Saturday, 13 February 2016
Justice Antonin Scalia has died.
Posted on 02/13/2016 4:28 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 13 February 2016
Things You Can't Say in Denmark
“…The ideology of Islam is every bit as loathsome, nauseating, oppressive and dehumanizing as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating event Danish society has suffered in recent historical times.”
Story at Gates of Vienna.
Posted on 02/13/2016 7:22 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 13 February 2016
The Jihadi Jail: Ministers are 'considering plans to house ALL the UK's Islamic terrorists in a 'British Alcatraz'
From the Times and the Daily Mail
A review of radicalisation in jails in England and Wales may support putting all Islamist terrorists into one unit to stop them preying on weak inmates. The terrorists would be locked up together in one “jihadi jail”, but the move would reverse a 50-year policy in which dangerous inmates are dispersed around eight jails.
The approach would reverse the current policy of dispersing dangerous inmates across six prisons - in place for 50 years - which stops them creating gangs and power structures within the jail.
The six units are in Frankland, near Durham, Full Sutton, near York, Long Lartin in Worcestershire, Wakefield in West Yorkshire, Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire, and Belmarsh, London.
And while such a prison could be created in one of the already existing jails, an entirely new unit could not be ruled out. The proposal to hold terrorists separately has been suggested in discussions as part of a review ordered by Michael Gove and carried out by Ian Acheson, a former prison governor.
The Ministry of Justice has categorically denied any concrete plans to create such a prison, claiming that it does not form any part of reviews or discussions on reform. But ministers are expected to back the idea of segregating them, which is the approach adopted by the French penal system.
One prison source told The Times it would be best to maintain the the ability to move prisoners, but agreed it would be good to segregate them to stop them 'infecting other inmates with their views
There are concerns that putting all radicals in one prison, or secure units within jails, would create a focal point for protest, something that could be considered a British Guantanamo Bay. Not if it was somewhere difficult to get to. One of the reasons HMP Parkhurst was, in it's day, a feared placement was the difficultly of getting on and off the island. The Isle of Wight is a heavily populated island, but there are others, less built up. Cf HMP Dartmoor.
....also concerns that it could lead to power structures within the prisons that could be used to intimidate guards.
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister said ministers were considering the plans as part of the Government's renewed crackdown on extremism in UK jails.
'We will not stand by and watch people being radicalised like this while they are in the care of the state,' Mr Cameron declared today in a major speech on prison reform - the first by a prime minister solely on jails in two decades. And I want to be clear: I am prepared to consider major changes: from the imams we allow to preach in prison to changing the locations and methods for dealing with prisoners convicted of terrorism offences, if that is what is required.'
It isn't just keeping them away from other prisoners - there will need to be a system of keeping them away from each other. The old penitentiary system (Millbank and Lincoln) did just that and while it had its flaws I am sure that it is worth considering a 21st century version. Remember we are dealing with a culture that mandates seclusion, isolation and anonymity for its womenfolk. I'm sure the men could adapt to a regime similar to the one they impose on their mothers, wives and sisters.
Posted on 02/13/2016 5:09 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Saturday, 13 February 2016
Three Bad Ideas Trudeau Should Avoid
Three horrible notions of government intervention have been floating around in Canada recently, and they should be vaporized before they settle in the nostrils of the federal government, historically susceptible as federal Liberals have sometimes been to nasty outbreaks of that contagion. First is the demand that the manufacture and sale to Saudi Arabia of armoured personnel carriers for $15 billion by a subsidiary of American armaments giant General Dynamics in London, Ont., be stopped because of the turpitude of the Saudi regime. This is a vintage case of self-defeating, incandescent Canadian sanctimony. Of course the Saudi regime is offensive, as undemocratic, completely disrespectful of the status of women and of human rights generally, and productive of much Muslim extremism by its policy of supporting Wahhabi cultural and religious proselytization in much of the world.
The nature of the Saudi regime has been the subject of previous columns here; that state is a joint venture between the formerly nomadic House of Saud, relatively unregenerate since the Arab Middle Ages, and the leadership of the extreme Wahhabi Muslim sect. The Saudis take the oil income from reserves discovered by the British, French and Americans, and donate some of it to the Wahhabi activities throughout the Islamic world, which has incited a great deal of religious extremism and violence, and the Wahhabis urge fealty to the Saudi royal family in return. Of course the system is an outrage: medievalism wedded to Islamic militancy, exploiting what amounts to the slave labour of imported workers (who have no chance to become Saudi citizens, for whatever that is worth) and an unholy alliance greased by blackmail and Dane geld.
But the $15-billion deal is a good one economically for Canada; if we did not allow it to be filled in Canada, General Dynamics would move the subsidiary elsewhere, the Saudis would fill this order elsewhere and nothing would be changed except a heavy blow to southwestern Ontario, (3,000 jobs are directly involved). Even if such a move would have some impact on the stability of the Saudi government, which it would not in fact, the whole idea of cancelling this contract does not pass the litmus test in such matters. That is: would the succeeding regime be an improvement? Of course it would not — it would be a Wahhabi-supported theocracy close to the Caliphate sought by the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL), and put the greatest oil reserves and revenues in the world in the hands of the most extreme Islamists in the world. In any move toward regime change, which is generally not the legitimate concern of foreign governments anyway, and certainly in this case is no business of Canada’s, those who would effect the change should ask if they are confident the replacement would be an improvement. This has been the profound fallacy that afflicted foreign opposition (by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter) to the Shah of Iran, giving us the semi-nuclear ayatollahs, and that has made such an unspeakable disaster of the Iraqi and Syrian imbroglios. In the polls that show a majority of Canadians would like to stop the arms sale to Saudi Arabia, the question was not put properly. Not two per cent of Canadians would vote to impoverish thousands of Canadians in an ineffectual effort to destabilize a regime that if it did collapse would be replaced by one that would be far more offensive to Canadians and a mortal threat to the Middle East.
For all its failings, Saudi Arabia has helped impose some restraint on Iran and on Russia, which must have contributed something to the trivial concessions Iran made to reach a nuclear agreement with the six powers it negotiated with, and to Russian restraint in its efforts to reassert its influence in Ukraine and the Baltic states. Saudi Arabia has been denounced for its heavy-handed intervention in Yemen, but without it, that country would have been taken over by Iranian-sponsored extremists. Saudi Arabia is also professing to be ready to provide the long-awaited Arab boots on the ground to salvage the disastrous Obama-led coalition in Syria, that has been pounded by ISIL and by Iran and Russia as they support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s despotism. I consider the official simpering in Ottawa about the declining oil price as the cause of all economic problems to be cowardly and misleading, and governments should have adjusted their tax rates to ensure that gasoline and home heating fuel prices declined by 70 per cent, as has the cost of crude oil, but whatever direction we might wish oil prices to follow, we will not further our objectives through gratuitous provocations of the world’s premier petroleum exporter.
The second of these hare-brained misconceptions of the role of government is the idea touted last weekend by the Globe and Mail that those who buy residential real estate and then flip it for a profit without occupying it themselves, sometimes even before the first sale is closed, are doing something unethical that should be illegal. If the claim were merely made that this sort of transaction adds no value and is just the velocity of money and inflation rather than the product of work, it would be correct to discount it as a contributor to economic growth. To use an old example, if every adult in the country composed a poem and sold it every day to someone else, and bought one from someone else, always for $100 per poem, (however undistinguished the poems), so everyone paid and received $100 per day every day, Canada would increase its GDP and per capita income by 150 per cent, and would have the wealthiest population and the third-largest economy in the world, but no one would be one cent wealthier. These multi-layer housing sales are like that, though there are capital gains and if the ultimate buyer is foreign, they attract capital to Canada. Capital gains from speculative housing sales are subject to tax, unlike the sales of principal family residences. If this practice of quick-flipping properties is really a problem, vendors of houses should require that resales within a certain period at a higher price split the gain between the successive owners. Or people selling their homes could auction them, making it a competitive process, rather than selling them to an offeror without testing the market. Any sort of intrusion by government in this type of transaction will just strangle the real estate sales industry and will not yield an additional cent to anyone deserving of it. This is a pseudo-moralistic tempest in a teapot.
The third government intervention that has been asked to raise its furry head in the national interest is the completely unacceptable idea of direct government aid (i.e., effective takeovers) in the daily newspaper industry. This is largely the result of the severe problems of Postmedia, the company that owns the National Post. As everyone knows, newspapers are a distressed industry, and readers of Toronto newspapers were recently treated to an acerbic exchange between the chairmen of Postmedia and of Torstar, which included the fact that Torstar’s stock price has declined by 80 per cent in the last seven years and Postmedia’s has declined by almost 99 per cent in the last six years (on the rare occasions when it trades at all). Postmedia last year gave shareholders only three weeks to choose between an 85 per cent dilution or multiplying their shareholding by six by buying and exercising share rights. For the only time in my lengthy financial experience, a company with thinly traded stock multiplied the number of its shares outstanding by seven and yet effectively ceased to trade, although the inference was incited during the whirlwind rights offer period that shareholders who exercised their rights would do so at around twice free cash flow per share, normally a bargain price. In fact, losses have hemorrhaged since and RBC Dominion Securities last month rated the stock as worthless after the annual meeting and release of the first quarter of the current fiscal year.
It is impossible to see how the company can go on paying the back-breaking interest on its corporate debt, that should have been refinanced years ago, especially as it failed to hedge against currency fluctuations and is being soaked usuriously on a large debt issue denominated in U.S. dollars. Postmedia has under-performed its beleaguered industry and has relied implausibly on industry conditions to explain its poor performance. But what is needed is not government intervention to provide sinecures for journalists to maintain a healthy investigative opposition, as some self-interested parties in that craft have called for, in supposed emulation of the narrow and partisan press of Sweden, and as if there were the slightest parallel with public broadcasting. What is needed is to convert Postmedia’s unsustainable long-term debt to equity, if necessary by the judicial process that enacts such changes, and installation of management that invests in product quality sufficiently to afford cover price increases and to reinvigorate advertising sales. Anyone who buys a broadsheet newspaper in Canada is a desirable target for any advertiser and a traditional cost-per-thousand argument could be constructed. The same new management should get serious about a national, constantly updated, Internet newspaper, custom designed for the preferences of individual subscribers. Transforming Postmedia into a paper CBC riveted on the back of the taxpayers would be a national catastrophe.
This country will not realize its potential until it has developed a mature judgment of when public sector-private sector collaboration can work effectively — as it did from Jean Talon through John A. Macdonald’s Canadian Pacific, Wilfrid Laurier and Clifford Sifton’s immigration policies, to C.D. Howe’s Trans-Canada Pipelines — and when it is a horrible idea. Too little a recourse to the public treasury can be a mistake; too frequent and reflexive an imposition of government’s fiat in the marketplace is a disaster. A country sophisticated in self-government knows the difference; surely Canada does by now.
First published in the National Post.
Posted on 02/13/2016 5:06 AM by Conrad Black
Saturday, 13 February 2016
NPR and the Chapel Hill Murders
On February 10th, NPR ran a piece about the murders of three people — all Muslims — in Chapel Hill, North Carolina exactly one year before. The murderer was Craig Hicks, who lived in the same apartment complex as the victims. Investigation of his Facebook page showed conclusively that Hicks leaned to the left in his political views, being especially fond of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Huffington Post. He “liked” a group calling itself “Obama Backs Mosque Near Ground Zero: This Is America,” which naturally suggests he favored “a mosque near Ground Zero.” Hardly the sign of someone who is “anti-Islam.” And indeed, there is no record anywhere of Hicks ever mocking Islam on social media or making an anti-Islam remark anywhere else. But among the groups that he did like at Facebook were several dozen that were militantly anti-Christian: Jesus McChrist, Scary Bible Quotes of the Day, Silly Christians, Not Wasting My Sundays At Church, Arrest the Pope and Tax Religion, and a few dozen others of that ilk. He was obsessed with one religion, all right, and virulently hostile towards it, but that religion wasn’t Islam – it was Christianity. He even wrote: “Knowing several dozen Muslims…I’d prefer them to most Christians.”
But because the three people Craig Hicks killed were Muslims, at the time of the murders Muslims immediately swung into action, declaring that of course Hicks’s motive could only have been a deep-seated hatred of Muslims. Nihad Awad of CAIR was quick off the mark: “Based on the brutal nature of the crime, the past anti-religion [but they were all anti-Christian!] statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims, and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case.” Linda Sarsour, a well-known Muslim activist, insisted that the murders sent “a message to other young people in the Muslim community that the fear [of anti-Muslim hate crime] is valid.” There was much more in this vein from various Muslim activists, not one of whom could point to a single anti-Muslim statement or act by Craig Hicks. But if Muslims were killed, who cared if it was all about a parking space? It was about a parking space for Muslims. And that made it about Islam.
What everyone who came into contact with Craig Hicks knew was that he was very angry, but what he was very angry about was not Islam but the quality of life at his apartment house. And what enraged him – the neighbor from hell – were such commonplace problems as too much noise coming from other apartments. One of the Muslim survivors said that the first complaint they ever had from Hicks was over the level of noise he and his friends made while they were playing “Risk”: “You were too loud, you woke up my wife.” But what really exercised Hicks were disputes over parking. Sometimes other residents would have more visitors than they had visitors’ permits for; sometimes those visitors, or the residents themselves, parked in places not designated for them. All of this was fodder for the lunatic Hicks. But he was as incensed with non-Muslims over parking problems as he was with Muslims.
Hicks’ wife of seven years testified: “I can say with absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion of the victims, but it was related to a longstanding parking dispute that my husband had with the neighbors.” Not once in their seven years of marriage had Hicks ever mentioned any hatred of Muslims. But about parking spaces, he had plenty to say. And U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand was equally certain: “The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina…..there was no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.”
None of this testimony has had the slightest dampening affect on the campaign not against but by Muslims to turn the Chapel Hill killings into a “hate crime.” And it is startling how many people – including those who work at NPR – still stubbornly insist on parroting the claims made by Muslim activists about a soi-disant “hate crime” a full year after the event, when not a shred of evidence to support this claim has been found.
The NPR story is focused on what, in the face of this “hate crime,” proud Muslims are doing, such as becoming “visible and vocal” – wearing hijabs as an act of defiance (against all those presumed craigs-hicks emulaters): “This [the murders] happened, but it [this “hate-crime”] can’t stop us from being who we are, from practicing our faith – because it [Islam] is beautiful, it’s [Islam] peaceful.” Thus Summer Hamad, who now finds it important to bravely become “noticeably Muslim around her community…If I was doing something good like volunteering, which we do a lot, I “wanted people to know that we’re also Muslim” [and thus see how peaceful, giving, wonderful we are].
“In the year since the shootings,” notes NPR, “many local Muslims…have chosen to be more visible in their communities. They’ve become more proactive about sharing their faith [I have myself endured more than one Muslim Outreach Night at the Mosque, with lamb and chicken and pita bread], engaging with their communities, and trying to create a collective embrace.” Omid Safi, a Duke professor of Islamic Studies, says “We’ve opened our homes, we’ve opened our hearts, we’ve stood out: proud as Americans, proud as human beings, proud as Muslims.”
NPR offered an advertisement for Muslims bravely looking beyond “the hate-crime,” but taking it as a reason for coming together, creating a community center, conducting outreach so that the Infidels around them will see Muslims engaged in good works, and not be tempted to do what Muslims claim (wrongly) Hicks did to them. The NPR report scants the evidence offered a year ago that there never was a “hate-crime” here.
Instead, the report is full of news about what Muslims in North Carolina are now doing to:
1) “show that they are proud Muslims by wearing the hijab” (Summer and Marjad Hamad)
2) “promote and project the true image of Islam” (Mohammad Moussa)
3) “show people we are not different and that we have a lot in common” (Amena Saad)
NPR is all for this. What NPR is not all for is stating truthfully what the crime was about: a lunatic neighbor, a parking dispute, a sudden murderous explosion.
After giving glowing accounts of the three victims (Deah Barakat, a dental student; Yusor Abu-Salha, about to become a dental student, and betrothed to Barakat; and her sister Razan Abu-Salha) meeting for dinner, the one that Craig Hicks would murderously interrupt, NPR sums up the matter:
“Chapel Hill police initially said the shootings were triggered by a parking dispute, but to many people around the world and in the community, it felt and looked like a hate crime. Hicks, who openly bashed religion on social media, confessed shortly after the act…”
Notice the meretriciousness in this two-sentence paragraph. By writing that “Chapel Hill police initially said the shootings were triggered by a parking dispute,” NPR implies that they have since had reason to reconsider. But they haven’t. All the evidence, whether gathered initially or later, including the testimony of Hicks’ neighbors and his wife, and all the social media evidence subsequently turned up, support and reinforce the notion that the murders were indeed “triggered by a parking dispute.” Chapel Hill police believed this not just “initially.” They believe it right now.
Note, too, how NPR cavalierly claims that Hicks “openly bashed religion on social media….” without specifying whether he bashed religion in general, or a particular one, and if a particular one, which one. An innocent reader would assume, given all that “hate-crime” talk, that it was Islam that Hicks “openly bashed.” But when his Facebook page is studied, it is clear that when Hicks “bashed religion,” it was always Christianity, never Islam, that sent him over the edge.
Here is a different sentence to sum up where things stand with the Chapel Hill murders one year later, a sentence which I have just composed and offer as a contribution for the betterment of NPR:
“Chapel Hill police continue to believe that the shootings were triggered by a parking dispute, although many Muslims around the world and in Chapel Hill persist, for obvious reasons, in claiming it was a hate crime. Hicks, who openly bashed Christianity on social media, confessed shortly after the act…”
Isn’t that a more accurate statement of the truth than NPR’s version? But I don’t think NPR’s reporters will be in a mood to accept my offer. And that’s a pity.
First published in Jihad Watch.
Posted on 02/13/2016 5:02 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Saturday, 13 February 2016
Man admits plot to carry out Isil-inspired drive-by shootings in London
From The Telegraph
The first defendant, Tarik Hassane, 22, dramatically changed his plea part way through his trial at the Old Bailey. He admitted conspiracy to murder and preparation of terrorist acts just as the defence was about to start. Hassane, a medical student was the ringleader of the cell. As a medical student he is hardly in the poor, ignorant and underprivileged department.
Three other co-accused, all from West London, deny the charges. They are: Nyall Hamlett, 25, Nathan Cuffy, 26, and Suhaib Majeed, 21. Some of them are also variously charged with firearms offences.
Trial judge Mr Justice Wilkie instructed the jury to formally find Hassane guilty and said he would be sentenced on a future date. e adjourned the case until Monday.
Posted on 02/13/2016 3:58 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 12 February 2016
The New Hampshire primary illustrated the determination of the American public to chastise the political class responsible for the successive national disasters of the last 20 years, both parties, all branches and levels of government. The country that rose from a couple of million colonists (and their slaves) in two long lifetimes to be the greatest power in the world, with a monopoly on atomic energy and half the world’s economic product, and contained international Communism so successfully that it collapsed like a soufflé without the U.S. and Soviet Union exchanging a shot, has been floundering for decades. It is little wonder that the country is seeking leadership outside the party hierarchies.
It is hard not to like Bernie Sanders, as he clearly does care about the little people and is sincere in thinking that all the woes of a hundred million relatively disadvantaged Americans, half of them severely so, can be solved by surtaxes on the incomes of “the billionaire class . . . the top one percent.” One percent of Americans is over three million people; there are 536 billionaires in the United States and even if their income taxes were raised to 95 percent it would have no material impact on the country’s deficit or the quality of life of the poor. Sanders probably is thinking of a wealth tax, but his often passably eloquent rages against the corruption of the creaking system and the rule of the special interests should disabuse him of any notion that any such measure could be adopted. (And if it were, the billionaires and most of their assets would shove off.) These are a populist version of the ravings of King Lear. He might as well have screamed “Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks!” It was apparently uplifting for his vanguard of what he considers a “political revolution” to trounce the Clintons by over 20 points, to attack the Supreme Court for the Citizens United decision (facilitating corporate political donations), and to promise a trillion-dollar loan forgiveness for the nation’s indebted current and former university students (in a bigger bribe than all of the candidates whom Sanders excoriates have ever offered their supporters). But it is bunk and it is going nowhere; Bernie Sanders will depart New England and fall off the edge of the political world. If he has any traction at all, voters will want to know more about what he was doing in a pro-Stalinist kibbutz in Israel even after the Soviet 20th Communist Party Congress renounced Stalin in 1956.
Sanders had the satisfaction of pushing Hillary into the rich incantation, “No bank too big to fail; no executive too big to go to jail.” This is a bold thrust for the one candidate in either party, so far as is publicly known, teetering on the edge of indictment (over her handling of e-mails when secretary of state). And since American prosecutors win 99 percent of their cases, 97 percent without a trial, Mrs. Clinton would have done better to join Senator Sanders in denouncing the criminal-justice system as the vicious conveyor belt to the corrupt and often barbarous prison system that it is. Her primary-night speech, like Bernie Sanders’s, was a relatively peppy effort. But it was implausibly moralistic for someone who in the minds of most is obscenely overpaid for delivering the same speech over and over and for questionable activities in the Clinton Foundation, and whom 92 percent of Democrats and 99 percent of Republicans in New Hampshire consider chronically untruthful.
It has appeared, through much of the preliminaries leading up to the campaign in earnest for delegates, that the country had tired of the Clintons and the Bushes, one or another of whom held great public office for eight straight terms prior to 2013. It seems a media conjuration that the camp Vermont septuagenarian socialist Bernie Sanders can run closely with Clinton any further. But it is equally hard to believe that the Democrats really have any enthusiasm for giving their party back to the Clintons, as everyone who is interested waits to see whether Obama concludes his presidential tour by indicting Hillary, eight years after pulling the rug out from under her and Bill, when he convinced America to expiate its guilt over slavery and segregation by putting him in the White House. It is hard to believe that the Democratic party has really come to this, a party of aggrieved and crumbling voting blocs fought over by a loopy old socialist and a shopworn woman in neon pantsuits who has been plying the rounds in Washington for a whole generation.
On the Republican side, Jeb Bush has almost come through the wall. After a disastrous beginning of a campaign that he should have had prepared for the last seven years, after bumping along in single digits for months, he put on a spirited campaign for third place and has been liberated from the suspicion of thinking he was entitled to be president because the position has been handed down from his father and brother. He doesn’t excite anyone, but he is pleasant and solid and, like his rival John Kasich (and, while they lasted, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee), has been a good governor (and is the least malapropistic of the Bush politicians). As I suggested after Iowa, Marco Rubio conformed too exactly to Chris Christie’s dismissal of the candidates from the Senate as mere talkers while the governors have a proper administrative background. We have heard too much of his father’s struggles as a bartender and the repetitive claptrap about “the greatest nation in human history.” After Iowa and in the Saturday Republican debate, his glibness paled beside Christie’s gritty combativeness, Bush’s dutiful modesty, and ?Kasich’s indisputable experience and accomplishments, in Congress and in Ohio, homey though his manner is. (We could have done without his urging everyone to hug strangers in shopping malls to heal the nation; and Donald Trump’s thanking his long-deceased parents too.)
Above all, it was Donald Trump’s night. He ran about 18 points ahead of Kasich in second place, and another 4 or 5 points ahead of Cruz, Bush, and Rubio. Cruz is conducting a rearguard action and is now a factional candidate. Rubio has half-disintegrated. Christie is out of the race, but, having dealt Rubio a lethal blow in the last debate, may be the king-maker of the stop-Trump forces. If matters don’t change drastically in South Carolina, Christie will be able to help Kasich or Bush into clear second place, and Donald will be tempted to dangle the vice-presidential nomination before whoever is third behind the leading anti-Trump candidate. Denying Trump the nomination will be very difficult, but he should have started on Tuesday night the process of conciliating kindred spirits in his party and independent voters who like his Archie Bunker attacks on Obama, Clinton, and the mealy-mouthed Republicans who weaseled on immigration and other hot subjects. He was brief and graciously praised the other Republican candidates as a group, but there were too many “huges” and “greats” and no specifics about how he was going to make America “great” again except building the wall on the Mexican border, tearing up trade pacts, and “knocking the hell” out of ISIS.
If his opponents in the Republican party want any chance of stopping him, they will have to coalesce around one of the alternatives right after South Carolina, and that candidate will be an underdog. Trump should win the nomination, and Clinton should limp to a listless and clichéd victory at the head of her fatigued party. Trump still faces a high but porous wall of anyone-but-Trump sentiment, slightly more numerous than the anyone-but-Clinton bloc. He should move soon to dissolve this antagonism by speaking more seriously and precisely, and in finished sentences, and showing that he is, in all but his presentational flamboyance, a moderate. Shame on the New York Daily News for referring to his followers as “the brain dead” and on the Huffington Post for its scurrilous attack on him as “a racist, sexist demagogue.” He is none of that and his followers are too numerous and righteously angry at those who have failed the nation to be so disparaged, especially by such lowbrow outlets. Now is Donald Trump’s chance to defeat and humiliate that sentiment by behaving with exemplary dignity, modesty, and precision, as he has waxed the floor with the elders of the Republican party and stolen much of the old Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy coalition among working and middle-class Democrats.
With only a light clean-up of his forensic techniques, Donald can ease the concerns of the reluctant without forfeiting any of the exaltation of soul of those who are grateful for his assault on politicians and institutions who have failed and disserved the United States. It looks like Trump and Clinton, and Trump should win. Whatever else may be said of him, he has had no hand in the savage violence the political class has done to America with debt, wars, the Great Recession, corruption, and the pell-mell appeasement of America’s enemies of the last 20 years. Hillary is not blameless and has fish-tailed through the last two decades facing in all four directions on many issues. Trump has a mighty and unsuspected tidal wave of opinion behind him; he has only to make the turn from bombast and braggadocio to a simple program of reform of immigration, entitlements, taxes, health care, and campaign financing, all of which he has promised. The people will support it and he will get it adopted before the summer recess of 2017. As with FDR’s promise of a New Deal in 1932, the great Reagan campaign of 1980 proclaimed: “The time is now for strong leadership.” It was and it is, in more suave and purposeful vocabulary and cadences than we have heard so far. The revolution is Trump’s, not Sanders’s, the more welcome because of the hostility to him of both the mainstream national media and the Murdoch organization, with its absurd promotion of an independent campaign by Michael Bloomberg. Donald Trump is very close to one of the most astonishing political victories in American history. Never has that office sought such a man, and in a democracy, the people are always right.
First published in NRO.
Posted on 02/12/2016 2:10 PM by Conrad Black
Friday, 12 February 2016
'Child' migrant who killed asylum centre worker is an adult, Swedish migration rules
You don't say? From the Telegraph
The asylum seeker who stabbed 22-year-old Alexandra Mezher to death at an accommodation centre in Sweden last month is an adult, not a 15-year-old as he had claimed, Sweden’s migration agency has ruled.
Ms Mezher was stabbed at the centre for refugee children aged between 14 and 17 who are without any adult guardians in Molndal near Gothenburg on Sweden's west coast. The agency’s ruling, which came after a series of interviews with the young man, means he could face a prison sentence for the brutal killing.
“The fact that he is judged to be over 18 affects which punishment can be applied,” Linda Wiking, the prosecutor in the case, told Expressen newspaper. “It means that he can be criminally responsible and can be sentenced to prison.”
The ruling, included in a decision to refuse him a permit to stay and work in the country, was first reported by the Goteborgs-Posten newspaper.
It will add to growing suspicions that a large portion of the 35,000 unaccompanied refugee minors who claimed asylum in the country last year have lied about their age, claiming to be under-18 in order to take advantage of more generous asylum rules.
Posted on 02/12/2016 9:31 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 12 February 2016
Unaccompanied Alien Children Charged in Execution-Style Murder, Media Calls Them “Baby-Faced Boys”
It appears that the recent execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) under President Obama’s open border free-for-all. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors—mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—have entered the country through the Mexican border since the influx began in the summer of 2014 and the administration has relocated them nationwide.
News reports indicate that the 17-year-olds charged in the gruesome Massachusetts killing entered the U.S. recently as UAC’s and both have ties to MS-13, according to authorities cited by various outlets. They lived in Everett and one of the teens, Cristian Nunez-Flores, moved to Massachusetts from his native El Salvador a year and a half ago which is when the influx of Central American minors began. His parents remain in El Salvador, according to a local news article. The other gangbanger’s name is Jose Vasquez Ardon and he too is a recent arrival from Central America. Prosecutors say the teens, described in a local news article as “baby-faced boys,” shot a 19-year-old in the head. Both are being held without bail for obvious reasons.
This week two federal lawmakers—a senator and a congressman—are demanding answers from the administration involving how the teens entered the U.S. Specifically, they want to confirm if the gangbangers came as UACs and when exactly they arrived. The legislators, Senator Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Bob Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, also want to know if the administration had knowledge about the suspects’ ties with a criminal gang. “Please provide a complete copy of the alien file for Jose Vasquez Ardon and Cristian Nunez-Flores,” the lawmakers state in a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency that’s mostly handled the barrage of UACs and the relocation process. “Please provide any other information collected or maintained by DHS and HHS regarding either Jose Vasquez Ardon or Cristian Nunez-Flores,” the request further states.
Shortly after the first batch of UAC’s arrived in mid-2014, Judicial Watch reported that many had ties to gang members in the U.S., specifically MS-13. Homeland Security sources directly involved with the UAC crisis told JW that street gangs, including MS-13, went on a recruiting frenzy at U.S. shelters housing the illegal alien minors and they used Red Cross phones to communicate. The MS-13 is a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that’s spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes. The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs.
Just a few weeks ago dozens of MS-13 members were indicted in Boston for serious crimes including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug trafficking, firearm violations, federal racketeering and immigration offenses. Several of the defendants are responsible for murdering at least five people since 2014 and the attempted murder of at least 14 in Chelsea and East Boston, according to the federal indictment. MS-13 members also sell cocaine, heroin and marijuana and commit robberies to generate income to pay monthly dues to incarcerated gang leadership in El Salvador, federal prosecutors say. The money is used to pay for weapons, cell phones, shoes, food and other supplies for MS-13 thugs in and out of jail in El Salvador.
The affiliation between gangs and the hordes of illegal immigrant youths that the Obama administration keeps taking in is a story Judicial Watch has been reporting for more than a year. Last fall the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that the MS-13 is a top tier gang thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that have crossed into the state recently. The number of MS-13 members encountered by U.S. Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley sector has increased each year, accelerating in 2014 and coinciding with increased illegal immigration from Central America during the same period, the agency disclosed in a report linked to JW’s story. This clearly refers to the UAC crisis that saw over 60,000 illegal immigrants—many with criminal histories—storm into the U.S. in a matter of months.
Posted on 02/12/2016 6:50 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 12 February 2016
Donald Trump is the Only Candidate Addressing the Danger of Muslim Immigration
“France is not what it used to be, and neither is Paris,” Trump is quoted as saying.
Trump also bemoaned the existence of “no-go zones” avoided by police that have been created by mass Islamic immigration.
WND reported in January 2015 the French government listed 751 “Sensitive Urban Zones” the government does not fully control.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy of welcoming Muslim migrants into Germany is a “tragic mistake,” Trump said, predicting disaster unless there is a change in policy.
“If you don’t treat the situation competently and firmly, yes, it’s the end of Europe,” Trump reportedly stated.
He also speculated that European nations could face “real revolutions” in response to the crisis.
In interviews with American media, Trump has blasted Merkel’s permissive immigration policy as “insane” and warned Islamic migration could be a “Trojan Horse” enabling future terrorist attacks.
Trump read the lyrics from the song “The Snake” at a campaign rally in January to illustrate the dangers of admitting millions of Muslim migrants.
The song describes a foolish woman who saves the life of a poisonous snake, only to be bitten and killed for her trouble.
G.M. Davis, an expert on Islam who directed the feature documentary “Islam: What the West Needs to Know” and authored “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World,” praised the Republican front-runner’s strong stand against the Islamic invasion of Europe.
“At present, only Donald Trump seems willing to address the seriousness of the issues confronting the United States and Europe and the full implications of Islamic immigration into non-Islamic countries,” Davis told WND. “Whatever one makes of his delivery and tendency to personalize his criticisms, there is little denying that he grasps the big picture in a way that the other candidates do not or are too afraid to express.
“His recent comments to the European press over the dire situation in Europe where centers of Islamic power continue to send down roots and multiply, as well as the hysterical reaction on the part of much of Europe to his views, testifies both to Mr. Trump’s competence on the issue as well as the inability of the European establishment to come to grips with reality.”
Davis warned Americans they will not be spared from the crisis.
“All of what we are witnessing in Europe is in store for America if she does not adopt more sensible and restrictive immigration policies,” said Davis. “She must also realize her overseas campaigns to bring democracy to Islamic lands are futile and counter-productive. The only principle on which any sensible Western policy toward Islam can be based is one of containment, of realizing that Western and Islamic civilizations are best kept apart as much as possible.”
In response to reports of sexual assaults and other crimes by Muslim migrants, European governments, especially Germany, have cracked down on their own people rather than restricting immigration.
The German government is also working with American companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter to eliminate any online speech criticizing the government’s refugee policy or refugees themselves that “crosses the line.”
“European governments are desperate to cover up criticism of Islam and the crimes of Muslim immigrants because they cut at the heart of their open-door policies,” said Davis. “The multicultural assumptions underpinning modern Europe are disintegrating before our eyes. To face facts would require them to rethink decades of self-destructive immigration laws as well as to confront the truly alarming reality of a growing, increasingly hostile Islamic minority in their midst, which they are entirely unequipped to handle.”
Davis predicted progressives will never turn against mass Islamic immigration, even though the resulting demographic changes will doom their own supposed values regarding issues such as homosexual rights and feminism.
“The true left-wingers cannot face the reality that Islam cares nothing for their blandishments about tolerance and acceptance, which they have used, of course, one-sidedly to denigrate and destroy traditional, Christian European culture,” Davis charged. “By insisting on ‘tolerating’ the growth of Islam in their cities, they have permitted a violent, intolerant and very political ideology to take root. Should it ever get the opportunity, it will utterly eradicate the easy-going moral atmosphere now prevalent in European society.”
Davis agreed with Trump that violence and revolution could be on the horizon if European leaders don’t change course.
“The specter of civil war is beginning to take shape over the European continent,” he warned.
At the very least, Europeans think something big is coming. In record numbers, they are scrambling to arm themselves as weapons sales soar across the continent.
Trump defended the right to bear arms in his interview with Valeurs Actuelles, suggesting the private ownership of firearms is an effective way to prevent Islamic terrorism. He also condemned French gun control laws.
Explaining he “always” has a gun with him, Trump said that had he been at the Bataclan theater in Paris where Islamic terrorists killed 89 people in November 2015, “I can tell you I would have opened fire.”
Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, told WND that Europeans are eager to arm themselves with whatever is legally available.
“The Muslim attacks on Europeans have been a problem throughout the European Union,” said Pratt. “Many people probably saw what happened in Cologne on New Year’s Day when Muslims went on a rape rampage. That turned out to be just the most recent example of what happens a lot in many German and other European cities.”
Pratt said Austrians, in particular, are arming themselves.
“France is as goofy as San Francisco or Chicago,” said Pratt in reference to the nation’s gun laws. “But in Austria, people are able to buy a shotgun over the counter the way an American would. Now in America, you can buy many other guns over the counter but at least [in Austria] the shotgun is available, even if it only has two shots in it or maybe three. You can walk out of the store with it.
“There were no shotguns available for sale in Austria around the turn of the year 2016. And particularly women were buying shotguns. That’s what’s available, that’s what they’re buying.”
Posted on 02/12/2016 5:03 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 12 February 2016
Machete Attack at Ohio Deli - Somali Mohamed Barry
Update CBS News:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Police shot and killed a suspect after he attacked multiple people at a restaurant in northeast Columbus with a machete.
The incident happened at the Nazareth Restaurant & Deli on North Hamilton Road just after 6:00 p.m. on Thursday.
Police said 30-year-old Mohamed Barry walked into the restaurant, had a conversation with an employee and then left. He returned about a half hour later. That's when police said Barry approached a man and a woman who were sitting just inside the door at a booth and started the attack.
After the attacks, the suspect fled in his car southwest toward the Easton area. Officers attempted a PIT maneuver during the escape, but were unsuccessful. A short time later, a successful attempt was made, and Barry slammed into a curb near Montclair Drive.
As officers converged, Barry exited the vehicle with a knife in one hand and a machete in the other, according to police. After unsuccessfully firing a taser at the man, he lunged across the hood at the officers and was shot dead.
No officers were hurt during the shooting.
Meantime, the four victims injured in the attack have been identified as William Foley 54; Neil McMeekin, 43; Gerald Russell, 43 and Debbie Russell, 43. All are expected to recover from their injuries.
Columbus police Sgt. Rich Weiner said "right now there's nothing that leads us to believe that this is anything but a random attack."
CBS News reports Barry has a Somali background and may have traveled to Dubai in 2012. Law enforcement tells them the incident appears to be the type of “lone wolf terrorist attacks they’re trying to stop.”
The FBI is assisting in the investigation.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Police shot and killed a man who stormed into a central Ohio restaurant wielding a machete and randomly attacking people as they sat unsuspectingly at their dinner tables, authorities said.
Four people were injured in the brutal attack Thursday evening at Nazareth Restaurant and Deli, a Mediterranean restaurant in Columbus. The victims were taken to an area hospital and were expected to recover.
"There was no rhyme or reason as to who he was going after," said Columbus police Sgt. Rich Weiner.
Police said the man walked into the restaurant, had a conversation with an employee and then left. He returned about a half hour later. That's when police said he approached a man and a woman who were sitting just inside the door at a booth and started the attack.
Police said employees and patrons tried to get the man to stop.
"Some of the patrons there started throwing chairs at him just trying to get him out of there," Weiner said.
The man eventually fled the scene in a white car and led police on a short chase. Officers forced the man off the road a few miles away and when he got out of his car police said they tried unsuccessfully to use a stun gun on him.
Weiner said, "At that point he had a machete and another knife in his hand and he lunged across the hood at the officers."
That's when police said an officer shot and killed the man. They did not immediately release his name.
It remained unclear what sparked the attacks.
Hummm, could it be....Islam? More here.
Posted on 02/12/2016 4:42 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Thursday, 11 February 2016
Violence by Muslim Migrant Men in Europe, Coming to America?