Displaying posts published in

December 2015

Belgian Police Arrest Two on Terrorism Charges Prosecutors say the arrest potentially broke up a planned terror attack in Brussels during the holiday seasonBy Natalia Drozdiak and Julian E. Barnes

BRUSSELS—Belgian authorities said Tuesday they arrested two people on terrorism charges and broke up a plan for attacks during the holiday period, underlining fears of further mayhem in a Europe still unsettled over Islamic State’s deadly attacks in Paris last month.

Police seized Islamic State propaganda and military-style clothing but no explosives or arms in a series of raids Sunday and Monday in Brussels, Liège and the Flanders region of Belgium, prosecutors said.

The arrests were made amid stepped-up antiterrorism operations by Belgian authorities in the aftermath of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, which were planned by a Belgian national and carried out by a team that included several others with ties to Belgium, including the fugitive Salah Abdeslam, a French citizen who was born and lived in Brussels.

The Clinton War on Women If Hillary plays the sexism card, then Bill’s behavior is fair game.

Donald Trump last week used some typically coarse language to describe Hillary Clinton, who responded by accusing Mr. Trump of sexism while announcing that she is unleashing Bill Clinton to campaign for her. This was too ripe an opening for Mr. Trump, who is now attacking Hillary for acquiescing in Bill’s predations against women.

Mr. Trump is rude and crude, but in this case he is raising an issue that rightly bears on the 2016 election campaign and the prospect of a third Clinton term. Mrs. Clinton wants to use her gender both as a political sword and shield to win the White House. The purpose is to make male politicians less willing to take her on, while reinforcing her main and not-so-subtle campaign theme that it’s time to elect the first woman President.

So she and her allies will try to spin any criticism as sexist. Even politically correct Bernie Sanders got this treatment after he said during a debate this autumn that “all the shouting in the world” wouldn’t keep guns out of the wrong hands. Mrs. Clinton later said that “I haven’t been shouting, but sometimes when a woman speaks out, some people think it’s shouting.” Against Republicans, she’ll play the “war on women” theme non-stop.

How Language Shapes Freedom and Tyranny — on The Glazov Gang

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/12/29/how-language-shapes-freedom-and-tyranny-on-the-glazov-gang-3/

In this special edition of The Glazov Gang we are running two of our blockbuster episodes that featured two freedom fighters from totalitarian environments who unveiled the fascinating links between linguistics and liberty/slavery.

In the first episode, Kai Chen, China’s Basketball Superstar and the author of One In A Billion: Journey Toward Freedom, discussed How Language Shapes Freedom and Tyranny.

In the second episode, Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know: The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East, revealed How Arabic Stifles Individualism and Freedom, shedding light on how the Arabic language impedes psychological growth and sabotages the path to democracy.

Don’t miss these two episodes!

The Wage Equality Deception The veiled attack on the middle class. Michael Cutler

Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democratic Party candidates for the Presidency frequently espouse their goal of achieving “Wage Equality.” Invariably their exhortations about the need to address wage inequality are greeted by wild cheers. I suspect that if their enthusiastic audiences stopped to give this call to action a bit of thought, their cheers would be replaced by jeers.

However, not unlike stampeding livestock, once a bunch of people charge in a particular direction, just about everyone else blindly joins that charge.

The call for addressing wage inequality generally begins by linking wage inequality to the need to increase the minimum wage. For whatever reason, the Obama administration established the goal of creating a federal minimum wage of $10.10 per hour. Fast food workers have taken to the streets to demand a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour.

I certainly understand the appeal for America’s working poor and those sympathetic to their plight to favor raising the minimum wage. I know that there are those who disagree about this concept but today we will not discuss the wisdom of raising the minimum wage, we will only consider just how bogus the calls for linking the increase in the minimum wage to achieving “wage equality” is and what this really means for middle class American workers, their families and the American Dream.

A worker who is paid $10.10 per hour would earn just over $21,000.00 per year. If raising the minimum wage would help eliminate wage equality, someone needs to ask who these workers will be made equal to. An hourly wage of $15.00 per hour would yield an annual wage of $31,200.00. Again someone needs to ask who these workers will be made equal to.

It’s Not ISIS We Need to Beat — It’s the Caliphate Understanding the Caliphate Curve. Daniel Greenfield

A recent report by, of all places, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, found that the Syrian rebels were mostly Islamic Jihadists and that even if ISIS were defeated there were 15 other groups sharing its worldview that were ready to take its place.

And that’s just in Syria.

The official ISIS story, the one that we read in the newspapers, watch on television and hear on the radio, is that it’s a unique group whose brand of extremism is so extreme that there is no comparing it to anything else. ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Or with anything else. It’s a complete aberration.

Except for the 15 other Jihadist groups ready to step into its shoes in just one country.

Islamic Supremacist organizations like ISIS can be graded on the “Caliphate curve”. The Caliphate curve is based on how quickly an Islamic organization wants to achieve the Caliphate. What we describe as “extreme” or “moderate” is really the speed at which an Islamic group seeks to recreate the Caliphate.

Obeying illegal orders is criminal Obama and Trump both display a disregard for the law By Jed Babbin

No matter how you slice it, Trump’s call to “take out” terrorist families would made war crimes our policy. The fact that he’s either ignorant or uncaring of that fact makes it worse, not better.

For soldiers seeking to earn a green beret, the final test they have to pass at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg is a mentally and physically demanding field exercise called “Robin Sage.”

The student “alpha teams” are inserted (by parachute, mule, helicopter or on foot) in the North Carolina pine forest to reach a mock guerrilla” camp. Their mission is to earn the guerrillas’ trust and begin to train them in our ways of war.

At some point, each team is faced with being compelled by circumstance or ordered to participate in a war crime. The few who do never get a green beret. Donald Trump couldn’t pass that test.

Before the Dec. 15 debate, Mr. Trump said, “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” He said it again during the debate, so it wasn’t a slip of the tongue.

There’s a fundamental problem with Mr. Trump’s idea: What he advocated — twice — would be a war crime. The intentional killing of noncombatants obviously violates the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If any U.S. soldier — officer or enlisted — were ordered to do it he or she would be duty-bound and legally required to refuse to obey.

Turkey’s Murderous Assault on Kurds by Uzay Bulut

The curfews are accompanied by military assaults against civilian populations — their homes, businesses, offices, historical monuments, reservoirs and infrastructure are being bombed and destroyed.

“No one can go outside. Our water is running out. The food at homes is running out. The telephone lines have been cut. The situation here is terrible. … After declaring the curfew, they [the Turks] deploy soldiers, police and snipers in the evacuated schools. They have piled up their ammunition inside the schools.” — Osman Tetik, a representative in Cizre of the Education and Science Workers’ Union.

“They are shooting bullets at hospitals and ambulances. The Ministry of Health is standing by as hospitals are turned into military quarters and as health institutions and employees become targets.” — Gonul Erden, co-President of the Trade Union of Public Employees in Health and Social Services.

“All those towns will be cleansed of terror elements. If necessary, neighborhood by neighborhood, house by house, street by street.” — Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, December 15.

The curfews and military assaults against Kurdish civilians have reportedly forced at least 200,000 Kurds to flee.

Sweden: Rapes, Acquittals and Severed Heads One Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Sweden: November 2015 by Ingrid Carlqvist

Some 30 Muslim men thought that the woman was in violation of Islamic sharia law, by being in Sweden unaccompanied by a man. They thought that she should therefore be raped and her teenage son killed.

Two Swedish citizens were convicted by a Gothenburg Court of joining an Islamist terror group in Syria and murdering two captives. Video evidence showed one victim being beheaded. “Every night when I have gone to bed, I have seen a head hanging in the air.” — Court Chairman Ralf G. Larsson.

Sometime during the night, the victim was awakened by the Iraqi as he raped her. The woman managed to break free and locate a train attendant. At first, the woman did not want to call the police. “She felt sorry for him [the rapist] … and was afraid he would be deported back to Iraq.”

One week after Sweden raised its terror alert level to the highest ever, the police raised another alarm — saying their weapons are simply not good enough to prevent a potential terror attack.

November 4: The Swedish Immigration Service sent out a press release, saying that it had hired close to a thousand additional employees since June. The Immigration Service now has over 7,000 employees, including hourly workers and consultants — double the 3,350 employees who worked there in 2012. Most of the new recruits work with the legal processing of asylum applications, but the units dealing with receiving migrants and filing their initial applications have also expanded considerably. As if the record influx of migrants this autumn were not crushing enough, the Immigration Service also had trouble retaining its staff. Employees complain about being badly treated: they are always expected to be on call, and possibly even work Christmas Eve.

The Prophet Isaiah Berlin In His Letters S.J.D. Green

Berlin’s vast correspondence is a true monument to European, Jewish and liberal civilisation

With the publication of Affirming: Letters, 1975-1997 (Chatto & Windus, £40), Henry Hardy and Mark Pottle bring to a triumphant conclusion one of the most remarkable literary projects of our time. Isaiah Berlin’s selected correspondence runs to four volumes, covers nearly 3,000 pages and amounts to more than one million words. Even its recipients number well into the hundreds. These include men and women of all ages, many nationalities and a surprising range of occupations. There may be no dustmen amongst them, but nor are they confined to the conventionally respectable. Perhaps as a result, Berlin’s Letters also constitute an epistolary oeuvre alternatively deadly serious and playfully frivolous, often nobly inspired, occasionally just a little bit disreputable.

The cumulative effect is amusing, compelling and illuminating. By his own evaluation, Berlin’s natural medium was “chatting — plauderei”. Writing letters was a simple extension of that pleasure. Yet he eventually found both the time and energy to express profoundly significant observations about the Russian Revolution and its undoing, the Nazi nightmare and the Holocaust, the foundation of Israel and the creation of the modern Middle East, even the Cold War and the dynamics of decolonisation through this otherwise informal medium. Students of 20th-century politics, scarcely less than scholars in intellectual history and of political philosophy, will find much of lasting value to ponder in these pages for years to come.

Plain Speaking Daniel Johnson

The most striking thing about that speech — the one given by Hilary Benn in the Commons Syria debate on December 2 — was not that it gave dozens of Labour MPs the courage to rebel against the party line laid down by Jeremy Corbyn, nor that it catapulted this hitherto most shadowy of shadow Foreign Secretaries into the role of Labour leader-in-waiting. It was not even the reminder that great oratory still matters in politics — especially when it comes from an unexpected quarter, the orator in this case having been accustomed all his life to belittling comparisons with his father, Tony Benn. No, it was the revelation that words with a strong moral charge (“fascist” and “evil”), when applied to Islamic State, still have the power to shock, just as the appeal to a sense of duty (“time for us to do our bit”) can still inspire.

In his peroration, which was specifically addressed to his own party, seated behind him, Mr Benn used the f-word twice: “And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.” He then reminded his colleagues of their forebears’ resistance to Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. (Never mind that from 1931 to 1935 Labour was led by the pacifist George Lansbury and the party voted against conscription as late as April 1939, four months before war broke out.) Mr Benn ended with a straightforward moral choice, cast in a very British idiom: “And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria.”

Churchill himself could not have put it better. It was refreshing to see and hear the electric effect that such old-fashioned language can still have. If we are to defeat the enemies of Western civilisation, we have to find the right words and ideas. When George W. Bush used the terms “Islamofascism” and “Islamic fascists” in 2006, he provoked protests from American Muslim organisations. No Western politician has used them since. But the ideology of jihadist organisations such as Islamic State has a great deal in common with fascism — not least its implacable hostility to the West. Historians have even found direct historical connections between the Nazis and the rise of Islamism. And so when Hilary Benn called the IS butchers “fascists” and their ideology “evil”, he struck a chord.