Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Sydney: Muslim Man Arrested and Charged After Two Violent Rapes

In at least one of the various reports this ethnically-Turkish (to go by his surname) Muslim rapist - who snatched one of his victims, a thirteen year old girl, straight off the street in broad daylight - is pictured and can be seen to be wearing the typical Islamic beard as prescribed by the Sunnah - a mass of bushy chin-hair but a weirdly-bare upper lip.    And although there are violent rapists not a few within the general Infidel population they cannot justify their conduct by referring to non-Muslim law or religion; whereas the fact remains that the conduct of Muslim rapists mirrors that of their cult-founder.  Mohammed, the 'perfect man', an 'excellent example of conduct', whom all pious Muslim males are enjoined to imitate in every detail, was a rapist and slave-trader who felt entitled to seize non-Islamic females and use them as he pleased and who approved of his followers doing likewise. 

Here is the ABC's Siobhan Fogarty reporting on an ugly episode that does not surprise any person who has been following the news out of Europe lately, or who is aware of what Muslim males routinely do to females of the vulnerable non-Muslim minorities in Islamic Egypt or Islamic Pakistan, not to mention the many, many Muslim kidnappings and rapes of non-Muslim females in Northern Nigeria and in Iraq and Syria.


'Man Charged With Two Sex Attacks After High-Speed Bondi Chase'

'A man charged with two sexual assaults, including one where a 13 year old girl was allegedly held at knifepoint, has been refused bail.

'Mustafa Kayiri, 26, was arrested at Bondi on Saturday after a police pursuit through the suburbs.

'Police said the first alleged attack happened last Sunday, when a 22 year old woman was assaulted and robbed by a man armed with a black handgun in a CBD motel.

'On Friday a 13 year old girl was allegedly kidnapped by the same man in Parramatta and sexually assaulted.

'Appearing at Parramatta Bail Court via video link on Sunday afternoon Kayirici was refused bail.

'Kayirici's face was heaivly bruised and his left eyelid closed up.  The court ws told he had blurred vision in his right eye.

Oh, poor little Muslim rapist and kidnapper!  Cue the cries of 'police brutality' and 'racism' in 3, 2, 1...  Other reports upon this episode indicate that the injuries (serves him right!) were basically self-inflicted, sustained a/ when he crashed his car whilst fleeing from the pursuing police who had presumably identified his car from the testimony of his victim or by other means such as CCTV footage, and b/ when he - with extreme violence, as witnessed by bystanders - subsequently resisted arrest. - CM

'He argued with is legal aid lawyer Alexander Reetov, demanding he represent himself.

Observe the arrogance and total disconnect from reality. - CM

"Right now I'm innocent".

All Muslims, according to the Mohammedan world view, are categorically innocent (unless declared to be in breach of the sharia by someone more-Islamic-than-thou) and all Infidels qua Infidels are categorically guilty.   The more deeply Islamic he is the less likely he is to perceive himself as having done anything wrong at all, in treating infidel whores and sluts exactly as Islam tells him they require to be treated.  And brazen denial of wrongdoing is also hardwired into the honor-shame mentality that Islam inculcates. - CM

"They're accusing me of stuff I didn't do", he said.

The evidence on his own mobile phone, proudly filmed by himself, decrees otherwise. As does the testimony of his terrorised victims. - CM

'Police said the child victim was walking along a Parramatta street about 8 am on Friday when she was allegedly grabbed.

'It is alleged Kayirici drove off with her in his car and sexually assaulted her at Merrylands, Telopea, Ermington and Homebush.

'Police said the assaults occurred between 8 am and 1 pm.

In broad daylight. He grabbed her off the street in broad daylight and raped her, repeatedly, in broad daylight. - CM

'Kayirici is facing multiple charges including 12 counts of aggravated sexual assault against a person under 16.

'Police prosecutor Sergeant Ben Bragger strongly opposed bail, saying female members of the community could find themselves in "extreme danger".

Police do not say things like this lightly.  If they think he's a menace then he is.  It is a pity that he or his parents were ever admitted into Australia. - CM

"It is an extreme offence and if convicted he could spend the rest of his life in prison", Sergeant Bragger told the court.  "It is a strong prosecution case.  Bail would be unthinkable."

'Magistrate John Bailey told the accused he represented a huge risk to the safety of the community.

The evidence presented by the police must have been pretty damning. - CM

'Police said neither of the females were known to the alleged attacker.

'Kayirici was spotted driving through Bondi on Saturday by police, and chased through a public park, before his car crashed near the junction of Old South Head Road and Flood Street, where it became wedged behind a bus stop.

'He was taken to Waverley Police Station before being treated in a hospital.

'Detectives from the Sex Crimes Squad are leading the investigation.

'He is due to appear in Central Local Court via video link on June 30."

Now for the Sydney Morning Herald version, which tells us just how this creature acquired the injuries that were visible in his court appearance.


'Man Charged Over Violent Sydney Sex Attacks'

'A m an has been charged over two violent sex assaults in Sydney, including one in which he allegedly kidnapped a 13 year old girl at knifepoint.

'Police say the first attack happened early last Sunday morning, when a 22 year old woman was sexually assaulted and robbed in an inner-city motel room by a man armed with a gun.

'On Friday morning the 13 year old was kidnapped in Parramatta and sexually assaulted at various places around southwest Sydney.

'Police say that when they tried to stop the 26 year old man in his car in Bondi on Saturday morning, he refused to stop, leading police on a pursuit through the area until he crashed into a parked car.

'Witnesses say the vehicle was driven off Orr Street, through a park and along the footpath of Old South Head Road, before crashing into a bus-stop and the wall of a residential block on the pavement of the busy eastern suburbs road.  The Ford crashed into a parked vehicle, police said.

'Around 15 police cars are said to have responded to the incident, including undercover police and highway patrol vehicles.

'Undercover detectives wearing bullet-proof vests were seen running to the scene and both lanes of the road were temporarily closed.

'One Old South Head resident said the driver "put up one hell of a fight" before being arrested.

"I was sitting next to the window having breakfast... Fortunately he didn't hit my fence, but he jammed himself up there", the witness said.  "There were about four police cars behind him and police coming the other way.  Without any exaggeration, there were 15 police cars here in about one minute.  The police were attempting to remove him from the car and he was putting up one hell of a fight against them."

'The 26 year old has been charged with a string of offences, including 12 counts of aggravated sexual assault against a person under 16 years of age, robbery whilst armed, and kidnapping..".

Following in the footsteps of the rapist, child-rapist, caravan-robber and slave-taker, Mohammed. - CM

Yet more detail in another report from the Sydney Morning Herald's Ava Benny-Morrison and Michaela Whitbourn.


'Man Charged After Two Alleged Sex Attacks in Sydney

'A Sydney man (i.e. Sydney-based Muslim man - CM) allegedly raped a young woman he met through an escort agency, before going on to kidnap and rape a 13 year old girl from the city's west five days later.

'The alleged sex offender's time on the run came to a dramatic end on Saturday when his car ploughed into a bus stop on a Bondi street during a car chase with police.

'Detectives had been searching for Mustafa Kayirici, 26, since June 19 after a 22 year old woman was allegedly sexually assaulted and robbed in the CBD.

Click on the link; this is the article that showed him sporting his typical 'jihadi beard', the type of beard usually affected by super-pious Mohammedans. - CM

'Five days later, on Friday, he allegedly kidnapped a 13 year old girl in Parramatta.  It is understood Mr Kayirici did not know the teen but managed to lure her to him.

And then got out the knife... - CM

'At a dramatic hearing in Parramatta Local Court on Sunday, police prosecutor Sergeant Ben Bragger said bail would be "unthinkable".

'Mr Kayirici appeared via video link, his face badly bruised and his eyes swollen almost shut. The court heard he had blurred vision only in his right eye.

I don't feel sorry for him one little bit.  He did it all to himself.  Had he quietly submitted to arrest when first challenged by police, he would be just fine. Instead he bolted, crashed his car (which probably accounts for some of the injuries) and then ran amok whilst being arrested.   I observe we are not given the details of what physical injury he inflicted on his two victims, including the 13 year old girl; but we are told the assaults were 'violent' and given the energy the police devoted to the chase and the arrest, and the urgency with which they demanded that bail be refused, those injuries cannot have been trivial. - CM

"They're making out I'm an evil person, like I'm a paedophile rapist predator", he said.

Yep. That's exactly what you are , mate. You seized a 13 year old girl off the street in broad daylight and repeatedly, violently sexually assaulted her.  - CM

"I'm all over the news and it's wrong".

You would say that, because as a Muslim you've been taught a massive sense of entitlement vis a vis the filthy Infidels, haven't you?  In the sharia the testimony of a Dhimmi is always overridden by that of a Muslim.  And the testimony of females, in any case of sexual misconduct, is not admitted. - CM

'He promptly withdrew instructions from a Legal Aid solicitor and insisted on representing himself in his application for bail.

"This is completely a lie", he said of the allegations against him.

I believe the police and the victims, mate.  You're just doing what malignant narcissists - and Mohammedans are raised in a cult that programs people to be malignant narcissists with a truly megalomaniacal sense of entitlement - always do even when caught red-handed.  For more on the mindset of the likes of Mustafa Kayiri, our readers should consult the writings of psychologist Niccolai Sennels, notably his book "Among Criminal Muslims". - CM

"He said that he took "camera footage" when he slept with women so they couldn't "cry rape" after the fact.

"The point is, I've got it all on footage.  I know I'm innocent.  I did not know that this person is 13'.

Really? - CM

'She lied about her age (Really? - CM).  Everything is consensual" Mr Kayirici said.

'He asked whether his 'missus' or other family members were in court.

"There is nobody here" Magistrate John Bailey said.

'Sergeant Bragger told the court that "significant evidence" that was "highly inculpatory" of Mr Kayirici had been uncovered, including evidence in his car, and CCTV footage "showing the two parties together".

'The case could already be described as "very strong", Sergeant Bragger said.

 I'll bet my bottom dollar, given the urgency with which the police acted and the urgency that they are exhibiting in court, that all the phone footage boastfully shot by the mohammedan rapist and kidnapper, together with the CCTV footage, makes it pretty damn plain to any sane and decent Infidel that neither female wanted anything to do with Mr Mustafa Kayirici and that they were most emphatically not consenting to what he was doing to them. - CM

The two cases were similar enough in nature for there to be grave concerns that "female members of the community" would be in "extreme danger" if Mr Kayirici were released on bail, he said.

'Magistrate Bailey refused bail, saying that Mr Kayirici was "a huge risk to the safety of the community.

'Fairfax Media understands Mr Kayirici had arranged to meet the 22 year old woman at a Park St motel through an escort service.

'He is accused of turning up to the appointment with a gun, before assaulting and robbing the woman.

Exactly as happened in a recent case - also involving a Muslim and an infidel 'lady of the night' - that came before the courts in Canberra.  Memo to Infidel ladies of negotiable affection; if the 'john' is in fact an 'Ali'... don't. Just don't.  Steer clear of Mohammedan customers, for they cheat, rape and rob.  - CM

'Mr Kayirici, who was carrying a knife, allegedly sexually assaulted the 13 year old girl on Friday at various locations in Sydney...

'It is unclear how the teenager got away.

Perhaps the cops aren't saying in order not to give other potential predators ideas about how to keep their prey from escaping. - CM

'On Saturday morning police tried to pull over a silver Ford sedan Mr Kayirici was driving on Bondi Rd, but he allegedly led them on a chase...".

Why did Australia feel the need to import Turkish Muslims like Mr Kayirici (or perhaps, his parents, if he was born here)?  Or any other kind of Muslim?  The more Muslims we have in our midst the less safe we are; and the most vulnerable amongst us, such as the 13 year old girl that this Mohammedan rapist seized off the street in broad daylight at knife-point, are the least safe. - CM

Posted on 06/28/2016 3:44 PM by Christina McIntosh
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
'10 Dead' As Explosions Rock Istanbul Airport

From Sky News  

Ten people have been killed in explosions at the main airport in Istanbul, Turkey's justice minister is reported to have said. Two suspects blew themselves up at Istanbul Ataturk Airport, government officials said. Their explosives were detonated before they went throw the X-ray machine, officials said.

Gunfire was reportedly heard at the scene, while footage showed people running for cover as armed men stand outside the building.

Around 40 people had been taken to hospital, Haberturk reported.

One of the explosions happened at the domestic terminal, while another was at the international terminal, NTV reported.

Taxis were ferrying the wounded from the hospital, witnesses told CNN Turk.

UPDATE: Death Toll has risen to 50. All signs point to ISIS.


Posted on 06/28/2016 3:03 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwaxe
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Brexit is an Opportunity

by Conrad Black

There remain a few things to write about the British vote to leave the European Union. The current hysteria is the usual mindless idiocy of financial specialists who don’t know anything about politics or strategic issues, especially when they unfold in foreign countries. It will pass quickly and, even if the U.K. does leave the EU, the economic effects will be neutral all round. The Treaty of Europe and its tenebrous thicket of a Constitution provide two years for negotiation, and despite all the huffing and blustering in Brussels, both sides will make a good-faith effort to salvage as much of the relationship as possible while liberating the long-suffering British public from excessive Euro-regulation.

There is no element in this of British hostility to Europe: The British like Europe and vice versa, and all can go on celebrating the fact that these countries are no longer making war on each other every few years as they did for centuries. Britain’s hostility is to the arrogant, power-hungry, supranational apparatus in Brussels that is not accountable or responsible to the constituent states in the European Union or to the talking shop of a European Parliament, which has no authority and more interpreters than legislators.

This event must be seen in the context of British history. William the Conqueror in 1066, Charles II returning from exile in France in 1660, William III arriving from the Netherlands in 1687 to overturn his father-in-law, and George I who came from Hanover in 1714 to assume the lateral succession to the Stuart monarchs, all maintained contact and even authority in the countries that were their points of departure. But in the end, Great Britain always opts for the blue water —  Empire, Commonwealth, and America — though it is always interested in Europe. It is as it has been: “of Europe but not in it.”

In recent times, Edward Heath took Britain cock-a-hoop into Europe in 1972. He was anti-American and even banned U.S. intelligence flights from British bases in Cyprus in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and refused to supply spare parts to Israel for Centurion tanks Israel had acquired from Britain (even though the war was launched by a surprise attack by Egypt and Syria). When Margaret Thatcher was elected prime minister in 1979, she remained in what was then the European Economic Community but proved a hard negotiator for greater economic benefits from it for her country. As the drive was mounted to make what had been an economic community into a politically united federation seeking “ever closer union,” she balked and her party pushed her out, in favor of people that would be more accommodating and less confrontational toward Europe. It was vintage British preference for havering and wittering and offering slight reservations quietly and trying to suck and blow at the same time, endlessly repeating that “Europe is coming our way.” This was the line of all Thatcher’s successors: John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron. It was all a confidence trick, even if sincerely motivated. There are vast reservations in Europe about the always growing appetite for authority in Brussels, but the French, in particular, were waiting for the British to lead, so France could play a duplicitous double game — benefiting from whatever decentralization Britain could achieve while unctuously claiming fidelity to the closer union.

Now Britain is back to the starting gate, but its position is enviable: Europe will make some concessions to keep Britain, as the EU’s largest customer, accessible. London will be more attractive than ever as a financial center, at least until the Obama reign of terror on Wall Street ends (and his most demonstrative corporate supporters, whom he has savaged, such as Jamie Dimon, can go back to sleeping at night). The top tier of the old Commonwealth — Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and India (conditionally on its seriously pulling itself together) — would welcome a revival of some level of solidarity with the British, and as a group these countries have as large a GDP as China. Any post-Obama administration (like any of the presidents between Hoover and George W. Bush) would be happy to warm up relations with the U.K. The idea that Northern Ireland is suddenly going to change majorities and opt for union with the Republic of Ireland, or that Scotland sees a fast track to secession from the United Kingdom and entry into the European Union, is just morning-after moonshine.

The United States has effectively squandered the immense strategic and economic preeminence that had been accumulated at the end of the Reagan era, and the United Kingdom has fumbled away most of the economic solidity and international prestige that had been amassed in the Thatcher years. There are superficial resemblances between the Leavers and the Trump movement: resentment of trade inequalities and ill-considered immigration policies that generate unemployment; resentment of incompetent, disconnected, and disdainful government; and anger that patriotic values are ignored or even despised. But the Leavers are led by people — Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg — as socioeconomically distinguished as the Remainers. They were young fogeys in Thatcher’s time and are ultra-educated scions of the establishment, or at least the upper middle class. They are extremely articulate, even by Oxbridge standards, but they are Churchillians in spirit and Thatcherites economically: the eloquent backbone of the nation, not rabble rousers. Nor do they have the background of Trump — a flamboyant developer, impresario, and television personality. The UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, is closer to a populist, and the Conservatives should welcome him into their ranks. But the leading Conservative Leavers have both tapped middle- and working-class fear and rage and end-run their peers in the political elites.

This is a factional change of great consequence within Britain, seeking the repatriation of sovereignty. Every British Conservative leader. since Stanley Baldwin got a good look at the Nazis and retired in 1937, has either been pushed out, or quit just before being pushed out — even the great ones, Mr. Churchill and Mrs. Thatcher. It is a ruthless party and the factions rotate between trendy “modernizers” (one of David Cameron’s many questionable claims for himself), and both social (upper-class) and commercial (bourgeois) conservatives. But the Johnson-Gove-Rees-Mogg group looks set for a long time. The opposition Labour Party is in shambles, the old Liberal Democrats have virtually disintegrated, and the provincial agitprop organizations like the Scots Nationalists make no pretense to any views relevant to governing the country as a whole.

In the U.S., the centrists in both parties have barely retained control, as Mrs. Clinton has had to make a sharp opportunistic detour to the left to fend off the avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders. And Donald Trump had to go farther polemically than most people were comfortable with on immigration and trade, to scoop up the Archie Bunker vote, and to disguise the fact that he is a centrist and to the left of most of the other Republican candidates except Kasich, especially to the left of runner-up Ted Cruz.

It is getting too late in the American Bataan March to Election Day to bother with predictions. Trump has a comfortable lead on the economy, immigration, and national security, including dealing with terrorists. Mrs. Clinton is carrying more baggage than the Queen Mary, and if Trump can just focus on the main issues and stop babbling and fulminating in ways that make even natural supporters nervous about whether he is up to the job he seeks, he will win. What he has achieved up to now is astonishing; he has made his point and surely he has the intelligence to finish the job now that the hard part (prior to governing) is over.

A place where the Brexit vote should concentrate American attention is on the utter failure of U.S. foreign policy toward Britain and Europe for 60 years, except for the Nixon and Reagan administrations. President Eisenhower brought West Germany brilliantly into the Western Alliance, but made a mistake in ignoring Charles de Gaulle’s efforts to get an upgraded status for his country, which it earned in the subsequent decade. President Kennedy had the insane idea of folding British and French nuclear weapons into an integrated force under American command; he was incapable of understanding that Britain and France did not wish to be treated like Kentucky and Nebraska. President Nixon saw the dangers of a united Europe as potentially neutral in the Cold War and not a force in which the British — if subsumed into it, especially under the anti-American Edward Heath — could be relied upon as a durable ally. President Carter bought entirely into the idealism of European unity without, as usual, detecting the strategic implications, as the dream was largely fueled by a mad ambition to reconstitute Europe as the center of the political universe. President Reagan, with his close association with Margaret Thatcher and strong leadership at the end of the Cold War, saw it all plainly. But the Bushes and Clintons and Obama, as in so many areas, drank the wrong Kool-Aid, and didn’t detect that a united Europe directed by undemocratic institutions run by almost anonymous people could become a Frankenstein monster.

The Germans don’t mind, because they will be in charge and they are used to regimentation. Chancellor Kohl said, “a European Germany and not a German Europe,” and there will probably be a hard-currency German bloc including the Dutch, Poles, Austrians, Czechs, and the Baltic and Scandinavian countries (except Norway). The Mediterranean countries, except for France in the higher stages of its cycles, never pay any attention to what governments do and are contemptuous of all of them and don’t really care. The British are different and have shown that, and more leading American statesmen in the last two generations than Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan, and George Shultz should have noticed that. Brexit is an opportunity, for the United Kingdom, for Europe, for the serious countries in the Commonwealth, and for the United States.

First published in National Review Online.

Posted on 06/28/2016 10:53 AM by Conrad Black
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
The Stanford 'Rape' Trial

by David Solway

We live in a culture that has become so heavily sexualized that we are no longer able to see clearly or think rationally. Just about everything, it seems, now comes down to sex, which is, on any reasonable scale of values, merely one of many human preoccupations—central, of course, but still only one of many human interests, desires and activities. The all-consuming importance sex has acquired in contemporary thought, discourse and legislation, amounting almost to a demonic possession, is an infallible sign of both intellectual frivolity and cultural degeneracy.

We are lectured that women are always innocent in cases of sexual assault and that men are invariably guilty, when instances like the Ghomeshi trial, the Duke lacrosse fraud, the “mattress girl” hoax and many others prove the opposite. The result of our morbidly sex-obsessed culture is that we have become increasingly prone to waves of national hysteria, vigilante pursuits of ostensible felons, and the social valorization of mob justice. Less and less in cases of a sexual nature are we concerned with the impartial assessment of evidence that constitutes the basis of a viable justice system; the time-honored principles of presumption of innocence and burden of proof are gradually yielding to the “preponderance of evidence” model—which means the accused is found guilty if judge or jury determine that it is more likely than not that he (almost never she) committed the crime. Nothing here about “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Our modern Furies will pin their prey to the corkboard of their prurient passion with lepidopteran precision. That a process of this nature is a gross travesty of the administration of justice appears to have escaped the attention of the new warrior rabble among us.

The latest example of such deliberate obscurantism involves the highly publicized Stanford incident in which student and competitive swimmer Brock Allen Turner was originally arraigned on two counts of rape and three counts of assault on a young woman he’d met at a frat party—the prosecution’s plan seemed to be to throw everything at the defendant and hope something would stick. He was eventually sentenced to six months in prison on three counts of assault. The mounting frenzy of hatred soon reached epic proportions, with millions sympathizing with the woman—henceforth Jane Doe—and lobbying for both a harsher sentence and the recall of the white male judge—who was also the recipient of death threats. And yet the case is far from being as open-and-shut as an indignant population of vigilantes claim; indeed, it is shrouded in layers of ambiguity.

This did not stop a posse of angry and sanctimonious avengers, journalists, talking heads and feminists from denouncing Turner as some kind of monster. Even the more censorious brand of respectable conservatives got into the act, many of whom have plainly not researched the minutiae of the case and, sad to say, really don’t know what they are talking about. Steve Green, Scott Ott and Bill Whittle, all good men and true, did not cover themselves in glory in their Right Angle video discussion of the Stanford trial. They bought the accepted narrative.

Here is the basic information pertaining to the case, as per various media accounts, the court file, the police report cited in Cosmopolitan  (which, if you wait long enough, flips to a full-page ad for “The 31 Sexiest Movies”—what else!) and which is also embedded in the court file, and the victim impact statement (cited in BuzzFeed, naturally), a lengthy but indispensable read. One must keep in mind that these instruments are not a cold, objective, God’s-eye view of the event, but, as my attached commentary below suggests, a human survey subject in considerable measure to bias, interpretation, conjecture and inference. While interesting and necessary for research purposes, these documents taken together do not establish an airtight case for Turner’s guilt. The reader should examine them for himself or herself.

Jane Doe was drinking (4 shots of whiskey and champagne, she says) before she and her sister went with a mutual friend to a frat party. Her mother dropped them off around 11 p.m., both daughters already in a state of partial inebriation. Yet it is not Jane Doe’s mother—who should have known better—who has had to face public opprobrium; it is Turner’s father who has felt the brunt of public outrage for defending his son.

By 12 a.m., they were all in their cups. The sister left the party to help a drunken friend home, leaving Jane Doe standing on the back porch of the frat house. Between then and 12:30, the “victim” spoke with her boyfriend on the phone several times. If Jane Doe was on the verge of complete incapacitation, her sister’s departure and her facility in punching numbers on a cell phone are, to put it mildly, rather curious.

At 1:01 police officers were dispatched to the scene, where they found the woman unconscious and Brock Turner being held by two witnesses who had bicycled by and found him on top of the unconscious woman. No one saw what happened between 12:30 and (approximately) 12:50 or 12:55 when the two witnesses happened upon the scene.

Another witness declares that he saw a man standing over an unconscious woman and taking a picture of her with his cell phone (maybe) or maybe just shining a light on her—the witness was drunk and he's not sure. There is speculation that Turner sent around a picture of the woman's breast to friends, but police could not find the picture on his cell phone when they checked afterwards.

A woman has come forward to say that Turner was acting “aggressively” at a party the week before, trying to dance with her and touch her. As a student I attended many parties in which such behavior was pro forma. The girls were often no less forward. Nobody saw it as denoting a criminal mindset. But then, we were not living in Salem redux.

Jane Doe claimed in her impact statement that had she not been assaulted on that night, Turner would have victimized someone else in her stead. This is a mere inference that cannot possibly be substantiated and serves only to render Turner culpable for an act he did not commit, helping to paint him as a sexual predator.

Turner’s blood alcohol level was .17%, twice the legal driving limit, and Jane Doe’s was .24%, three times the legal driving limit. It is likely that both experienced severely impaired judgment. This means that neither of their stories can be accepted at face value; memory lapses and distortions of reported details are unavoidable in such circumstances, and personal depositions are wholly undependable. Who knows what went on between Turner and Jane Doe before the drunken encounter? Was Turner the salivating fiend he is depicted as? Was Jane Doe the innocent victim most everyone has empathized with? The young woman affirmed that she had no recollection of what took place. Why then should Turner, who was also saturated, be held fully accountable? This smacks of a double standard.

Turner’s high school guidance counselor came to the young man’s defense, calling him an “outstanding student” of good character, as did a high school friend, Leslie Rasmussen, the drummer of the Indie band Good English. Not for long though. The backlash was so severe that the counselor publicly apologized for supporting Turner. The drummer also succumbed to the pressure after several gigs were cancelled for her apostasy. Are we to assume that both character witnesses suddenly and simultaneously realized they had been dreadfully wrong about Turner over the years in which they knew him and recanted their advocacy owing to some mysterious, overnight revelation? Or might some other, more self-interested factor have come into play? At any rate, one can gauge the degree to which mob sentiment has pejoratively shaped attestations on Turner’s behalf. It is obviously career suicide to publicly oppose what has come to resemble a community lynching.

The police report initially stipulated that “a rape occurred on the Stanford University campus,” although there was no forensic evidence of rape and the charge was later withdrawn. The two aforementioned witnesses who came upon the scene claimed they saw Turner pumping his hips as he presumably raped the woman, which shows once again how unreliable such testimony is. One may wonder whether they were simply deceived or seizing an opportunity to cash in on notoriety. No matter, the die had been cast. In the mind of a feverish public intent on retribution, before or despite the facts, judgment had already been rendered. The woman was innocent and the man was guilty.

Officer B. Shaw deposed in the police report that when he observed Turner, who had fled the scene and been chased down, being detained by the two witnesses who had apprehended him, “he had what appeared to be a cylindrical bulge consistent with an erect penis underneath his pants.” Pardon my indelicacy, but this is a long time in which to retain an erection, especially under the circumstances. And the policeman’s fixation seems salaciously crude and factually unverifiable. This plainly is not the way to build a plausible case. The whole episode is reminiscent of the keystone cops and would induce laughter were it not so fateful.

Questions pose themselves. Did Jane Doe pass out before or while they were, in Turner’s words, “making out”?  Did he force her or was the encounter consensual? The entire sequence of events remains obscure and no clear determination can be made. Neither participant was sober and no witnesses have come forward to credibly report on the in flagrante moment or on the crucial minutes leading up to it. Are we to believe that Turner dragged an unwilling or semi-conscious woman from the frat house without anyone noticing or objecting? Or was there, as seems at least feasible, prior consent or mutual nonverbal agreement as they staggered out together? Clearly, what is needed is not another kangaroo tribunal presiding over resident uncertainties, but a campus-wide campaign warning students about the perils of getting blotto.

My own view is that the entire process reeks to high heaven. When one frankly considers the evidence at hand, the skewing of inferential logic that attended the case, and the climate of anti-male hysteria in which such proceedings take place, the judge’s verdict may come to seem not unduly lenient but unfairly punitive. I concur with my wife Janice Fiamengo’s conclusion, aired in a recent video installment in her Fiamengo File series: “[Turner] doesn’t deserve any time in jail, and the judge who gave him six months…does not deserve to be recalled as a ‘privileged’ white man giving his co-whitey a privilege pass. In my opinion, both Turner and the young woman should have been given a stern lecture by the police about their irresponsible sexual behavior and drunkenness, should have been made to feel ashamed, and should have been encouraged to exercise self-restraint in the future. Both would have benefited from counseling.”

Extrapolating from the comments to the video, it is obvious that many people, blinded by the pall of media obfuscation and significant omission of detail, did not have the pertinent facts at their disposal, believed that Turner had been convicted of rape rather than assault, and were not aware that Jane Doe’s conduct was influenced by excessive alcohol consumption. Unaware of the gaps and problematic elements that compromised the eventual judgment, they had, in effect, endorsed the popular construction of the case. In the light of more complete information, many who had urged a stiffer sentence are now seriously reconsidering the affair. When delirium goes viral, not only the defendant but justice itself is harmed. The vigilantes may as well have adopted a quadrate version of Koran 17:32 as their watchword:  “And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.” That is, they decide what is or is not “lawful,” and the admissibility of any sexual encounter is made to conform to their codified preoccupations. What is undeniable is that ideological zealots have been given free rein and the hunt to incriminate men for sexual misconduct regardless of corroborative blur is in full swing.

The Stanford case serves as a perfect illustration of how the feminist ideology in collusion with the ravages of mob justice do their miserable work. The event is viewed through the warped lens of a phobic obsession with sex to the exclusion of mitigating factors: alcohol, hormones, youth, the natural preoccupations of both sexes. When the evidence shows that a rape has occurred, the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. But in a gynocentric culture in which men are considered sexual raptors by nature, in which any sexual episode or misdemeanor is increasingly regarded as rape or assault tout court, and armies of wrathful puritans are on the march to accuse, prosecute, judge and sentence the putative offender while women are absolved of the slightest iota of intention or responsibility, the miscarriage of justice is virtually assured. No wonder the MGTOW movement (Men Going Their Own Way) is gathering momentum and the relation between the sexes is gravely fractured. We are creating a bed of stones to lie in.

Critics of my argument--or of anyone who expresses skepticism of how the affair was interpreted and adjudicated--will without doubt launch accusations of callousness or prejudice or even worse—unforgiveable sexism. This reaction will not be based upon a careful sifting of evidence or scrutiny of probabilities, but on the preformed assumptions of pure emotionalism. I expect volleys of hate.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that thanks to the inroads of the feminist agenda into the justice system and, indeed, into the minds of the credulous and self-righteous herd of neo-Cathars who can think of nothing except the evil nature of men (that is, heterosexual men); the pristine nature of women; sex, gender and deviations from the norm, whether pro or con; and the irrelevance of biological reality, we have become a foolish, intolerant and, I’m sorry to say, a mentally retarded society.

May God the Father and Mother Nature help us.

First published in PJ Media.

Posted on 06/28/2016 10:41 AM by David Solway
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
DHS May Ban “Religiously-Charged” Terms Jihad, Sharia to Avert “Us versus Them” in Anti-Terror Programs

Yes, you heard right. They're countering violent extremism by not mentioning the cause of violent extremism at all. From Judicial Watch:

Four years after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) purged anti-terrorism training material determined to be offensive to Muslims, its umbrella agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may eliminate divisive Islamic terms like “jihad” and “sharia” in government programs targeting radicalization among youth.

It’s political correctness run amok and the Obama administration has played a central role in promoting it by caving in to the demands of various Muslim rights groups. In this latest case a Homeland Security Advisory Council is recommending that, to avoid “us versus them” when discussing extremism, certain “religiously-charged” terminology must be avoided. This includes using “American Muslim” rather than “Muslim American” and rejecting religious, legal and cultural terms like jihad, sharia, takfir and umma. Jihad is the holy war that propels Islamic terrorism. Sharia is the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists—including the world’s most violent groups such as Al Qaeda—and their jihadism. Takfir and umma are Arabic terms that mean apostasy and Muslim community.

In a report released this month the DHS panel, known as Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee, unanimously recommends that the agency dedicates $100 million to counter a new generation of threats involving “violent extremism.” The goal is to curb the spread of violent extremist ideology (read between the lines, Islamic terrorism) and the recruitment of American youth to extremist groups with DHS serving as a platform to leverage partnerships in technology, health, education, communications, cultural, philanthropic, financial and non-government sectors. To accomplish it the feds must “prioritize attention on efforts to counter the recruitment of youth to violent ideologies across race, religion, ethnicity, location, socioeconomic levels, and gender,” the report states. This clearly means to practice political correctness and not single out Muslims. “Often without knowing it, we have constructed language in daily use that promotes an “us and them” narrative of division,” the report says. DHS must ensure terminology is “properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.”

This is part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to appease Muslim rights groups, especially the terrorist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the force behind the FBI purging of anti-terrorism material. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal a few years ago and obtained hundreds of pages of FBI documents with details of the arrangement. The FBI memos and other documents reveal that the agency purged its anti-terrorism training curricula of material determined by an undisclosed group of “Subject Matter Experts” (SME) to be “offensive” to Muslims. The excised material included references linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, tying Al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and Khobar Towers bombings, and suggesting that “young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance … may fit the terrorist profile best.” Last fall Judicial Watch published a special in-depth report on the unprecedented broad purging of FBI training material.

Just a few months ago the FBI again caved into the demands of Islamic activists, suspending a new internet program aimed at preventing the radicalization of youth. Muslim and Arab rights groups determined that the interactive website, created as a tool for the nation’s schools to prevent susceptible youth from getting recruited online by terrorists, discriminated against Muslims and would lead to bullying, bias and religious profiling of students. One of the groups behind the program’s demise, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, claimed the website improperly characterized Muslims as a suspect community with targeted focus and stereotypical depictions.

CAIR and its allies also got several police departments in President Obama’s home state of Illinois to cancel essential counterterrorism courses over accusations that the instructor was anti-Muslim. The course was called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” and departments in Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park caved into CAIR’s demands. The group responded with a statement commending officials for their “swift action in addressing the Muslim community’s concerns.” CAIR has flexed its muscle in a number of other cases during the Obama presidency, including blocking an FBI probe involving the radicalization of young Somali men in the U.S. and pressuring the government to file discrimination lawsuits against employers who don’t accommodate Muslims in the workplace.

Posted on 06/28/2016 7:45 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Nationalist Contradictions in Europe

by Theodore Dalrymple

All the current nationalist parties of small nations in Europe—the Scots, the Welsh, the Basque, the Catalans, the Flemish—strongly support membership in the European Union, which is dedicated to, and even predicated upon, the extinction of national sovereignty. One would have thought that these parties wanted, at a minimum, national sovereignty. The contradiction is so glaring that it requires an explanation.

The human mind is not a perfect calculating machine, and no doubt all of us sometimes contradict ourselves. Perfect consistency tends to be disconcerting—but so does glaring inconsistency.  It’s possible that the nationalist parties’ leaders don’t perceive the contradiction, being so blinded by ideology that they are simply unaware of it. But another possible explanation exists: by leading their nominally independent countries, they forever will be able to feed at the great trough of Brussels and distribute its largesse in true clientelistic fashion. The nationalist leaders certainly lead their people, but by the nose.

The Scots, once the canniest and most provident of people, now believe that improvidence is the greatest of political virtues, and that it is their inalienable right to run huge budgetary deficits for the sake of “social justice”—that is, for services paid for by someone else. Their detestation of George Osborne, the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, is quite out of proportion to his unsuccessful efforts to balance the budget; the Scots think that if they leave the United Kingdom and join Europe, they will be allowed to run any deficits they like.

It is possible that, for a time, the Scots will indeed receive subventions from Europe, if only to show disaffected populations how beneficial it is to remain in the Union. (Without a murmur, the Greeks got more money just before the referendum, because yet another Greek crisis might have affected the British vote adversely.) But this period of largesse will not last. Before long, the Scots will be constrained to live within their means—or, at least, approximately within their means—the need to escape this very imperative having been precisely the attraction of Europe in the first place.     

Oddly enough, I have not seen the contradiction between current nationalism and support for remaining in the European Union referred to in the press, though I don’t read every paper in every language. This is surely one of the first times in history, however, that the expression, “Out of the frying pan into the fire,” has become not a warning, but the desired destination of substantial proportions of whole populations.      

Posted on 06/28/2016 7:15 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Elizabeth Warren Cleaned Up at Harvard

Elizabeth Warren, following Bernie Sanders, is trying to make taxpayers pick up the tab for all the student loans our children have been taking out in order to pay these exorbitant salaries. Hey, the elites are entitled.

EAGnews reported last year:

“ … Elizabeth Warren was paid $429,981 as a Harvard law professor from 2010 to 2011,” the AP reported in 2012, and “got nearly $134,000 in consulting fees on legal cases in 2010.”

In 2014, FrontPageMag noted “Harvard Law paid Warren $350,000 to teach a single course.”

When her opponent for a U.S. Senate seat challenged her, she complained.

“I want to talk about the issues. Senator Brown wants to launch attacks,” she said, according to the site.

Posted on 06/28/2016 7:00 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Tuesday, 28 June 2016
Nigel Farage tells MEPs: You're not laughing now

Are we gloating? Well, yes, a little. BBC:

He was jeered as he addressed the parliament during an emergency debate on the UK's vote to leave the EU.

Mr Farage, who was jeered by some MEPs, said EU politicians were "in denial" about the eurozone and migration.

EC president Jean-Claude Juncker asked Mr Farage: "You were fighting for the exit, the British people voted in favour of the exit. Why are you here?"

Mr Juncker said the will of the British people must be respected, but said the Leave campaign had "fabricated reality" with some of its claims.

"Isn't it funny," Mr Farage said.

"When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the Europeans Union, you all laughed at me.

"Well you're not laughing now."

He called for a "grown up and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship", and declared: "Most of you have never done a proper job in your lives."

He was told the comment was not acceptable by Parliament president Martin Schulz, who lambasted the heckling MEPs for "acting like UKIP".

The UK's EU commissioner Lord Hill, who announced his resignation in the wake of the Brexit vote, was given an ovation by MEPs.

Posted on 06/28/2016 6:44 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 27 June 2016
Christian Village in Lebanon Hit by Wave of Suicide Bombings


Six people died and 19 others were wounded following a series of suicide attacks in a mainly Christian area of northern Lebanon, close to the border with Syria.

According to Lebanon's National News Agency (NNA), the first incident happened at around 4.20 a.m. (local time) Monday when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a house in the village of Qaa, in the country's Beqaa valley.
Three other attackers -- with at least one wearing a explosive vest -- then detonated themselves as rescue teams and locals gathered at the scene, NNA said.
In a statement, the Lebanese Army said, "following investigations conducted by military experts at the sites of the bombings, it has been clarified that that the weight of each of the four suicide belts used by the terrorists contained 2 kg of explosives material and metal balls (ball bearings)."
But it is not yet clear who was behind the attacks or the motive. A Lebanese government spokesperson refused to provide any further details when contacted by CNN.
Posted on 06/27/2016 8:44 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 27 June 2016
The Latest on Idaho Refugee Sex Assault Case

The US Attorney Wendy J. Olson threatened prosecution for anyone getting this horrible story a little bit wrong.

“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”

As one of 93 U.S. attorneys, Olson represents the federal government in all civil and criminal cases within her state.

Olson was appointed to her post in 2010 by President Obama and has a history of taking strong stands against “anti-Muslim bias.”

Ann Corcoran, the author of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog and the book “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said Olson’s statement is reminiscent of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s warning the day after the San Bernardino jihad massacre in which Lynch said she would take “aggressive action” to prosecute “anti-Muslim” rhetoric that “edges toward violence.” Lynch was forced to walk back those comments after outrage from free speech advocates.

“This is threatening free speech,” Corcoran said of Olson’s statement. “It’s the federal government trying to intimidate into silence those citizens who don’t have resources or connections. This must mean we have hit a nerve with this administration.”

WND was the first to report a set of facts about the Twin Falls assault based on the eyewitness account of an 89-year-old grandmother who saw “something funny” going on at the laundry room entrance. It was there, on the afternoon of June 2, that Jolene Payne said she saw a 14-year-old boy filming something through a crack in the laundry room door. She flung open the door and was shocked at what she found. She said she saw two younger boys, ages 10 and 7, both naked, along with the little girl, who the boys had also allegedly stripped of her clothing.

The girl was covered in urine, Payne told WND.

The rest of the details are foggy due to the case being sealed, which is standard in juvenile cases.

A number of bloggers and at least one conservative news website reported erroneously that the girl had been “gang-raped” at “knifepoint” by “Syrian refugees.”

Okay, we stand corrected, but the story still illustrates the attitudes of Muslim refugees toward vulnerable non-Muslims - attitudes which are instilled in children from a very young age.

Posted on 06/27/2016 4:50 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Monday, 27 June 2016
You say that like it's a bad thing
Posted on 06/27/2016 4:32 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Sunday, 26 June 2016
Trigger warning: Richard III was not such a bad guy

by Lorna Salzman

Through the miracle of (reverse) time travel, Will Shakespeare read Katy Waldman’s essay on why it’s OK for students to read the white, racist, sexist, colonialist writers who form the basis of today’s academic “canon” in universities.

 So let’s go back in time and postulate what gentle Will would say to Katy the Shrew…..who will be neither Kissed nor Missed. Along with her sistern, they’ll none of them be missed.


Dear Katy:

I recently read your essay (my powers of foresight have enabled me to read and write modern English) in which you put your stamp of approval on reading my works and that of others of my time and before.

Here are my comments:

I am SO glad to see that I actually meet your standards of morality and that you think it is OK for you and your 21st century intellectual “feminist” (is that a real word?) cunts (or pricks as the case may be) to go ahead and read me!!!!! I am forever grateful!!!! Maybe I will get more money from my publisher now, as my sales to you generous feminabobs increase, now that they have been told that they can read my plays!!! And poetry….and by the way my dark lady sonnet might, just MIGHT, be about a man!!! So I am not guilty of being a cissexist heteropatriarch!!!!.But I’ll keep you guessing so I can please everyone.

By the way, Katy, you really have insulted many of my writer friends. I am not quite sure what you mean by “racist,sexist,colonist”; could you explain those terms? I assume they are pejorative, so in addition could you provide examples of how they merit your wrath? I know Christopher Marlowe is a scoundrel and is always picking fights in pubs….we almost came to blows once over what started as a peaceful pint. Ben Jonson is of course a sweetie (you can interpret that any way you want if it helps your thesis). Of course I don’t know about Moliere or Chekhov because they haven’t been born yet, but I am troubled by the notion that Chaucer might have not liked women as much as his work suggests. Is there something you know about him that I don’t?

Truly, Socrates was a thorn in the side of the Greek authorities and a bad influence on young men in one way or another, but they dealt with it appropriately, at least from their point of view. However, Thucydides seems to me to be quite impartial, and I have never heard rumors about any mistreatment of women. I do heartily agree that slavery is repugnant though since most of the slaveholders will be born in the future, and the ones from the past are all dead, I don’t see what we can do about them because, let’s face it, if I or another writer started moralizing like you want us to, I think we’d turn off a lot of readers and where would the literature canon be in four hundred years?

I commiserate with you over the fact that you cannot punish those nasty writers and others who are dead…..a lost opportunity to teach them a moral lesson. But you are very creative in castigating them anyway, I have to give you credit for that. Here’s a thought: you should join forces with the Jews who won’t play or listen to Wagner’s music. He definitely hated Jews.But again, he’s dead and you missed your chance to teach him a lesson, by about 134 years. I wish I could think of some way you could but I can’t. Sorry.

By the way, that Shylock fellow was never a real person. None of my characters were real either. I just wanted to let you know.They are just fictional representations of various types of human beings, some nicer than others. I hear that some critics in the 21st century now have evidence that I slandered Richard III and that he was not the evil brute that I portrayed. I stand corrected. But I have to laugh at how many of my future readers and critics are still arguing about Hamlet’s motives…….not to mention my existence. Whatever keeps them busy……they could be into worse mischief otherwise…..now that I think of it…..




PS: I wasnt being mean by leaving Anne my second-best bed. That is the usual practice because the best bed is always reserved for guests and would bring in more money for her when she auctions off our furniture.


Posted on 06/26/2016 1:58 PM by Lorna Salzman
Sunday, 26 June 2016
Brexit and the New European Balance of Power

by Conrad Black

The absurdly exaggerated reaction to the British vote to leave the European Union demonstrates the complacency and incompetence of the governing elites in Britain and Western Europe, and how those attitudes rippled out, unchallenged, in the international media and financial markets. There is some analogy with the comeuppance given the American political class by the fighting bulls of left, centre and right: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. In both these principal sections of the Western world, the political institutions have been misused by feeble, cynical and inept leaders. There are both similarities and distinctions between the American and European experiences, and both should be recognized.

The similarities between the levels of public discontent in the United Kingdom and the United States are that the countries are angry and fearful at job losses to unfair trade agreements. and unwise and illegal immigration, and at the lassitude and patronizing detachment of their executive and legislative leaders. In Britain, the special flourish is the anti-democratic nature of the Brussels authority that intrudes more and more constantly into the lives of average people. Brussels is essentially supranational civil servants issuing an unceasing torrent of authoritarian directives down on all parts of life in the EU. This imposition has grated steadily on the British, from the display of bananas in supermarkets to the (one-size-fits-all) size of condoms, to the revocability of the decisions of the highest courts of the United Kingdom by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

This is where the U.S. comparison stops — that country has not surrendered its sovereignty, but its voters are outraged that since it became the only, and unrivalled, superpower since the Roman Empire, it has blundered into the worst economic disaster in 80 years, decades of costly Middle Eastern wars that have been expertly and bravely conducted by the armed forces but have diluted America’s strategic position, and a feckless foreign policy that has waffled between bellicosity (George W. Bush) and appeasement (Barack Obama). The country keeps turning out the rascals and getting more incompetent and venal rascals. At least in the United States, the despised political class isn’t a group of foreigners and it is possible to get rid of them, as the country is doing, without complicating foreign and constitutional relations.

Before becoming too alarmed about developments in either the United Kingdom or the United States, let us remember that the people are right, in both cases, to be profoundly dissatisfied with their governments and to seek reform by the legitimate and constitutional means both countries have developed and refined and protected over centuries. And between them, they are chiefly responsible for the spread of democracy in the world, including in most of what is now the European Union.

The Brussels bureaucracy, though there are representative groups within it of all 27 member nationalities, is largely run by the Belgians and the Dutch, countries that have spent their national lives trying to equivocate between the larger Western European powers, especially the French, Germans and British, but once upon a time, the Spanish and the Holy See and the Holy Roman Empire in Vienna also. Their ruling classes think they have a natural vocation to conciliate, persuade, rule, and even swindle or confound their larger neighbours, all in the holy name of the declared, but no longer supported, goal of “an ever-closer Union.” The unspoken message in the collective thinking of the Euro-federalist elites has been, among the ambitious functionaries of the little countries, this was their path to power; and among the leaders of the larger countries, this was the way to rebuild the pre-eminence of a united Europe in the world, after the European civil wars of the last century and the annoying requirement to bring in the Americans to keep the Russians back. The Americans, after performing the service, were dispensable (and only too happy to depart). The Western alliance is atrophying while waiting for redefinition and a new raison d’être. As I have written here before, this is a place where Canada could play a key role, as it could, and should, in reviving the top tier of the Commonwealth (Canada, U.K., Australia, India, Singapore, New Zealand) as a coherent but not artificially united bloc, in close relations with Western Europe and the United States.

The Europe Britain has rejected, led by the unelected ciphers of Brussels, was a mad concept and it was never going to work as planned. All sane people celebrated the end of the terrible animosities that had riven Europe since the Middle Ages, especially the Franco-German rapprochement achieved by German chancellor Konrad Adenauer and French president Charles de Gaulle in 1963. The Common Market, which began with six states and the Treaty of Rome in 1957, grew in lurches, including de Gaulle’s somewhat capricious veto of British entry in 1963, and became the European Union, committed to a federal state of 28 sovereign countries. There were repeated instances of hair’s-breadth referendum results in different countries. When the centralizers lost, they followed with new plebiscites, as the Euro-engine chugged with more and more difficulty toward its goal.

The greatest voice of caution after the retirement of de Gaulle in 1969 was Margaret Thatcher, who was finally pushed out by her own party despite having been the greatest peace-time prime minister in British history, at least since Disraeli and Gladstone (and a very good war and Cold War leader also). Her offence was overt Euroskepticism, and she has been proved right and last night was her victory, too. Her young disciples of 30 years ago, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Iain Duncan Smith, will take over (that is, take back) the Conservative Party and the British government, subsume with high honours the gallant Nigel Farage and his United Kingdom Independence Party, and chart a new course. The John Major-William Haig-David Cameron era in that party has been one of timorous bobbing and weaving, ”trimming,” as the British say, if not, in Cardinal Newman’s expression, “shovel-hatted humbug.”

This is not a vote against Europeans or even against Europe, nor will it divide the U.K. as the ungracious Remainers are saying. It is a vote for Britain to be governed by the British and to co-operate closely and fairly with the European countries. It is not really a vote to leave, but a vote to renegotiate for the next two years. Gove and Johnson are broad-minded, fair-minded modern Thatcherites, and they will strike the right balance between defence of British domestic interests and retention of good relations with the European powers. Prime minister Edward Heath threw Britain’s lot in with Europe, and put the Commonwealth over the side. Thatcher bet on the special relationship with the U.S., and she and Ronald Reagan were the principal victors in the Cold War, but that relationship couldn’t survive the last two American presidents. Britain has come full circle.

The economic reaction is the usual idiocy of currency speculators and money managers, and will calm down quickly; even if Britain did withdraw altogether, the economic consequences would be neutral. But the mask has fallen from the plump, ruddy face of Brussels.

I predict that there will gradually emerge a German-led bloc, including the Baltic and Scandinavian countries (except Norway), and the Netherlands, Austria, and probably the Poles and Czechs. In former four-term chancellor Helmut Kohl’s expression, it will be “a European Germany, not a German Europe.” It will to some degree be the Grosse Deutschland sought by Bismarck, but assembled now by friendship, prosperity and example. The Germans will probably want to retain a couple of weak members in the euro to soften it and facilitate the sale of sophisticated German engineered products abroad.

The French will revive, after years of political floundering, as they always do eventually, and will more or less be at the head of the Mediterranean group and Belgium, in a looser echelon of states. The Eastern European members will progress at their own rate toward the French- or German-led groups. Britain will revert to its game, played with great skill from Wolsey to Thatcher, of being friendly with all but shifting its weight as necessary to prevent the worrisome pre-eminence of any, and recruiting the Americans when they can’t hold the balance themselves. There will be some level of a Common Market with easy flows of money and people (but not swarms of migrants), between all the present EU members.

It will be better government for Europe, and a great chance for Canada, if for the first time since the Mulroney era (apart from Stephen Harper’s support for Israel) anyone in our Foreign Affairs Ministry has the imagination to grasp it.  

First published in the National Post.

Posted on 06/26/2016 9:37 AM by Conrad Black
Sunday, 26 June 2016
Mohamed Elibiary Threatens Copts in Egypt Over One Prominent Copt's Support of Trump

In September 2014, members of Congress were informed that disgraced former Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary was being relieved of his duties after a long series of controversies, including the fact that his tweets cheering the inevitability of an Islamic caliphate were used by ISIS supporters for recruiting purposes.

Now Elibiary has gone after Egypt's Coptic Christian community -- again -- after a prominent Coptic businessman expressed support for Donald Trump. Elibiary ominously warned in a tweet today that such support would be "not good 4 Copts in Egypt."

Read Patrick Poole's entire report here.

Posted on 06/26/2016 7:51 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Somalia Celebrates Ramadan with Al Shabaab

From the NYTimes:

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Gunmen who stormed a hotel in Somalia's capital have taken an unknown number of hotel guests hostage, police said Saturday, as the attackers set up snipers on the rooftop and threw grenades. Islamic extremist group al-Shabab claimed responsibility for the latest in a series of hotel assaults in Mogadishu.

Capt. Mohamed Hussein said some attackers had moved to the second floor and were using machine guns to resist security forces.

Police said the attack on the Nasa-Hablod hotel began when a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-laden vehicle at its gate. Gunmen fought their way inside, and a witness said they began shooting randomly at hotel guests.

Hussein said security forces killed two of the attackers.

He also said he saw four bodies, thought to be civilians, lying outside the hotel.

It was not known how many attackers entered the hotel, nor how many guests were inside.

The attackers "took positions behind blast walls and sandbags; fighting is still ongoing," Hussein said, as gunfire was heard in the background. The al-Shabab group said its fighters were still engaged with security forces.

A witness, Ali Mohamud, said the attackers randomly shot at guests. "They were shooting at everyone they could see. I escaped through the back door," he said.

Yusuf Ali, an ambulance driver, told The Associated Press that he evacuated 11 people injured in the attack to hospitals.

"Most of them were wounded in crossfire," he said.

The Somalia-based, al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabab has been waging a deadly insurgency across large parts of Somalia and often employs suicide car bomb attacks to penetrate heavily fortified targets in Mogadishu and elsewhere.

In early June, an overnight siege by extremist gunmen at another hotel in the capital killed least 15 people, including two members of parliament. Al-Shabab claimed responsibility for that attack.

The latest attack comes during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, during which extremists often step up attacks in this volatile East African country.

The assaults in the seaside capital have highlighted the challenges facing the Somali government and African Union forces that are struggling to secure the country. An attack on another Mogadishu hotel and public garden in February killed at least nine civilians. A car bomb outside a restaurant in the capital in April killed at least five.

The al-Shabab insurgents have been ousted from most of Somalia's cities but continue to carry out bombings and suicide attacks.

The African Union force faces shrinking resources after the European Union recently cut its funding to the AU mission in Somalia by 20 percent. Citing that cut, Uganda's military chief said Friday his country plans to withdraw its more than 6,000 troops from the AU force in Somalia by December 2017. The Ugandans are the largest troop contingent.

Posted on 06/25/2016 12:14 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Police arrest two in new anti-terror raids in Belgium

From France 24 

Belgian police detained two men for questioning after fresh anti-terror raids overnight, the federal prosecutor's office said Saturday amid reports of a planned attack on a Euro 2016 fanzone.

"One man was arrested in (the eastern town of) Verviers and another man in Tournai," close to the French border, a spokesman said."It is too soon to talk about a terror attack. The two men have to be questioned first"

Last week, Belgium charged three men with "attempted terrorist murder" after massive anti-terror raids linked to a reported threat to fans during a Euro 2016 football game.

Belgium police killed two IS jihadis in a raid in Verviers in January 2015 who were later found to be linked to the cells involved in both the Brussels and Paris attacks.

Posted on 06/25/2016 8:57 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Iran Confiscates Pet Dogs, Cites Shariah Designation as Unclean

From Samaa:

TEHRAN: Dog lovers in central Iran are in uproar after authorities began confiscating their pets in an apparent crackdown on the “vulgar Western culture” of canine ownership, Iranian media reported Saturday.

One unnamed dog owner in Shahin Shahr in Isfahan province told Iran’s Shahrvand newspaper that officials had shown up suddenly at his house last week.

“We were shown a piece of paper indicating they were from the municipal veterinary office. They came in and took away our dogs under the pretext of vaccination,” he said.

The owner was told he could recover the dog after its vaccination, but when he went to the vet’s office they had no record of his case.

Instead, the newspaper said the confiscations were the result of a crackdown launched by local prosecutor Mohsen Boosaidi.

“Keeping and caring for dogs is haram (forbidden) according to religious leaders,” Boosaidi told the Fars news agency on June 19.

“If we find out that anyone is keeping and caring for dogs and so is promoting vulgar Western culture, we will deal with them firmly.”

Dog confiscations in the town began three days later, Shahrvand reported. It did not give precise numbers, but said a number of families had lost their pets.

“Ever since our dog was taken away, you only hear the sound of crying and sobbing in our house,” the Shahin Shahr owner said.

Javid Al-e Davood, the head of Iran’s Society For Protection of Animals, said such confiscations were illegal and that the prosecutor was “absolutely wrong” about the Islamic attitude to dogs.

No, they're not wrong about Islam, but there was a long tradition among Zoroastrians to keep dogs in Persia - see the work of Mary Boyce.

“Keeping dogs has not been regarded as haram in any religious book. Associating keeping dogs with Western culture is distorting the history of Islamic and Iranian civilisation,” he said.

Dogs are considered najes (unclean) in Islam and police often stop and fine dog walkers. However, Iran’s authorities have stated that dogs with a clear role — such as guarding property or guiding the blind — are permitted.

In a wry letter to the prosecutor published on his organisation’s website, Al-e Davood said confiscating people’s pets was a strange priority for the authorities.

“We are very happy that all the problems of the country have been resolved and that the presence of a few guard dogs in people’s homes is the last remaining problem for the people of Shahin Shahr, which you have set out to resolve,” he wrote. –AFP

Posted on 06/25/2016 8:03 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Shock Poll: Most U.S. Voters Want Immigrants Screened, Barred for Supporting Sharia Law

Paul Sperry writes in his Counter-Jihad blog.

More than 7 in 10 registered American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for belief in Sharia law, a totalitarian system that calls for executing gays, adulterers and apostates, among other human-rights abuses, a new national poll finds.

And of those respondents, more than 80% say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the U.S.

The findings, part of a nationwide survey of voters conducted after the June 12 Islamic terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, indicate widespread support for presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to screen and restrict admission of foreign nationals from hostile Muslim countries based on “radical beliefs.”

“We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with or (are) supporting radical groups and beliefs,” Trump said after the Orlando massacre, adding that suspending immigration for those who “support oppressive Sharia law” may be necessary.

The survey, conducted June 19-20 by Opinion Savvy, an Atlanta-based polling firm, defined Sharia as “laws based on Islamic texts and judicial decisions (and) enforced by governments through the use of courts, law enforcement and citizen involvement.” It cited Saudi Arabia and Iran as governments prescribing Sharia “penalties including death for activities such as adultery or any act of homosexuality.”

As a result, 71% of respondents say they support ID’ing foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the U.S. Of those who support identification, 80% think that those ID’d should not be admitted into the U.S.

In other words, when voters understand what shariah is, the vast majority want to know if foreigners are Sharia-adherent, and then 80% of those people want a method for keeping them out of the U.S.

Additionally, American voters demanded that all immigrants accept the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land. Seventy-eight percent believe “the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country.”

The scientific poll of 803 registered voters, which has a +/-3.5% margin of error, was weighted toward females and Democrats.

Security experts say the results are a devastating indictment of the Washington establishment’s national security and immigration policies.

Both President Obama and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton want to boost immigration from Muslim nations, including Syria and other ISIS hotspots; while the GOP leadership in Congress opposes Trump’s moratorium on Muslim immigrants.

“This poll illustrates the native common sense of the American people. By substantial majorities, they see through official efforts to mislead them about the roots of the danger we increasingly face here at home, as well as overseas — namely, Sharia-supremacism and the jihad it requires Muslims adherents to perform against the rest of us,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy and a former senior Reagan defense official.

“And they expect the government, instead, to protect them against this real, obvious and present danger,” he added.

In a separate 2013 poll, Pew Research Center found that vast majorities of Muslims living abroad “clearly support” brutal forms of punishment under Sharia law, including: stoning women accused of adultery, amputating the hands of thieves, publicly flogging people who “insult” Islam, and decapitating those who leave the Islamic faith.

According to Pew, “Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%)” — two nations viewed as relatively moderate in the Muslim world.

Foreign Muslims said they favor making the harsh Islamic legal code — the same one implemented by Saudi Arabia and Iran — the “law of the land” for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the poll found. And they said they prefer appointing “religious judges” to enforce it.

Overwhelmingly, Muslims abroad condemn homosexuality while supporting polygamy. Shockingly large pluralities even favor “honor-killing” daughters who engage in premarital sex.

Most disturbing: Solid majorities in Egypt, Lebanon and several other Muslim nations agree that carrying out suicide bombings against non-Muslims “can be justified,” according to another Pew survey of Muslim attitudes on terrorism conducted more recently.

Posted on 06/25/2016 7:35 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Saturday, 25 June 2016
Brexit’s Complicated Aftermath

by Theodore Dalrymple

For a long time, Britons who wanted their country to leave the European Union were regarded almost as mentally ill by those who wanted it to stay. The leavers didn’t have an opinion; they had a pathology. Since one doesn’t argue with pathology, it wasn’t necessary for the remainers to answer the leavers with more than sneers and derision.

Even after the vote, the attitude persists. Those who voted to leave are described as, ipso facto, small-minded, xenophobic, and fearful of the future. Those who voted to stay are described as, ipso facto, open-minded, cosmopolitan, and forward-looking. The BBC itself suggested as much on its website. In short, the desire to leave was a return to the insularity that resulted in the famous—though apocryphal—newspaper headline: fog in the channel: continent cut off.

If insularity is indeed on the rise, it is affecting increasing numbers of Europeans. According to the latest polls, nearly a half of the Italians and Dutch want their countries to leave. Discontent with the Union is also widespread in other countries. The French have a poorer opinion of the European Union than do the British, but because the French believe it to be reformable, fewer want to leave. Before the vote, the danger of Brexit to the integrity of the European Union was described in the French media in pathological terms, as a possible “contagion,” rather than merely an example to be followed—or not, as the case might be. And now the Union is faced with a dilemma: on the one hand, it will not want to make Brexit too painless for Britain, in case other countries, such as Sweden, follow suit; but on the other, it will not want to disturb trade relationships with one of Europe’s largest economies. Britain’s trade with Europe is largely in Europe’s favor, but it’s easier for Britain to find alternative sources of imports than for Europe to find alternative export markets.

There is now a race between the breakup of the European Union and the United Kingdom itself—for the Scottish leader has threatened another referendum on independence. This breakup would be even more difficult, especially for Scotland; Germany has already said that it would welcome Scotland into the Union, but if Scotland thinks that it would then be able to escape George Osborne’s policy of so-called austerity—which is to say, his feeble attempts to balance the budget—it might get a nasty shock when dealing with German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble. And, if Scotland were to sign up to the Schengen Agreement, a ridiculous but real and damaging land border between England and Scotland would suddenly become a reality. This is something not seen for hundreds of years.

The vote might also lead to a unification of Ireland, for the Northern Irish also voted to remain in Europe. Sinn Fein has already called for a referendum on unification. Such unification would be a great blessing for England, but not necessarily for Ireland.   

One possible reason for the success of the Brexit campaign was President Obama’s ill-conceived intervention, when he threatened that if Britain voted to leave the Union, it would have to go to the “back of the queue” as far as any trade agreements are concerned. This sounded like bullying, and was not well-received by much of the British population, which had already been subjected to quite a lot of such bullying from others. If I were an American, I shouldn’t have been pleased with it either, for Obama spoke not as a president with a few months left in office, but as a president-for-life, or at least one with the right to decide his successor’s policy.

Among the many subjects not properly discussed during the campaign was whether large and fundamental political changes should be made based on 50 percent-plus-one of the votes cast in a single plebiscite. The House of Commons is not constitutionally bound by the results, and most members of Parliament support remaining in the European Union. They could argue, not without plausibility, that a vote representing no more than three-eighths of the total electorate isn’t quite the groundswell of opinion that should be required for fundamental change. If they acted on this argument, however, violence might erupt. 

First published in City Journal.

Posted on 06/25/2016 7:17 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Friday, 24 June 2016
Costs of Refugee Resettlement Unclear to Taxpayers

Don Barnett writes in The Tennessean:

Before the Refugee Act of 1980, refugee resettlement was the work of true sacrificial charity, where sponsors and charities committed to maintaining and supporting the refugees with housing and employment, even medical care if needed. There was an explicit bar to the access of welfare benefits. The sponsor was responsible for all costs. This helped to guarantee assimilation and is how we absorbed post-WWII refugees, those fleeing communist oppression in Eastern Europe, the Hungarian Revolution and other upheavals.

With the 1980 Refugee Act and related laws, the charities morphed into money-making federal contractors whose main job is to link the refugees with social services and welfare benefits. The 1980 act made all welfare available to refugees upon arrival — for life, if eligibility is maintained.

Originally, the Refugee Act included three years of federal refugee cash assistance and medical insurance. As well, state governments were reimbursed for their expenditures on welfare used by refugees, such as Medicaid (TennCare), for three years. By 1991, reimbursement from the feds for state welfare expenditures had been completely eliminated and the three-year period of refugee cash and medical assistance for refugees was limited to eight months.

According to the most recent government data, even those refugees in the country for five years are largely dependent on taxpayer largesse. Sixty percent of this group receives food stamps and 17 percent are on the cash welfare program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). A nationwide U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study shows 44 percent are still in Medicaid and 29 percent of families who have been here for five years have one or more members on the lifetime cash welfare program Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

This gives an idea of the costs to the federal taxpayer and of the unfunded federal mandate placed upon state taxpayers by this program.

Because of the byzantine structure of Tennessee’s program, there is no way to get exact costs. Both the state refugee coordinator and state refugee health coordinator, who are supposed to represent the state and its taxpayers, are actually employees of Catholic Charities, the federal contractor whose income rises in direct proportion to the numbers of refugees resettled. Further, the salary for both of these positions is paid not by the contractor, but by the feds. How’s that for a conflict of interest?

In a healthy and open environment, information would be made available from these two sources, which would help in evaluating program success and program costs, such as use of TennCare by refugees, rates of infection with communicable disease and so on. Alas, because of incentives and disincentives built into the refugee coordinators’ jobs, the best strategy for them is to withhold information.

Secrecy surrounds all aspects of the program. We have no idea what it is costing Tennessee. Statistics about medical conditions among refugees are secret. Even the numbers of refugee arrivals proposed for next year is a secret. And when arrival numbers are reported, after the fact, they are routinely reported as lower than actual numbers by conveniently neglecting to include categories of resettlement that are not official refugees, but that have the same entitlements — and benefits to the contractor — as refugees.

Orwellian use of language allows for absurd claims about refugee economic integration. For instance, refugees are considered officially “self-sufficient” even if they receive every federal welfare benefit except TANF. Refugees in temporary jobs or training programs are counted as “employed.” An unpublicized federal audit from 1999 obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request found that Memphis Catholic Charities was dropping refugees off at a day labor lot and reporting them as “employed."

It was never intended that the sponsors, known as “Voluntary Agencies,” would be purely federal contractors with all the behavior, untoward incentives, money and influence peddling that this brings. Yet, that is what we have today.

There would be no issue with this program if refugees were resettled in the traditional way America has always absorbed refugees. As long as the current resettlement model persists, it is imperative that Tennesseans have a say in how state resources are used. The state attorney general should proceed with SJR 467 challenging the federal government’s presumed authority over state resources.

Posted on 06/24/2016 3:10 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 24 June 2016
Geert Wilders Calls for E.U. Referendum in the Netherlands


Geert Wilders, the right-wing, anti-immigrant, anti-Brussels Dutch politician, is one of the most articulate proponents of the potential merits of leaving the European Union. In an interview with The Times, he described Great Britain’s vote to leave as “a fantastic result” that showed that the bloc was far from an inevitable entity.

He predicted that others would follow suit. “The Netherlands will be next,” he said. “We want to regain control over our country, our own money, our own borders, our own immigration policy.”

He also said he expected that the economic impact would be negligible because of the importance of Britain in trade. “If the E.U. punishes Britain in any way, it will only harm itself,” he said.

On his website, Mr. Wilders wrote that June 23 would go down in history as Britain’s Independence Day. “The europhile elite has been defeated,” he wrote. “Britain points Europe the way to the future and to liberation.”

A recent survey by the Dutch television station EenVandaag showed that a majority of the Dutch wanted a referendum on European Union membership, and that more Dutch favored leaving the bloc than remaining, he said.

Mr. Wilders’s remarks followed similar comments by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party in France.

Posted on 06/24/2016 1:36 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 24 June 2016
Muslim women kicked out of US cafe accused of ‘civilizational jihad’ by lawyer

I like this development. Nicky Woolf writes in the Guardian:

A group of Muslim women who claim in a lawsuit they were kicked out of a California restaurant for wearing headscarfs have been accused of “civilizational jihad” by a lawyer for the restaurant, which has launched a countersuit.

The seven women, six of whom were wearing hijabs, were kicked out of Urth Caffe in Laguna Beach in April.

They claim that they were targeted for ejection because of their hijabs, though the cafe denies that, claiming that they were violating a policy which limited seating time to 45 minutes, and have also claimed that there were other women wearing headscarves present who were not thrown out.

David Yerushalmi, the lawyer representing Urth Caffe, said that one of the owners of the cafe, Jilla Berkman, is also a Muslim.

He said that the discrimination suit was “an extortion”, called the women’s lawyers “ambulance-chasers”, and said that he planned to bring a suit against both the plaintiffs and their legal team for malicious prosecution. The countersuit that he has brought in this case, however, is for trespassing.

Yerushalmi is a controversial figure, listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a non-profit advocacy group which collates information on hate groups and extremists, as an “anti-Muslim activist who is a leading proponent of the idea that the United States is threatened by the imposition of Muslim religious law, known as Shariah”.

“Ideally, he would outlaw Islam and deport its adherents altogether,” the SPLC’s profile of Yerushalmi adds.

Asked about the SPLC’s characterization of him, Yerushalmi said that he “represents a lot of Muslims”.

“I represent Muslim Americans, running from jihad and seeking asylum. If you want to say I’m an anti-jihad lawyer, you’re 100% right,” he continued. “Am I anti-Sharia? Yes, I am. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if he doesn’t have a gun in his hand shooting at me.”

Yerushalmi alleged that the suit against Urth Caffe was part of a wider “civilizational jihad” waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which aims, he said, “to weaken western civilization”.

“Urth Caffe has decided to hire a lawyer who has made a career out of crusading against Muslims in America,” said Mohammad Tajsar, a lawyer representing the seven women. “Their decision to hire this particular gentleman frankly makes our case. It demonstrates that this organization has no regard for the very Muslim clientele that it claims it caters to.”

Tajsar said he was “dumbstruck” by the allegations made by Yerushalmi, and also noted that the legal filing – the countersuit for trespass – doesn’t attempt to legally assert the claims of abuse of lawsuit that Yerushalmi has made publicly against him and his clients.

“They haven’t countersued for abuse of process,” Tajsar said. “They have alleged abuse of process, but not filed for that, and the reason why is that it would be incorrect and patently frivolous. There’s a lot of bluster and attempts to paint our clients as politically-motivated without any basis in fact.”

Hussam Ayloush, the executive director of the Los Angeles branch of CAIR, said that, contrary to Yerushalmi’s allegations, his organization was not involved with the case against Urth Caffe.

“I’m not privy to the details of the case, of their claim, and I would hope that a fair trial would allow us to know what happened,” he said. “But if anyone had any doubts about what happened on that day, those doubts are eliminated by the fact that the owners of Urth Caffe decided to retain David Yerushalmi.”

“There are 1.2 million attorneys in America, and for them to choose the most hateful, the most bigoted attorney, tells a lot about the values that Urth Caffe’s owners hold,” he added.

Posted on 06/24/2016 10:39 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 24 June 2016
American-MidEast Coalition for Trump Gives His Latest Speech High Marks

WASHINGTON DC - Members of the American-MidEast Coalition for Trump (AMCT) were greatly heartened by Donald J. Trump’s speech of June 22.

While The Islamic State commits genocide, Hillary and the Clinton Global Initiative sip cocktails with the region's authoritarians. Donald Trump is right in calling Mrs. Clinton “possibly the most corrupt person to ever run for the office of the presidency” of the United States.

"In his speech, Mr. Trump identified the suffering of Christians in the Middle East. He is the only one seems to care and be willing to work on a solution," said David Lazar, Chairman of American Mesopotamian Organization.

Meanwhile the Middle East is being consumed by the death and destruction directly caused by Secretary Clinton’s disastrous decisions. She supported the violent overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi while making no real provision for what would come afterward and thus, as Donald Trump said, the country is now in the hands of the “ISIS barbarians.” ISIS has acquired advanced weaponry looted from Libyan stockpiles including chemical weapons which they have already used in Syria.

As Trump noted, Egypt had been governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel. After forcing the dictator, Hosni Mubarak, to step down, Clinton and Obama decided to partner with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (an organization the Administration described as “moderate”) and brought it to power in Egypt, supplying it with cash, Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets. Subsequently, millions of Egyptians took to the streets and forced the oppressive US-backed MB government to be overthrown by the military. Dr. Ashley Ansara, an American-Egyptian activist said, "Mr. Trump articulated the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt and the Arab world, while Mrs. Clinton worked with them as reformers." 

Clinton and Obama policies made Iran the dominant Islamist power in the region. It is heading toward becoming a nuclear power. The Iranian government is one of the most oppressive on earth. In Iran, gays are routinely hung from cranes (death by slow strangulation). Activists estimate 4,000 gays have been executed in this manner since the revolution. And in Iran women who have been raped are likely to be stoned to death for adultery. Hossein Khorram, a Muslim Iranian American, Delegate to the Republican National Convention and a strong Mr. Trump supporter said, “I was pleased to hear Mr. Trump acknowledge the destructive and offensive behavior the Iranian regime is displaying in the region.”

Furthermore as Trump stated, “Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen.“ The Syrian Centre for Policy Research released in February 2016 estimated the death toll at 470,000, with 1.9m wounded. Refugees are estimated at 6.36 million displaced internally and more than 4 million abroad. In addition Syria has become a launching pad for Jihad attacks against the United States and Europe. "Mr Trump opened up to the Muslim people and he will be the one to coordinate with Arab leaders on eradicating ISIS and free the Syrian people," said Mirna Barq, President for Syrian American council. "It was encouraging to see Trump mention yesterday that ISIS is threatening millions of peaceful Muslims who just want to go about their lives, as well as other Syrians. 95% of ISIS’ victims in Syria actually have been Muslims, and the free Syrians have been fighting both ISIS and Assad. All the while Assad ignores fighting ISIS and sells them oil and his campaign against the Syrian people created the vacuum which led to ISIS to begin with. The Syrian people need immediate action to eradicate ISIS, remove Assad, and free the Syrian people."

“It's been two years since President Barack Obama has said he's going to defeat ISIL,” said Khalid Haider of the Yazidi Voice of Right. He continued, “Perhaps the words are easy to pronounce, but the President is lacking in action. The indigenous people of Mesopotamia are in jeopardy because so far Obama's administration has destroyed our hometowns while acting like he's fighting ISIL. Yet all combined those air strikes haven't degraded ISIL whatsoever. Therefore, and as an activist I do believe as everyone else all over the world believes, Mr. Donald Trump is our only hope to save whatever is left from our heritage and history. Vote for Trump, you're voting for saving U. S. A as well as the world.”


Posted on 06/24/2016 8:41 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 24 June 2016
Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership

Press release:

The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

Posted on 06/24/2016 8:32 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 24 June 2016
Brexit - where next?

David Cameron has resigned but will remain in office until October and the Conservative Party conference. Article 50 covers the hitherto unknown process of a member state leaving the EU. He feels that this task should be left for his successor. 

We must not lose the impetus; unless there are compelling reasons to wait I see no need. Although I am relieved that the government are discussing the next action; the referendum was advisory so technically it could have been ignored. 

The people of the United Kingdom have no quarrel with our fellow man in the other 27 countries of Europe and I believe it is our duty to assist them to achieve referenda of their own on the subject of their continued membership. We chose the open sea yesterday, but the open sea leads to old friends, kin and allies all over the world. Certain parties in Denmark called for their own referendum this morning. 

Eurosceptic parties the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) and the Danish People’s Party (DF) both characterized the referendum results as a major victory for the British people. Enhedslisten said that the referendum results should pave the way for a similar vote in Denmark, and the far-left party called for a Danish referendum within a year. She suggested holding a referendum on Denmark’s Constitution Day on June 5th, 2017

But Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who called the referendum results “very sad […] for Europe and Denmark”, ruled out holding a referendum. “We belong to the EU and I am not operating on [the belief] that we should have a referendum on that basic question,” Rasmussen said at a Friday morning press conference. 

This sets up a potential battle with the Danish People’s Party, Rasmussen’s largest support party in parliament. DF has previously said that if Brexit becomes reality, Denmark should hold its own EU referendum after the United Kingdom has formally negotiated a post-exit agreement with the union. 

I hear that there are elements in France unhappy with the current regime; also in the Netherlands, even within Germany. 

We must also be magnanimous towards the 14 million residents of the UK who voted to remain in the EU. Notwithstanding that many supporters of the Remain campaign used vile language, obscene gestures and smeared us as racists we must behave better, because we are better. But it is a worry that so many people either do not regard British sovereignty as their precious birthright, or are so careless of it that they are willing to sell it for a mess of pottage. Or as I heard one Remain enthusiast give as a reason, cheap mobile phone roaming rights while on holiday.

Something deep and worrying is wrong with our society that needs addressing and it could take more than one generation to put right. The malign influence of Common Purpose goes very deep indeed. 

I am not the only person to think of GK Chesterton's poem The Secret People today. It's longer than I remembered, but that will not frighten our readers if I reproduce it here in full. 

The last two verses are almost as prescient as the essays of George Orwell. 

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.

And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.

Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

Posted on 06/24/2016 7:17 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Showing 1-26 of 177 [Next 25]