10 times. She was one of the U.S. officials in 2009 who launched an annual meeting between the U.S. and China focused on strategic and economic issues.
Europe and Brexit
The U.K.’s plan to leave the European Union is just the latest shift of tectonic plates there impacting everything from the economy to immigration. Some parts of Europe have never fully recovered from the financial crisis, and a migration surge from Syria and elsewhere has drawn different responses from different countries.
Donald Trump I said Brussels is a hellhole, and then all of a sudden it came out the attack took place in Brussels. I understand what’s going on around the world far better than these politicians do.— March 27 interview with ABC »

Mr. Trump has been sharply critical of European leaders for not doing more to combat the flow of terrorists across their borders, saying France and Belgium in particular have laws that made it difficult for national security officials to thwart recent attacks. He has said restrictions on gun ownership in these countries have prevented innocent civilians from protecting themselves during terror attacks.
Mr. Trump engaged in a testy exchange with then-U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron over Mr. Trump’s proposal to ban the entry of Muslims into the U.S. He lauded British voters’ decision to leave the European Union. He has also said Germany and other countries should pay the U.S. more money for military protection, or risk losing U.S. support.
Hillary Clinton The United States must work with Europe to dramatically and immediately improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism coordination. European countries also should have the flexibility to enhance their border controls when circumstances warrant. — Nov. 19, 2015, in speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton speaks frequently about supporting U.S. allies in Europe, marking a contrast with Mr. Trump. But she has also said Europeans should do more to monitor the flow of foreign fighters back to Europe from Iraq and Syria, saying it poses terror threats. She made more than 50 visits to European countries as secretary of state, and has numerous relationships with leaders and diplomats there. Mrs. Clinton warned against the U.K. exiting the European Union, as her campaign had said Europe needed to remain united and that the British voice is an essential part of the EU.
Immigration and Mexico
Immigration has emerged as one of the most divisive issues of the 2016 campaign, with Republicans reversing course from an earlier push to enact a bipartisan overhaul of immigration rules. Immigration from Mexico and Latin America has traditionally been a flashpoint in U.S. politics, but in recent months the focus has shifted to immigration rules for people fleeing places like Syria and other unstable regimes in the Middle East.
Donald Trump When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.— June 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mr. Trump has called for building a roughly 1,000 mile wall, financed by Mexico, to secure the U.S.’s southern border. Until this wall is built, he has promised to “impound” all remittance payments “derived from illegal wages” sent from people in the U.S. to Mexico. He wants to triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and has also proposed deporting the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants believed to be currently living in the U.S. and enhancing penalties for people who overstay visas.
He has called for ending “birthright citizenship,” which is the legal process for granting citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. Mr. Trump has said he will overturn the North American Free Trade Agreement, in part because he believes Mexico is using it to build a huge trade surplus against the U.S.
Hillary Clinton I think it’s important that we move to our comprehensive immigration reform, but at the same time, stop the raids, stop the round-ups, stop the deporting of people who are living here doing their lives, doing their jobs, and that’s my priority. — March 9 debate in Miami »

Mrs. Clinton has called for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, including a pathway to citizenship for those in the U.S. illegally, aside from violent criminals. She supports executive actions under the Obama administration that seek to protect millions of people from deportation, including young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children and parents of U.S. citizens. Mrs. Clinton used to say positive things about NAFTA but recently has been more circumspect, saying it helped some people and hurt others. Her main opponent in the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, hammered her for her past support of NAFTA, as has Mr. Trump.
Iraq
President Barack Obama has tried to pull back the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq, but the country has splintered. Islamic State has taken advantage of bloody jostling between the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds and retained a foothold in Mosul for more than two years. Iran’s influence with Iraq’s government has complicated U.S. diplomacy, and Iraq’s security forces have proven incapable—and at times unwilling—to repel Islamic State on their own.
Donald Trump George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.— Feb. 13, during a GOP debate in South Carolina »

Mr. Trump has been critical of President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, saying it helped unleash a wave of instability in the Middle East that continues to sow chaos. Mr. Trump has said he opposed the invasion at the time, though critics have said his position on the matter wasn’t clear cut. He hasn’t specified what he would do to improve the situation in Iraq, though he has spoken frequently about working more closely with the Kurds.
Hillary Clinton The Iraqi national army has struggled. It is going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes. — Nov. 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton voted in 2002 as a senator from New York to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, a decision that opponents have used to attack her for years and that she has since apologized for. She visited Iraq just once as secretary of state, in April 2009. She has criticized the Iraqi national army for not doing more to secure the country and deter Islamic State, and praised Kurdish forces fighting in the north of Iraq. She has called for pressuring Iraq to “get its political house in order” and the creation of a national guard.
Iran
Perhaps no country in the Middle East is expanding its influence as quickly as Iran, playing a role in the conflicts in both Iraq and Syria. Comments from Iranian leaders about destroying the U.S. and Israel and its past pursuit of nuclear weapons have made it a U.S. adversary for decades. The Obama administration has joined with several other top nations to broker a nuclear agreement with Iran if the Middle Eastern country abides by a number of conditions, and this deal remains a divisive foreign-policy issue on the presidential campaign.
Donald Trump Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be. But if I’m elected president, I know how to deal with trouble.— March 21 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has been extremely critical of the recent nuclear agreement with Iran, saying the U.S. allowed Iran to access $150 billion in money that had been frozen. He has added that the White House received few concessions as part of the deal. He has proposed renegotiating the nuclear deal, though it’s unclear exactly how he would structure any agreement. He has called for doubling and tripling the sanctions the U.S. had historically placed on Iran as a way to force them toward more concessions. He has said he would “dismantle” the deal, but aides have said he would only seek to refine it. His precise plan is unclear.
Hillary Clinton I did put together the coalition to impose sanctions. I actually started the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, sending … my closest aides to begin the conversations with the Iranians. — Feb. 4 debate in New Hampshire »

Mrs. Clinton has struck a tougher stance than Mr. Obama with Iran. She has said she supports the recent nuclear agreement, but she criticized the Iranian government for its treatment of sailors who were detained after allegedly drifting into Iranian waters. She has said Iran continues to violate U.N. Security Council resolutions through its testing of ballistic missiles, and she has called for new sanctions against the country.
Mrs. Clinton was in the Obama administration during a historic thaw of relations between the U.S. and Iran. Mr. Obama wrote letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Mrs. Clinton’s time in office, and she has taken credit for beginning negotiations. She was also part of a historic increase in sanctions against Iran during the early years of the Obama administration, which supporters say helped force Iran to negotiate on its nuclear deal.
Islamic State/Syria
When the terror network Islamic State, also known as ISIS, seized Raqqa in Syria in 2013, it set in motion a chain of events that reshaped how the U.S. and other countries view Muslims, confront terror, and interact with each other. Videos of gruesome beheadings and the extremist group’s use of social media to recruit and inspire acts of terrorism have upended decades of counterterrorism strategies, forcing U.S. and European officials to grasp for a new approach. The terror network’s geographic foothold is contracting but its ability to inspire terror attacks around the world makes it one of the world’s deadliest terror groups.
Donald Trump These are thugs. These are terrible people in ISIS, not masterminds. And we have to change it from every standpoint.— Dec 15, 2015, debate in Las Vegas »

Mr. Trump has said he won’t give a fully detailed plan to defeat Islamic State because it would take away the element of surprise. But he has said he would “bomb the shit” out of the group’s oil operations. He said it could take 30,000 U.S. troops to defeat ISIS in the Middle East, but he hasn’t committed to deploying a force of that size.
To deal with suspected terrorists, he has proposed changing international rules that forbid the military’s use of torture. He also proposed killing the family members of terrorists to serve as a deterrent to others. He has backed away from some of these comments amid a backlash from some current and former military officials—but not fully. On Syria itself, he has said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is “bad,” he stopped short of calling for his ouster. A key part of his Syria strategy appears to be giving Russia more flexibility to stabilize the region, as he’s said Moscow could be better positioned to influence changes there than the U.S.
Hillary Clinton ISIS is demonstrating new ambition, reach and capabilities. We have to break the group’s momentum and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS. — Nov. 19, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton has said Sunni Muslims and Kurdish forces should play a bigger role in combating ISIS, and has also called for expanding U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria to defeat the terror network. She has also called for combating Islamic State’s ability to use social media to recruit, train, and plan attacks, urging more cooperation from technology companies. She also has said the U.S. should play a bigger role in helping resolve the humanitarian crisis caused by a huge wave of migrants fleeing Syria.
The biggest difference between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama in this area is her push to create a no-fly zone over Syria, a move that would likely put the U.S. in direct conflict with Russia, which has bombed anti-Assad forces in the area. Mrs. Clinton has received criticism for comments she made in 2011 that suggested some U.S. officials from both parties viewed Mr. Assad as a “reformer.” She later said she was representing the opinion of others, not herself or the White House.
Israel and Palestinian territories
Chilly relations between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu have worsened in recent years, particularly over the White House’s nuclear agreement with Iran. The U.S. has traditionally had close ties to Israel, and this will be a major challenge for the next White House given all the instability in the Middle East.
Donald Trump When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one.— March 21 speech in Washington, D.C. »

Mr. Trump has advocated for more U.S. support for Israel, and worked to build bridges with Tel Aviv by slamming the nuclear deal with Iran. He made some in Israel nervous when he said he would work to remain neutral in any peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He later softened his position, saying it would be very difficult to remain neutral. In March, he gave a speech to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C., that helped to assuage some of their concerns about his commitment to their views. In his convention speech in Cleveland, he called Israel “our greatest ally in the region.”
Hillary Clinton We may not have always agreed on every detail, but we’ve always shared an unwavering, unshakable commitment to our alliance and to Israel’s future as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. — March 21 AIPAC speech in Washington »

Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Trump’s approach to Israel, trying to align herself very closely with Israeli leaders in their push for security. She has said her relationship with Israeli security officials spans more than 25 years and she has defended steps the country has taken to protect itself from rocket attacks. She has called for boosting U.S. support for Israeli missile-defense systems. She also supports helping Israel with technology to detect tunnels that Hamas uses to send fighters and bombers into Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Islam and Muslims
The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks changed the way many Americans viewed Arab countries, and altered the lives of many unsuspecting Muslims living in the U.S. Over a decade later, the rise of Islamic State and the flood of Muslim migrants fleeing conflicts in the Middle East have created even more tension, with some calling for a rethink of the U.S.’s approach to the religion and others urging more cooperation.
Donald Trump Look, we have to stop with political correctness. We have to get down to creating a country that’s not going to have the kind of problems that we’ve had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers.— Republican debate, Jan. 15 »

In December, just days after a husband-and-wife team killed 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif., Mr. Trump proposed a “total and complete” ban on the entry of all Muslims into the U.S. until authorities “can figure out what is going on.” The proposal proved popular with many GOP primary voters, but sparked intense criticism from some Republican leaders and Democrats, who said it would be unconstitutional and impossible to enforce.
Mr. Trump has said the threats posed by Islamic extremists are too dangerous and that stark new measures must be put in place to protect the country. He has since backed off the blanket ban, suggesting some flexibility. “We’re going to look at a lot of different things,” he said in late May. “We have to be vigilant and we have to be tough and smart.” In July, speaking on “60 Minutes,” he said a Trump administration would ban entrants from “terror states and terror nations” and would engage in “extreme vetting” of Muslims seeking to come to the U.S. from other countries, a theme he reiterated in his speech at the Republican National Convention.
Hillary Clinton This approach is un-American. It goes against everything we stand for as a country founded on religious freedom. But it is also dangerous. — June 14 speech »

Mrs. Clinton has said banning the entry of Muslims into the U.S.���even the proposal of it–will alienate Muslim allies in the Middle East and harm U.S. relations. She has said the proposal is being used by Islamic State to recruit new terrorists. To help combat terrorism and better spot warning signs of radicalized youth, she said the government must do more to build alliances with Muslim community leaders in the U.S.
CONTINUE AT SITE

Merkel on the ropes: Thousands of German protesters take to the streets saying she ‘Must Go’ . by James Dunn

Thousands to gather in towns and cities across Germany today at 3pm
They are calling for her resignation over open door immigration policy
Comes after four brutal attacks leaving nearly a dozen dead in one week
Three of the attackers were among 1.1million who entered as refugees

Merkel’s premiership is hanging by a thread today as thousands gathered to call for her resignation while a key political ally dramatically withdrew his support over immigration policy.

More than 5,000 protested in Berlin and thousands more throughout Germany over the ‘open-door’ policy that many have blamed for four brutal terrorist attacks that left 13 dead over the last month.

The Chancellor faced a fresh wave of fury after it emerged that two recent terror attacks and a third killing were carried out by men who entered the country as refugees.
Despite the massive waves of criticism, Merkel defended her policy this week, dramatically proclaiming ‘we can do it’ as she pledged not to let the violent acts guide political decisions.

GOOD NEWS FROM AMAZING ISRAEL FROM MICHAEL ORDMAN

ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

The power to see inside. (TY Atid-EDI & Dan) Israel’s Aspect Imaging develops small, affordable and innovative MRI scanners. Its non-claustrophobic WristView scans limbs (e.g. wrist and hand) and Embrace scans newborns. WristView has just received the European CE Mark, to add to its existing US FDA approval.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-israeli-mri-co-aspect-imaging-raises-20m-1001139665
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-MLhykCyb0

Good feelings can kill bacteria. (TY Nevet) Scientists at Israel’s Technion Institute have stimulated the feel-good center in mice and discovered that their immune cells were able to kill twice as much bacteria than those of non-stimulated mice. The results, published in nature medicine, could explain the placebo effect.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-study-shows-placebos-physically-boost-immunity/
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/nm.4133/metrics/news

New treatment for cancer. (TY Atid-EDI) Israel’s Rosetta Genomics has received a US patent for its miR-34 treatments of p53-negative cancers including lymphoma, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, liver cancer, skin cancer, certain types of lung cancer, and others.
http://rosettagx.com/files/press-releases/1468255718927d275d893bf3f293d526ca3435b8da.pdf

A better test for prostate cancer. Israeli founded Cleveland Diagnostics (CDX) is developing a technology and test kit that can eradicate inconclusive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests. CDX says it will save the $4000 cost per negative biopsy, currently necessary in 70% of current testing.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-prostate-cancer-test-strives-to-slash-biopsies/

And another one. Israel’s Micromedic Technologies (part of Israel’s Bio-Light Life Sciences) reported positive results in a trial of its prostate cancer diagnosis solution. Its CellDetect technology was used to diagnose samples from 18 patients and healthy subjects, and both groups were accurately diagnosed.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-micromedic-jumps-80-after-cancer-diagnosis-trial-success-1001138112

Another step forward in fighting melanoma. Almost a year ago (see here) Tel Aviv University researchers found what triggers melanoma cells to become malignant tumors in the brain. Now they have uncovered an early warning of that event by detecting the brain’s inflammatory response to microscopic invading tumor cells.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-way-to-spot-tumor-cells-invading-the-brain/

Upgraded spine surgery robots. (TY Atid-EDI) Israel’s Mazor Robotics has launched FDA-approved Mazor X, “a transformative platform for spine surgeries”. Mazor’s current range guides surgeons in spine operations. The new platform also helps planning through to verification. Israel’s Medtronic has already bought 15.
http://www.mazorrobotics.com/mazor-robotics-unveils-mazor-x-a-transformative-platform-for-spine-surgeries/

Snack vegetables to replace fast foods. (TY Dan) Israel’s Origene Seeds is developing a range of snack vegetables which aim to replace fast food snacks. The “Sweet Drops” mini-size cucumbers and peppers have a long shelf-life and will be marketed in special packets as “Finger Food” for work, school or leisure.
http://www.israelagri.com/?CategoryID=404&ArticleID=1272 http://www.origeneseeds.com/

ABC News – Report: VA Spent Millions on Costly Art as Veterans Waited for Care By Elizabeth McLaughlin See Video

A new report alleges that the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $20 million between 2004 and 2014 on costly artwork.

The expenditures included more than $1 million for a courtyard with a large sculpture at a Palo Alto veterans facility; $330,000 for a glass-art installation; and $21,000 for an artificial Christmas tree, according to the report.

Open The Books, a nonprofit that claims to be the world’s largest private database of government spending, in conjunction with Cox Media used government data to examine the Veterans Affairs Department’s (VA) spending on art for their facilities in the decade ending in 2014.

Much of the spending occurred at a time when veterans were experiencing lengthy waits for treatment at VA facilities. After as many as 40 veterans died while seeking care at the VA’s Phoenix Healthcare System, the federal agency’s inspector general found in 2014 that lengthy waits for treatment might have contributed to the deaths but did not definitively cause them.

The Veterans Affairs agency admitted publicly around this time that its health care operations were overwhelmed and understaffed.

Now this new report is sparking fresh anger from both veterans and lawmakers.

Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, wrote Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald on July 26, demanding a “moratorium on art spending by the VA.” In his letter, Kirk mentioned that a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing last fall highlighted what he said were excessive expenditures, $6.3 million, by the VA on artwork at the Palo Alto Healthcare System.

A spokesperson for the Palo Alto facility told ABC News that it had more than $4 million in art contracts in 2013 and 2014, including for an installation on the side of a parking garage. The installation, meant to honor blind veterans, featured quotes by Abraham Lincoln and Eleanor Roosevelt in Morse code that light up. The irony, critics point out, is that a blind veteran would be unlikely to see the massive artwork that cost $280,000.

Feminism Attacks at All Levels By David Solway

I recently came across a mewling article in one of Canada’s “progressive” mags, The Walrus, in which theatre critic Erika Thorkelson bemoans “the insidious sexism of the Canadian theatre world” and the comparative paucity of female actors and playwrights. Her theme is “gender imbalance” — the latest buzzword in the feminist war against men — which, of course, is owing to something like an exclusionary male commissariat intent on safeguarding its unjust privileges. That there may be other reasons for the supposed “imbalance” — lack of comparable interest, different distributions of talent — must not be mentioned since that would call her thesis into question. I certainly have not noticed any marked dearth of females on the theatrical, operatic, or cinematic scenes. And in the music world, come to think about it, females abound. No matter. The patriarchy strikes again.

At around the same time that I stumbled on this silly piece of special pleading and culturally ratified paranoia, I learned that the husband of a friend, a self-taught biblical scholar and an expert on the Gospel of John, is now serving time after having been accused by his disaffected stepdaughter of sexual assault, although the evidence is sketchy at best, the stepdaughter is psychologically disturbed, and his wife and his other children have testified on his behalf. The judge nevertheless found the daughter’s rather improbable story credible and the man was sentenced to a seven-year prison term. To compound the judicial felony committed against him, he was remanded to maximum security after his preference not to be housed with Muslims was discovered — he had good reason, having been stabbed by a Muslim for wearing a t-shirt stenciled with the legend “I Am an Infidel.” The fact that he was a believing Christian clearly did not help his case. In any event, this was another tainted victory for the feminist cause.

Like our literary community and our judiciary, our schools are equally engaged in promoting the feminist agenda to the disadvantage of deserving — indeed, of all — male students. A typical instance occurred at a high school in a neighboring town, as a friend whose son has just graduated and who attended the graduation ceremony informed me. My friend reports that approximately 90 per cent of the innumerable awards were distributed to female students for various obscure achievements such as offering encouragement to classmates, displaying enthusiasm for the subject, showing aptitude for commitment or evincing general improvement, in short, for enriching the parietal atmosphere by their very presence. Many of these awards came with the caveat “in the opinion of the teachers.” Two girls, the school was proud to announce on its Twitter feed, excelled in the technologies — “Times Are Changin’” reads the accompanying comment. But the vast majority of these female laureates demonstrated their accomplishment in the mainly “soft” subjects — the Humanities, social sciences, dance classes, and the like, where marking typically involves a high degree of subjectivity and teacher preference often plays a role. Only a comparative handful of male students were honored, all of whom majored in the “hard” disciplines where objectivity rules — science, math — and received top grades. The valedictorian, obviously, was a girl, with a high composite average enhanced, it would appear, by easy marks in the less demanding areas — and, I strongly suspect, likely with the help of grade inflation, since the principal is female, the vice principal is female, most of the teachers are females, and the school focuses in its Twitter feed, replete with the most cloying and vapid bulletins imaginable, primarily on girls. The high school is toxic for boys, who prudently kept out of full participation in most school groups and activities. Male students cannot but react with a mixture of bemusement and resentment — going MGTOW, going Galt — at the cost of our society’s scientific, literary and intellectual health, already in precipitous decline.

Obama’s Dangerous Plan to Abandon a Key Nuclear Deterrent The threat of striking first in a nuclear conflict is vital to keeping global peace. Why would Obama give it up? By Arthur Herman

Barack Obama’s foreign policy has always been defined by ticking the boxes the far Left long wanted ticked.

Now he’s contemplating one more, by far the most dangerous of all: unilateral nuclear disarmament, or at least a rough approximation thereof. After reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal to dangerous levels, the Washington Post reports that Obama is considering a “no first use” policy with regard to nukes.

Peaceniks around the world will cheer; the rest of us will shudder. No First Use (NFU) was first raised as a strategic doctrine by JFK in a March 1961 speech. (Truman and Eisenhower knew better.) But Kennedy quickly dropped the idea after the Cuban missile crisis proved that proclaiming, “We will never strike first in any conflict,” had only encouraged Khrushchev to act more boldly. It was also true that NFU encouraged the Russians to think that they could win an all-out war in Europe. If, for example, a conventional Russian invasion through the Fulda gap into West Germany was so massive that NATO forces couldn’t respond in time or with enough impact, the Russians would be assured of victory with the threat of American nukes off the table.

Other presidents agreed with Kennedy’s abandonment of NFU, and the doctrine lay dormant for the rest of the Cold War. Today, the arguments against it may be even more urgent. As American and NATO troop levels stagnate and Vladimir Putin assumes a more aggressive posture while refurbishing the Russian military, the threat of a nuclear strike may be one of the few ways left to keep Russia in check. After all, Putin himself talks about using nuclear weapons to hold onto Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and his generals, meeting with American officials in March 2015, threatened to use nukes if NATO dared to reinforce the defenses of the Baltic states.

As General Sir Richard Shirreff, NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander from 2011 to 2014, said in a BBC Radio 4 interview, Russia has hardwired “nuclear thinking and capability to every aspect of their defense capability.” Renouncing first-use will only encourage Russia or another aggressor with nukes to strike first at what is perceived to be an opponent with one arm deliberately tied behind its back — and to target our nuclear assets so they can’t be used in retaliation. Far from diminishing the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation, then, it could actually trigger one.

Deterrence in war always depended on a degree of vagueness and uncertainty. It’s not so much what you will do in retaliation but what you might do that makes the would-be aggressor think twice — especially if he thinks you are ready and willing to do things that precipitate the all-out conflict both sides want to avoid.

Douglas MacArthur’s Brilliant, Controversial Legacy A new biography examines the many sides of the versatile American general. By Victor Davis Hanson

Of all the great American captains of World War II, none remains more controversial than General Douglas MacArthur, whose genius and folly have taken on mythic proportions. MacArthur alone among them fought in all of America’s major 20th-century wars as a general — World War I, World War II, and Korea — and he was the most versatile military figure since Ulysses S. Grant, as a combined tactician, strategist, geostrategist, diplomat, and politician.

Yet history has not with the same zeal sought to balance the strengths and weaknesses of the often hard-to-like MacArthur as it has with, for example, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was a brilliant organizer but often strategically obtuse; George S. Patton, who was a dazzling field general but mercurial; and Omar Bradley, who was a media favorite but often plodding.

There are a number of writs against MacArthur, but perhaps three stand out. First, there is no doubt that his narcissism could reach obnoxious proportions. His ego was more than just superficial vanity that characteristically led him to stare endlessly in the mirror, pepper his speech liberally with first-person pronouns, and choreograph his public image with corncob pipe, shiny khakis, gold-braided cap, aviator sunglasses, and leather coat. At times his sense of self led to hubris — and nemesis often followed. He certainly proved personally reckless in a way at odds with his public persona of a ramrod-straight devout Christian. In 1930, the 50-year-old, divorced MacArthur had an affair with the underage 16-year-old Isabel Rosario Cooper and brought the young Filipina mistress back with him to Washington — only to be both blackmailed by columnist Drew Pearson into dropping his libel suit concerning Pearson’s allegations about the 1932 Bonus March and eventually leveraged into paying Cooper $15,000 to go away.

The more experienced MacArthur saw himself as intellectually superior to younger presidents and so talked down to both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. He thought the wisdom of his strategy of island hopping through the Philippines should be judged by all as his personal redemption for his earlier loss of the archipelago. And by 1943, his “I shall return” press releases seemed to conflate his huge land, air, and naval forces with his own person, in a manner that had already irked Eisenhower, worried George Marshall, and frightened Roosevelt. Early on, MacArthur saw himself as a figure uniquely favored by God. In World War I, all on his small patrol near the Côte de Châtillon were killed by a surprise artillery barrage — a disaster known only by MacArthur’s own testimony, which would later be questioned. MacArthur remarked of his amazing survival: “It was God, He led me by the hand, the way He led Joshua.”

Second, MacArthur’s most brilliant victories — the Operation Cartwheel reconquest of much of the Japanese-held South Pacific and the brilliant Inchon landings near the Korean DMZ — were bookended by equally disastrous failures. He was ultimately responsible for, despite warnings, allowing his newly supplied air forces on Luzon to be caught by surprise hours after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. His incautious approach to the Chinese border in November 1950 — albeit approved by almost everyone in Washington — downplayed growing warnings about the bitter cold, the difficult terrain, and the likelihood of the entrance of the huge Chinese Red Army across the Yalu River. MacArthur for the most part claimed the strategic breakthroughs as his own virtuoso performances but fobbed off the disasters on subordinates and politicians.