The American Boomerang — on The Glazov Gang
Internationally renowned Australian author Nick Adams discusses how the world’s greatest ‘turnaround’ nation will do it again.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-american-boomerang-on-the-glazov-gang/
Children living in territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority, funded by Europe and the U.S., are encouraged to kill Jews and destroy Israel.
There can be no peace so long as financial incentives to kill Jews and destroy Israel continue to be dangled in front of Palestinian populations. It is this aggression, and not humanitarian relief, that much of the well-intended international funding — with no conditions whatsoever attached — is used for.
The only conclusion one can draw is the EU and the U.S. are actually on the side of terrorism.
So long as the EU and the U.S continue to fund entities which openly promote acts of terror, they should be held criminally liable as accessories to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Rival factions of Fatah and Hamas formed a new Palestinian “unity government” on June 12. The Israeli government expressed deep concern. Israel’s Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, stressed that the alliance could lead to a resurgence of terrorist acts. The European Union and current U.S. administration decided, nevertheless, to legitimize the new government.
No Western leader highlighted that Hamas had not renounced its explicitly genocidal goals, and that Hamas leaders have never renounced the use of violence.
Netanyahu’s prediction proved accurate: rocket fire resumed from Gaza.
On June 11th, rockets were fired at one of the main roads in southern Israel. The next day, June 12, three Israeli teens were kidnapped in the Hebron area. The kidnappers are apparently members of Hamas, even though Hamas has so far denied this.[1]
Ten concrete measures to prevent Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands.
In several Western countries, the authorities are concerned about the security risk posed by young Muslim immigrants who went to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad and are now returning home. They are considered the most serious security risk in decades.
The risk is not just theoretical. Indeed, on May 24, Mehdi Nemmouche, a young Muslim with a French passport, went on a killing spree with a Kalashnikov assault rifle in the Jewish Museum in Brussels. He killed four people. Nemmouche had previously been in Syria, where he was trained in guerrilla warfare.
During the past three years, thousands of young Islamic immigrants from all Western countries, Europe, Australia, America and even Russia, have gone to fight in Syria, where they have committed the most horrible atrocities. Some of them were killed in action, while others have since returned home. They carry Western passports but they hate the West. They walk our streets as ticking time bombs, eager to cause as much havoc in our cities as they have caused in Syria.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
A FEW QUICK THOUGHTS ON COCHRAN
1. Beating a Senate incumbent is still really hard. Even when the votes go your way, the incumbents have any number of dirty options at their disposal. It happened in Alaska. Now it happened again.
The system itself is corrupt and winning an election means beating the system. The bigger the election, the harder the system pushes back. It’s an elastic effect. Scale that up and you can see how hard winning the White House becomes.
This is why the left started at the bottom. It’s much easier to take over organizations from the top than the bottom. You have to become the system before you can beat the system.
2. The Tea Party brand has been severely damaged. That is to be expected. Even the left doesn’t stick with a brand. It uses innumerable front groups. The Tea Party brand should be retained as feeders for recruitment, but it might be wiser to route actual work through groups branded with names like “Reform” and “Change”.
And that takes me to…
3. The ongoing problem on the right is that it talks ‘extremist’ and legislates ‘moderate’ while the left talks ‘moderate’ and legislates ‘extremist’.
That’s a big part of why Obama is in the White House and conservatives are still struggling to make headway.
Obama isn’t in the White House because Americans woke up Communist one morning. I know that “Free Stuff” is a popular theory, but people always liked free stuff. The larger welfare population helped shift the balance, but if Obama had been a non-viable candidate, there would have been no balance to shift and it would have done him as much good as it did Jesse Jackson or Dukakis.
Obama is in office because much of the country believes that he is a moderate and a centrist.
The left can get away with it because it talks centrist and lives radical. If the right is ever going to do better than another liberal Republican, its candidates are going to have to talk like liberal Republicans while legislating well to the right.
It is doable. Rand Paul has been doing the talking part well enough. Unfortunately he talks the talk so well because he actually is well to the left.
And that’s the bigger problem.
Lefty candidates can have a certain amount of trust from the base because they are committed to an ideology. Obama’s supporters knew that he was for gay marriage and racial polarization no matter what he said. The right needs candidates who are ideologically committed so that trust stops being an issue.
NOT A ONE
There can be no conservative case for amnesty because there is no such thing as a conservative case for a policy that will not have a conservative outcome.
The only meaningful argument for a policy is based on outcomes.
If the outcome of a conservative policy is more liberalism, it was never a conservative policy to begin with. That is the simplest and most reliable acid test of any “conservative” policy agenda.
Will Policy X put the country on a more liberal or conservative track?
There Is No Conservative Case for Amnesty
Kerry: Russia Must “Literally” Disarm, State Department, Don’t Take Him “Literally” – This administration and its foreign policy are literally a joke.
CYNICAL AND DISHONEST
The leading factor behind the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t come from Iraq. It came from Syria.
The theory that turned Al Qaeda into a regional monster didn’t come from Dick Cheney. It came from Obama’s Presidential Study Directive 11 which helped pave the way for the Arab Spring. The definitive speech that opened the gates of hell wasn’t Bush’s speech on Iraq, but Obama’s Cairo speech.
Al Qaeda in Iraq was a vicious terrorist organization before the Arab Spring, but it was not capable of menacing Baghdad with a sizable army while crushing numerically superior forces along the way.
That didn’t happen in Iraq. It happened in Syria.
Don’t Blame Bush for Al Qaeda in Iraq, Blame Obama
There is a problem in Britain when it comes to discussing objectively the issue of Islamism. Nowhere is this more demonstrable than at the BBC
That the BBC has a left-wing liberal bias in its current affairs programming and news broadcasting is now, like the weather, a staple feature of British national consciousness. Perhaps like the weather, the BBC just cannot be reformed. We simply have to live with it and make allowances.
Still, when one hears yet another piece of skewed BBC news reporting, it’s difficult not to be angered, particularly when the subject is terrorism.
BBC’s Today programme recently reported on a video showing a young British Muslim from Cardiff, Nasser Muthana, apparently attempting to recruit would-be jihadists. The programme also reported on an interview with Nasser Muthana’s father, Ahmed Muthana, who denied any knowledge or awareness of how his son had been ‘radicalised’.
Sarah Montague of the Today programme, discussing the radicalising of young Muslims in Britain with Sir Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, commented: ‘the father clearly had no idea of the influences on his son’.
That comment goes way beyond the evidence. How could Sarah Montague possibly know that? She, like the rest of us, knows only what the father said, nothing more.
Montague’s comment was a classic example of a common BBC practice of skewed liberal interpolation, where a liberal value judgment is insinuated into the factual debate which then passes off as fact into the public consciousness.
This is not news reporting, but a form of social engineering, and is particularly noticeable not just with matters concerning radical Islam but also with liberal sacred cow issues such as immigration and social welfare reform.
Time and time again with current affairs and news, the BBC often gives the impression of wanting to turn the public mind in a liberal direction and seems to see itself as the officially designated fixer of public opinion, while at the same time singing the praises of free speech. Free speech, that is, so long as the boundaries are liberal.
The point is particularly relevant as Montague’s train of thought slipped neatly into the views of Sir Peter Fahy of the Prevent strategy on counter terrorism.
Do the governments of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras have any responsibility for the catastrophe on southern frontier? Reacting to this latest crisis in Obama’s reign of error, Americans are debating the pros and cons of securing the U.S–Mexican border, reforming immigration law, building new detention centers, and more.
But one solution seems off the table:
These Latin governments should improve their own political economies, so that their people need not ride atop freight trains, ford the Rio Grande, and then dodge Gila monsters en route to better lives.
Liberals consider it Washington’s duty to nurture these people. But they first should ask Mexico City, San Salvador, Guatemala City, and Tegucigalpa for assistance. Better yet, if Latin politicians improved their own domestic conditions, their constituents could stay home, avoid public assistance, and enjoy prosperity, health, and freedom inside their own countries.
According to the latest data, on table 34 of the 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 448,697 Mexicans were arrested that year while crossing into the U.S. So were 37,197 Salvadorans; 55,307 Guatemalans; and 48,984 Hondurans; but only 1,149 Canadians. Why so few? Canada’s per capita GDP is $42,734. Its generally unfettered market is rated No. 6 in the Heritage Foundation–Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom. Its honest government is ranked No. 9 in Transparency International’s 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index. So, Canadians stay put, rather than flee south for opportunity.
Also, Canada outpaces America on key metrics. U.S. per capita GDP is higher at $49,222, although America, at No. 12, lags Canada in economic freedom and, at No. 19, in transparency.
By comparison, El Salvador’s per capita GDP is $7,438, Guatemala is the world’s 83rd freest economy, and Honduras has Earth’s 140th cleanest government. These nations and Mexico need to get it together, rather than simply stick their kids atop boxcars and send them north to surrender to the U.S. Border Patrol. America’s
Some 40,000 Christians live in Qaraqosh, a town near Mosul, Iraq. Residents have been gathering daily in 12 local churches as ISIS jihadists advance towards the community. Their existence is a precarious one.
Some 40,000 Christians live in Qaraqosh, a town near Mosul, Iraq. Residents have been gathering daily in 12 local churches as ISIS jihadists advance towards the community. Their existence is a precarious one.
It was the evening of Tuesday, June 10 when Salam Kihkhwa walked into a mobile phone shop in the Qaraqosh city center to purchase more minutes for his phone. Kihkhwa surfs the Internet for several hours each day and was carrying an iPhone 5s in his hand as he navigated his way past brackish puddles on the edge of the road. He set a few wrinkled dinar notes down on the counter to pay for a pack of Winchesters. Just at that moment, he recalls, he heard the scream: “The jihadists are in the city!”
Salam no longer remembers where the scream came from or whether it was a man or a woman. But he knows he left his cigarettes and money on the counter, grabbed his phone and made a run for it. Hundreds of others joined him, and the crowd kept swelling as it dashed through the streets of Qaraqosh.
“They’re coming,” the people fleeing yelled, warning others along the way. They ran into their houses — and the bells of Qaraqosh’s 12 churches began to ring.
Yet the day that the residents of Qaraqosh thought that the radical Islamist militia of terrorist Abu Bakr a-Baghdadi had entered the city turned out to be just one fear-filled day among many. And the situation this week appears to be worsening.
A week after his trip to the shop, Salam is sitting on a sofa in his small home, a wooden cross hanging on the wall behind him. His mother Sabria has set a meal of chicken and couscous on the table while his father Samir brings glasses of ice water. “God, we thank you for this meal,” they say. “Please stand by us.”
On my weekly visit to The Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday, Hugh and I discussed the Clintons and their money – Bill can’t stop talking about how much they have, Hillary can’t stop talking about how poor they are, and poor Chelsea has declared, from her $10.5 million apartment, that she’s just too, too bored by money. On Hugh’s show, I put it this way:
“The problem here is it’s a Mitt Romney problem. When Mitt ran, people talked about Bain Capital, and a lot of people couldn’t understand what Bain Capital did. You know, he would talk about Staples, but everyone understood he wasn’t the guy who invented Staples, he wasn’t the guy who worked in stationery and office equipment and built up a chain of stores. Somehow Staples had fallen his way, and he turned it around. And people couldn’t quite equate that as work. And I think it’s actually even worse for Hillary Clinton, because she and Bill Clinton are stinkingly rich just from giving $200,000 speeches to rather shady and shifty figures from the United Arab Emirates. That’s basically how they’ve got rich… People don’t mind money, and people don’t mind Bill Gates having a ton of money, people don’t mind Steve Jobs making a ton a money. But this is hard-to-explain kind of money.”
Her latest book is part of that phenomenon. Her publisher paid an advance of $14 million. It will never earn that back. So what exactly are Simon & Schuster paying for? What exactly are all those Saudi sheikhs paying for, other than dull speeches on the need for education? No other “First Family” has leveraged their “public service” into a grip’n’greet cash-cow on the scale the Clintons have. That’s not like getting rich from “adding value” – from starting and building a business – or even from being a genuine bestselling author, like J K Rowling. I’m not sure how appealing this will be to the electorate at large.
Advocates for the family think the State Department is covering up potential mistakes.
State Department officials, under pressure since Sudanese woman Meriam Ibrahim and her American family were prevented from leaving the country for the United States, have discouraged congressional leaders from speaking out publicly on behalf of them, advocates for the family say.
Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death for apostasy before the government ultimately overturned her conviction, was arrested for a second time on her way out of the country. Her husband, American citizen Daniel Wani, was also arrested.
The State Department said this week that Ibrahim’s family wanted members of Congress to “keep quiet” about her case, according to a religious-liberty advocate whose organization works with the Ibrahim family’s lawyers in Sudan.
“And that’s simply not true,” says Tina Ramirez, founder of Hardwired, which provides legal training in Sudan on religious liberty, told National Review Online. State was “lying” about the wishes of the Ibrahim family, she says. “I don’t know why they would say such a thing.”
Ramirez explained that the State Department told members of Congress that Meriam Ibrahim’s husband and her brother-in-law, Gabriel (who lives in New Hampshire), had asked that Congress stand down.
“State was advising Congress to back off,” Ramirez said.
A State Department spokeswoman wouldn’t comment on the specific question of whether the department had discouraged members of Congress from speaking out publicly on this case.
“The State Department is in close contact with members who are interested in this case,” Pooja Jhunjhunwala told NRO. “We don’t discuss the details of those conversations but we greatly appreciate the support Congress has given the family, our embassy staff, and the interagency personnel in D.C. working towards a positive resolution of this case.”
A Hill staffer following Ibrahim case corroborated Ramirez’s account. “During this week’s fiasco, State has urged multiple congressional offices to maintain a ‘low profile’ on the Meriam case,” one Hill staffer told NRO, saying that the directive had gone primarily to Democratic offices inclined to follow State Department instructions.
A congressional lawsuit is precisely the wrong weapon to combat Obama’s lawlessness.
You wish you could call the police. But the neighbor who is robbing your house at gunpoint is the police. You are stupefied, so inconceivable does it seem to you that the man sworn to uphold the law could be an outlaw.
Yet, the architects who designed your house not only conceived of that danger, they took precautions. As a result, you not only have your own arsenal of emergency firepower; you’re also in charge of all the ammunition. See, the architects hoped we’d always have good, honorable police, but they didn’t make your life depend on it. They knew the police had to be strong to protect us, but that this very strength could potentially destroy the whole community if the guns and badges ever ended up in corrupt hands. So while hoping for the best, they planned for the worst: The police have to come to you for the bullets if their guns are to be of much use; and you ultimately determine whether they get to keep their badges.
So as the police rob John Boehner’s House, just like they’re robbing every house in the neighborhood, what does he do? Does he grab his gun in self-defense? Does he lock the ammo vault? Does he start yanking the badges of the lawless beat cops and warn police headquarters that the commissioner could be out of a job, too, if things don’t change?
No. Boehner instead decides to call his neighbor, the referee at the town gym. The whole community respects the ref. When we come to his court, he makes all the calls and, win or lose, the players know the game was fair and square. But the ref cannot force the police to follow the rules. And he doesn’t have a gun, just a whistle.
This, in a nutshell, is the theatrical exercise in futility that is House Speaker Boehner’s proposed lawsuit against our rampantly lawless president. Boehner and the Congress hold the tools that could end, or at least dramatically reduce, the administration’s onslaught. Instead, the speaker prefers to bring a whistle to a gunfight. Paralyzed by fear of catcalls from Obama’s slavish media, Boehner eschews the use of his own armaments in favor of turning to the courts — apparently, in hope that a judge will pronounce with stentorian flourish that which is already abundantly obvious to all with eyes to see: The president of the United States is in gross violation of his solemn oath to execute the laws faithfully, usurping congressional power in a systematic assault on the separation of powers that safeguards our liberties.
The speaker will persevere in the lawsuit gambit because his flanks are covered. On his left, Jonathan Turley thinks the suit has a fighting chance to, er . . . well, Professor Turley is not exactly clear on what exactly it would accomplish. But as a devotee of the Left’s preference of a tutelary judiciary over republican self-governance, he’s all for it. And on the speaker’s right, there is George Will.
