WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Western Feminists: Hijab Hypocrisy by Khadija Khan

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

No one in the Women’s March called out the Iranian government for imprisoning, torturing and killing women trying to break free of their shackles. Instead, they chanted “Me Too” and “Time’s Up,” as they paraded with activists such as Palestinian-American Linda Sarsour, who calls for jihad and apparently also denigrated one of her employees who was a victim of sexual assault in the workplace.

The same day as activists, fighting tyrannical regimes, were burning hijabs in solidarity with Iranian and other suppressed women across the world, the spineless British Foreign Office was handing out hijabs, trying to sell them as a symbol of “Liberation”, “Respect” and “Security”.

These women — who are trapped in despotic Middle Eastern dictatorships, who face possible prosecution and having their lives ruined — were given no attention by the same women marchers in the U.S. Evidently, feminists in the West were too busy wearing hijabs in solidarity with Sarsour and other promoters of Islamic law (sharia), which advises husbands to beat their wives; that in court, a woman’s testimony is worth only half a man’s testimony; that daughters can receive only half the inheritance of a son, and that if a woman is raped, she will need four male Muslim witnesses, supposedly at the scene, to prove that she was not committing adultery.

February 1 marked World Hijab Day, an annual expression of solidarity with “millions of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab and live a life of modesty.” Less than two weeks earlier, on January 20, a Women’s March was held — with rallies across the United States — to re-enact the protests of the previous year against the election of President Donald Trump.

HOMELAND SECURITY, IMMIGRATION Comments turned off

25 Disturbing Facts About Refugee Resettlements from Somalia How terror arrives on American shores. Leo Hohmann

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

Of the 11 countries included in President Trump’s refugee ban, one stands out — Somalia.

That ban expired two weeks ago and the U.S. has begun accepting refugees again from Somalia and 10 other high-risk nations.

Although Trump promises “extreme vetting,” many Muslim refugees come as children and become radicalized years later.

Somali crime rivals Somali terrorism as a major problem, and the two clearly blur into one another. The problem is leaking from Minnesota into South Dakota — as Lutheran Social Services has resettled more than 4,500 Somalis in Sioux Falls. Many of the Somalis have migrated from Sioux Falls to the city of Aberdeen in search of work at Demkota Ranch Co.’s beef-packing plant.

South Dakota State Senator and GOP congressional candidate Neal Tapio is leading perhaps the nation’s most aggressive effort to expose the danger and fraud of refugee resettlements. Tapio has introduced several bills that seek to rein in high-risk resettlements in his state.

“While many people see compassion to serve the less fortunate, the truth is the Somali community has not been able to assimilate and has proven to be a major terror threat in the United States,” Tapio said.

Consider the following 25 incidents that should raise red flags about refugee resettlement from this perpetually war-torn country:

[1] The Somali man who knifed two men in November at the Mall of America was not involved in an attempt to steal clothing – a false narrative put out by Bloomington police – but was actually carrying out jihad. He admitted it in a detailed statement to the court. Mahad Abdiraham said he went to the mall that day to “answer the call for jihad.”

[2] A Somali refugee who had just arrived in Aberdeen for a meatpacking job was convicted last year of trying to sexually assault a wheelchair-bound woman at a group home. Liban Mohamed, 39, found the vulnerable woman sitting outside the home and he was caught reaching up between her legs.

[3] Also in Aberdeen, Abdirhman Noor, 24, shot at two men outside the Foxridge Apartments, wounding one critically. Noor, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was charged with attempted murder and released on $50,000 bail. He never showed up for his March 2017 court hearing and remains at large.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

We’re From the International Community and We’re Here to Help How the Clintons, the UN and Oxfam trashed Haiti. Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

“I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help,” Ronald Reagan famously said. But the most terrifying words in every other language are, “We’re from the international community and we’re here to help.”

In Haitian Creole that would be, “Nou soti nan kominote entènasyonal la e nou isit la pou ede.”

When an earthquake hit Haiti in ’10, everyone who was anyone in the international community quickly showed up. Bill Clinton had been appointed as the UN Special Envoy for Haiti a year earlier where he had touted the “unique opportunities for public and private investment” in Haiti. The earthquake opened up those opportunities to Clinton Foundation donors.

A year later, Bill Clinton was touting a $45 million new hotel owned by an Irish cell phone tycoon who was a close pal as the only thing a country with a million homeless needed. A CNN puff piece claimed that the hotel would house “aid workers, potential investors and other visitors”. Like Anderson Cooper, who needs someplace to take a hot shower after standing waist deep in water for 5 minutes on camera.

Haiti was a gold mine for the Clintons. Literally. Hillary’s brother was added to the board of a small company that got a gold mining permit at half the standard rates with a 25 year renewal option. Tony, Hillary’s brother, is a college dropout who had worked as a repo man and a prison guard.

The Clintons not only turned a disaster into a slush fund, but even got Hillary’s idiot brother a gig.

But inflicting the Clintons on Haiti wasn’t the worst thing that the United Nations did to the impoverished island. The worst thing that the UN can do to any country is send in the blue helmets.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

When Susie Met Comey A mysterious email raises questions about the Deep State’s designs for the incoming Trump administration. Lloyd Billingsley

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

January 20, 2017, was inauguration day for president Donald Trump and last day on the job for national security advisor Susan Rice. At 12:15 p.m. that day, Rice sent herself an email about a January 5 meeting with POTUS 44, FBI boss James Comey, deputy attorney general Sally Yates, and vice president Joe Biden.

In this meeting, Rice wrote, “The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” From a national security perspective, however, the president “said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Grassley, among others, found the email highly unusual. Former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler countered that Rice was simply “memorializing an important discussion for the record.” The discussion did not involve the Steele dossier and “any insinuation that Ambassador Rice’s actions in this matter were inappropriate is yet another attempt to distract and deflect from the importance of the ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in America’s democracy.” Others offered a different explanation for Rice’s eleventh-hour message.

“She’s obviously trying to rewrite history,” Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News. “She’s trying to make it look as if something happened that didn’t happen.” Those present “learned something between January 5th and January 20th which caused them to want to change the narrative about this meeting.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

17 Killed at Florida High School; Accused Shooter is Former Student with ‘Very Disturbing’ Social Media By Bridget Johnson

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

At least 17 people were killed as a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., opened fire on campus today.

Nikolas Cruz, a 19-year-old expelled from the school for disciplinary reasons, fled the scene but was apprehended and arrested a short time later. Misspellings of his first name were circulating earlier among media and social media.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told reporters that the shooting began outside of the school. Twelve of the victims were found in buildings, two were killed outside on school grounds, and one person was shot to death outside of school property on Pine Island Road. Two more shooting victims died at a hospital.

Israel noted that victims among the 17 wounded taken to hospitals are still undergoing surgery. Three people were in critical condition.

Though he didn’t have a breakdown of how many victims were students and how many were teachers, the sheriff said the deceased were a mixture of young people and adults.

Israel said investigators have begun dissecting Cruz’s social media, and “some of the things that have come to light are very, very disturbing.” He said the shooter had multiple magazines and used at least one AR-15.

Some witness accounts said the shooter may have pulled a fire alarm to get people out of rooms; the sheriff wouldn’t comment on the report. But Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), after receiving a federal briefing, told CNN that Cruz had a gas mask and smoke grenades, and did pull the fire alarm.

“We were told last year that he wasn’t allowed on campus with a backpack on him,” math teacher Jim Gard, who said Cruz had been in his class last year, told the Miami Herald. “There were problems with him last year threatening students, and I guess he was asked to leave campus.”

Students who spoke with local media after the shooting expressed little surprise that Cruz was arrested as the suspect. One told WFOR-TV that other students “knew it was going to be him.” Student Matthew Walker told ABC News that “everything he posts [on social media] is about weapons”; he said Cruz’s selection of victims appeared to be random. CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

US keen on Russia distancing itself from Iran’s Syrian ambitions David Goldman

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

Washington would like Moscow to inform its Iranian partners they cannot count on Russian support if they use Syria as a base to threaten Israel.

The Pentagon released a video, on February 13, of a Russian T-72 tank being destroyed by an American drone attack in Syria, the most recent in a series of wrist-slaps intended to persuade Moscow to distance itself from Iran’s ambitions in Syria.

This follows an engagement with a force reportedly composed of Russian nationals working as “contractors” for the Assad government – an engagement in which American special forces killed 200 combatants and injured many others. The Russian contractors and a Russian-built tank reportedly attacked Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) armed and advised by the US, and a Pentagon spokesman said that the US acted in self-defense.

Russia is not the target. On the contrary, US Defense Secretary James Mattis went out of his way last week to emphasize that Washington does not seek a confrontation with Russia, telling the Al-Monitor news site: “There were elements in this very complex battlespace that the Russians do not have control of. You can’t ask Russia to de-conflict something they don’t control.”

Russia has kept an official distance from irregular forces, giving the United States maneuvering room to attack them without directly compromising Russian interests. Washington’s objective is not to overthrow the Assad regime or to eject Russia from Syria, but rather to raise the cost of Russia’s support for Iran to the point that Moscow will allow the US and its allies to push Iranian forces out of Syria.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Who’s Really Winning the North Korea Standoff? By Victor Davis Hanson

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

There have been wild reports that the United States is considering a “bloody nose” preemptive attack of some sort on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Such rumors are unlikely to prove true. Preemptive attacks usually are based on the idea that things will so worsen that hitting first is the only chance to decapitate a regime before it can do greater damage.

But in the struggle between Pyongyang and Washington, who really has gotten the upper hand?

With its false happy face in the current Winter Olympics, North Korea thinks it is winning the war of nerves. Yet its new nuclear missile strategy is pretty transparent. It wants to separate South Korea’s strategic interests from those of the United States, with boasts—backed by occasional missile nuclear tests—that it can take out West Coast cities.

Pyongyang could then warn its new frenemy, Seoul, that the United States would never risk its own homeland to keep protecting South Korea. Thus it would supposedly be wiser for Koreans themselves, in the spirit of Olympic brotherhood, to settle their own differences. A failed but nuclear North Korea ultimately would dictate the terms of the relationship to a successful but non-nuclear South Korea.

North Korea might even insincerely offer to dismantle some of its nuclear assets if the United States would just pull out its forces from the demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel. This strategy would also send the message to the United States that it should have little interest risking a nuclear exchange over a distant and largely internal Korean matter.

MEDIA, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Forget the Media Caricature. Here’s What I Believe I support U.S. generosity, decentralized power, evidence-based science, and open discourse. By Rebekah Mercer

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

Over the past 18 months, I have been the subject of intense speculation and public scrutiny, in large part because of the philanthropic investments of the Mercer Family Foundation and the political contributions made by my father and me. I don’t seek attention for myself and much prefer to keep a low profile. But my natural reluctance to speak with reporters has left me vulnerable to the media’s sensational fantasies.

Some have recklessly described me as supporting toxic ideologies such as racism and anti-Semitism. More recently I have been accused of being “anti-science.” These absurd smears have inspired a few gullible, but vicious, characters to make credible death threats against my family and me.

Last month a writer for the Financial Times suggested mysteriously that my “political goals are something she has never publicly defined.” In broad strokes this is what I believe:

I believe in a kind and generous United States, where the hungry are fed, the sick are cared for, and the homeless are sheltered. All American citizens deserve equality and fairness before the law. All people should be treated with dignity and compassion. I support a United States that welcomes immigrants and refugees to apply for entry and ultimately citizenship. I reject as venomous and ignorant any discrimination based on race, gender, creed, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

As a federalist, I believe that power should be decentralized, with those wielding it closely accountable to the people they serve. There is obviously a role for the federal government. But I support a framework within which citizens from smaller political entities—states, counties, cities, towns and so on—can determine the majority of the laws that will govern them. Society’s problems will never be solved by expensive, ineffective and inflexible federal programs.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump’s Style Is His Substance Primary voters chose him because he promised to fight. Party leaders need to learn to be less timid.By Bobby Jindal

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

You hear it all the time from Trump supporters: “I like a lot of what he’s done, especially the judges and tax cuts. But I wish he’d stop tweeting and picking fights. I wish he acted more presidential and stopped insulting reporters, entertainers, senators, foreign leaders and Gold Star families.”

Sounds right, seems smart. Yet for millions of Trump voters it misses the point entirely. Mr. Trump’s style is part of his substance. His most loyal supporters back him because of, not despite, his brash behavior. He would not be in the Oval Office today had he followed a conventional path or listened to the advisers telling him to tone down his rhetoric and discipline his behavior. If Republican primary voters had wanted a border wall, tax cuts and sound judges without the drama, they could have picked Ted Cruz. Instead they elected Mr. Trump for exactly the reasons that the mainstream media, late-night comics, and party elites cannot stand him.

GOP voters have traditionally demanded their leaders demonstrate fealty to conservative principles through life experience: by offering a spiritual conversion story, standing with a supportive spouse and children, talking about the deer bagged during last year’s hunting season. The apparent authenticity mattered, given that many competing politicians converged around the same policies. Hence the damage when a candidate came across as inauthentic, as in 2007 when Mitt Romney said he had hunted “a number of times,” mostly “small varmints.”

The reality was that voters trusted candidates who were like them in beliefs, habits and appearance. Knowing this, candidates tried to find common ground with regular people. That’s why Democrats in red states cut ads showing them shooting guns and professing their faith. It’s why Marco Rubio repeatedly told the story of his father, the immigrant bartender, and why John Kasich offered paeans to his father, the mailman.

But what was really achieved by all those years of supporting politicians with perfect church attendance and lifetime memberships in the National Rifle Association? Relatively little in enacted legislation. That’s why in 2016, after years of broken promises about repealing ObamaCare, balancing the budget and imposing term limits, conservative voters decided they’d had enough. They decided to support someone whose primary virtue was that he would not back down from fighting for them. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Iran’s Ailing Hostages Western prisoners keep dying in the Rouhani regime’s dungeons.

Posted By on February 15th, 2018

Environmental activist Kavous Seyed Emami, a dual Canadian-Iranian citizen, became the latest victim of Iran’s government last week when he died in Evin Prison under suspicious circumstances. An ailing American may be next on the regime’s death list.

The 63-year-old Seyed Emami was a founder of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation, which works to preserve wildlife in Iran. The foundation’s website says it’s funded by “individuals as well as companies with a sense of social responsibility,” and that it works with “commercial ventures,” other conservation groups and Iran’s “hard-working officials in charge of our natural resources at the Department of Environment.” Not exactly foes of the regime.

Yet Seyed Emami and several colleagues, including Iranian-American board member Morad Tahbaz, were detained in January on espionage charges after anti-regime protests roiled the country. The government says Seyed Emami committed suicide by hanging, which is what the regime claimed about Sina Ghanbari, a young protestor who died in Evin prison in January. Odd how prisoners keep killing themselves in authoritarian dungeons.