Sunday, 28 February 2016
Slaves of the Combustion Engine

by Theodore Dalrymple (March 2016)

The motor car used to be a symbol of personal liberation. You could go anywhere you wanted, any time you wanted, without being tied to the timetable and destinations served by public transport. The wind, as it were, was in your hair thanks to the motor car. But increasingly in a small country such as Britain the car is an instrument almost of torture, a symbol of a peculiar kind of enslavement. It imposes financial costs on me that I cannot avoid however little I use it. In fact, I use my car as little as possible, and I pity those who have to drive to work every day.  more>>>

Posted on 02/28/2016 1:28 PM by NER
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Sunday: 2-28-16- Listen to the Lisa Benson Show at 1 PM EST, 10PM in Israel with Ex-CIA Director, Amb. R. Woolsey on Missile “Defenseless” US Homeland and Dr. Jill Bellamy on Zika Virus public health and ISIS CBW threats

The Lisa Benson Show will air Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 3PM EST, 2PM CST, 1PM MST, Noon PST and 10PM in IsraelListen live to the Lisa Benson Radio Show for National Security on KKNT 960The Patriot or use SMARTPHONE iHEART App: 960 the Patriot.   Lisa Benson and New English Review  (NER)Senior Editor Jerry Gordon will co-host this show.  Gordon will discuss  a  March 2016  NER article, “Can our Ballistic Missile Defense System Shield Us from Rogue Regime ICBMs?”

Our guests are:

Ambassador R. James Woolsey, Ex-CIA Director and Chancellor of the Institute for World Politics, who will discuss North Korean and Iranian missile threats including  possible Electronic Magnetic Pulse  (EMP) and the absence of an effective Ballistic Missile Defense System to protect the US homeland.

Dr.  Jill Bellamy, noted bio defense expert and Founding Director of Warfare Technology Analytics who will reveal the threat of the Zika virus to the US and world public health systems and the why  ISIS with a $2 trillion war chest poses a grave chemical and biological threat to the West.




Posted on 02/28/2016 10:45 AM by Jerry Gordon
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Muslim girls forced into marriage via Skype

From the Sunday Times and DNA India

Muslim girls in the UK as young as 11 are being forced to marry men living abroad via the internet notwithstanding a ban on forced marriage in the country.

Imams in the UK and abroad have been conducting ceremonies using Skype so girls can be married remotely before "being put on a plane and consummating the marriage at the earliest opportunity", according to Freedom, a charity.

The marriage is often conducted with the promise of a visa to the UK for their new husband, it said. Prem said the use of Skype was appealing to families because it is instant and there is less risk of being caught. "The reason is to curb the behaviour of their children when they become 'too western'," charity founder Aneeta Prem was quoted as saying by 'The Sunday Times'.

"Once married, there is enormous pressure to get a spouse visa. The hope is the girl will visit (country of husband's origin) and fall pregnant to make the union seem more legitimate before bringing the partner back," she said.

Last week, a Sunday Times investigation revealed that among the youngest victims of forced marriage was a six-year-old girl with special needs. Campaigners say education is key to preventing the practice but raising awareness in schools of forced marriage is not compulsory.

Karma Nirvana, a charity that runs free workshops to raise awareness of forced marriage, said in a two-month period at the end of last year it had received 38 referrals from 14 schools, including 11 from one school in Birmingham made the day after it gave a presentation.

Anna Kaur, the charity’s youth worker, said: “We sometimes have students asking us to go in because there is a problem but then when we approach the school they refuse a visit.”

Posted on 02/28/2016 9:45 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Hate preacher’s TV channel gets cash from gift aid

From The Times and the Times of Israel

An Islamic television channel reprimanded this week for broadcasting antisemitic programmes is part-funded through tax breaks from the Treasury. 

According to The Times of London  the Islamic Research Foundation International, based in Birmingham and indirectly funded by UK tax breaks, has given most of its charitable income in the past two years to Peace TV.

Peace TV, a 24-hour satellite station run by a preacher banned from Britain, was strongly criticised over serious breaches of the Ofcom broadcasting code for screening lectures by a scholar who referred to Jews as a “cursed race”.

The station is headed by Zakir Naik, a Muslim preacher who is also a trustee of the foundation, and who was banned from Britain in 2010 over extremist statements that were “on their face supportive of Osama bin Laden, anti-Jewish and otherwise unacceptable,” according to court documents quoted by the Times.

Ofcom reviewed Peace TV’s Urdu service as part of its routine monitoring and was concerned by the transmission last year of lectures by Israr Ahmad, a scholar who died in 2010.

In one lecture he effectively blamed Jews for the Holocaust: “That is the mark of this cursed race, that despite God’s divine grace they do not take advantage of the opportunity to repent, which is why they are afflicted by great calamities and the example is what happened to them at the hands of the Germans.”

The watchdog ruled that the broadcast contained “very harmful and highly offensive content” which amounted to a serious breach of the broadcasting code. It added that the comments could be a form of hate speech.

The 24-hour channel is indirectly funded by British tax write-offs, the Times found, as IRFI got £77,000 ($107,000) in tax relief over its donations in 2015, a year in which fully £770,000 ($1.1m) of its total income of £972,000 ($1.35m) was donated to Peace TV. In 2014, that figure was over £1m ($1.4m) out of £1.16m ($1.61m) raised


Posted on 02/28/2016 9:29 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Sunday, 28 February 2016
ISIS in the Ozarks

If ISIS is in the Ozarks they are everywhere. BUFFALO, MO - -

38-year-old Safya Yassin is in the Greene County Jail after the FBI says she made threats over the internet.

A 17 page statement from the FBI gives more information about their investigation. It shows they started looking into Yassin's social media posts after they got a tip from one of her Facebook friends who had been converted to Islam by Yassin. That person told agents that the woman was convinced that ISIS would save the world.

The documents show the FBI found 97 twitter account IDs they think were used by Yassin - one referencing an "ISIS electronic army."

They detail an ongoing social media presence -- one of her accounts posting "please help me share this account, this is my 3rd suspension in less than 48 hours. May Allah reward you!!"

On the accounts, that have now been closed by Twitter, documents show Yassin shared a link with photos, addresses, contact info, or even credit card information of more than 150 people in the military and state department.

Some of those were linked to a quote reading “God said: ‘and slay them wherever you may come upon them.' “

They show she also tweeted that a news reporter in Texas would be better off without her head.

The FBI spent months monitoring her accounts on an almost a daily basis capturing posts like this one "the west thinks that caging Muslims will stop 'terrorism'...but they will be finding out soon, it only increases the attacks against them."

Yassin is one of many people who have used twitter to promote ISIS. Twitter announced this month that since the middle of last year they've suspended more than 125 thousand accounts for threatening or promoting terrorists acts - many of those related to ISIS.

The FBI first confronted Yassin about her online activities when she lived in Bolivar. According to documents she told them she only reported the news and did not endorse or encourage violence. Yassin is now in federal custody waiting for a hearing that is scheduled for this Tuesday.

Posted on 02/28/2016 6:24 AM by John Constantine
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Saudi Arabia sentences a man to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism on Twitter
A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced a man to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism in hundreds of social media posts. He refused to repent. Story here.
Posted on 02/28/2016 6:01 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Saudi Arabia’s Sauve Qui Peut

Saudi spokesmen made three significant – even stunning –announcements last week. The first one came from the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, speaking to oil company executives at a meeting in Houston. He announced that Saudi Arabia was going to break completely with its past policy, would no longer be OPEC’s swing producer, and would refuse to participate in coordinated production cuts by both OPEC and non-OPEC producers, as it had so dutifully in the past in order to keep the price of oil at an agreed-upon level. From now on, Al-Naimi made clear, the Saudis would conduct their oil policy strictly with their own bank balance in mind: “Inefficient, uneconomic producers will have to get out. This is tough to say and that’s a fact. We can coexist with $20. We don’t want to, but if we have to, we will.” For even at that price, as the lowest-cost producer, Saudi Arabia could make money. So could Saudi Arabia’s neighbors and allies, Kuwait and the Emirates. But not only would the non-OPEC producers of oil, including those who invested so much in American shale and Canadian sands, require a price of at least $60 per barrel to be profitable, but so too would many OPEC producers, including Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela. Saudi Arabia was telling the world that the OPEC model of shared cuts in supply, with the Saudis bearing the lion’s share, a model they have adhered to for nearly 45 years, was dead. For the Saudis, there would no longer be any cuts in their own production to hold up the price for other OPEC members. The Saudi oil policy was now to be only for Saudi Arabia first, last, and always.

The second stunning announcement was that Saudi Arabia has just declared Lebanon off-limits to its own citizens. For decades Beirut was one of the main playgrounds for the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs; this travel ban will be devastating to the Lebanese economy. The official reason given was “concern for the safety” of Saudi nationals. But the danger level, while considerable, is not noticeably different from what it had been a year ago, or three, or five. Why impose the ban now?

The third Saudi announcement, that they were ending the $3 billion in military aid that they had been giving to Lebanon annually, had as its proximate cause the refusal of the Lebanese government to condemn the storming of the Saudi Embassy in Teheran and the consulate in Mashhad (attacks prompted by the Saudi execution of a prominent Shi’a cleric) by Iranians, a refusal which a Saudi official described as a “confiscation of the will” of the Lebanese state by the Iran-backed Shia Hizballah movement.

Together, these two blows to the Lebanese economy reflect the Saudi belief that Hizballah has won in Lebanon, and that there is now no point in continuing to send aid to, or to support tourism in, a country that in the last few years has become part of the Shi’ite axis, one that includes Hizballah in Lebanon, Assad’s Alawites, and Saudi Arabia’s main enemy, Iran. The Saudi aid cancellation and travel ban might be interpreted as attempts to pressure the Lebanese into changing their policies, but I think it more likely that the new Saudi policy is more realistic – some might say defeatist — than that: it’s no longer a case of trying to pressure Lebanon to change. Instead, the Saudis seem to have decided to simply wash their hands of the country altogether, having recognized that Hizballah, backed by Iran, cannot now be dislodged in Lebanon, and that the once-powerful alliance of the Sunni merchant class and Maronite Christians in Lebanon is much weakened — both because the natural increase in the Shi’ite population has outstripped that of all the other groups, and because in recent years some of the Christians, too, under General Aoun, have been making common cause with Hizballah – and thus the Sunni-Maronite bloc is now both outnumbered and, more to the point, outgunned.

Saudi Arabia’s oil policy and its Lebanese policy may seem to have nothing to do with each other. But they have one important thing in common. Both are examples of that oldest of desperate remedies: Every Man For Himself. Or as it is put even more pithily by the cynical French: Sauve Qui Peut (literally: Whoever Can Should Save Himself). No longer will the Saudis sacrifice any of their production just to ensure that other producers in OPEC will be able to sell their own oil at a profit. And no longer will the Saudis continue to fund a country that they now think has no chance of throwing off its Shi’ite yoke (you will not be surprised to learn that Iran has already offered to replace some of the Saudi military aid to Lebanon). Sauve Qui Peut for Saudi Arabia means “we’re not going to waste our money in Lebanon” (though they have a lot, the Saudis also have a lot less than they expected to have before the oil market collapsed so precipitously in the last eighteen months) so as to husband its resources for other efforts. The geopolitical threat posed to Saudi Arabia from Hizballah in Lebanon is comparatively insignificant: it’s a long way from Beirut – and the road goes through Sunni Jordan – to the oil-producing, Shi’a-populated Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Where might those other places be for which Saudi resources need to be husbanded? Hint: in what country, that shares a very long and porous border with Saudi Arabia, is the Sunni-Shi’a divide even more pronounced than it is in Lebanon? If you answered “Iraq,” you get one point. If you answered “Yemen,” you get two points. If you are able to explain why you would get more points for “Yemen” than for “Iraq,” you get three points. Be sure to show your work.

Posted on 02/28/2016 5:22 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Saturday, 27 February 2016
What's the Best Treatment for Arterial Blockages?

One of the greatest advances in modern medicine was the realization that doctors’ personal experience is not sufficient evidence for the preference of one treatment to another. The double-blind trial was developed to overcome various kinds of bias and prejudice in both patient and doctor, and on the whole has been a great methodological success. It is not perfect, however.

A trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine illustrates this. It was designed to establish whether endarterectomy (the surgical removal of arterial blockage) or stenting (the insertion of a tube and filter) is a better treatment for narrowing of the carotid artery, a condition that leads to strokes.

The trial was carried out in 117 centers in the United States and Canada, by surgeons and interventionists who were certified as having good results beforehand. Eligible patients, of whom there were originally 2502, were divided randomly into those who received endarterectomy and those who were stented. The end points of the trial were stroke, heart attack and death.

There was no difference between the two treatments at four years, but the researchers then extended the follow-up period to ten years. By then, the number of patients who were followed up had dwindled to 1607. 895 of the original patients were not included for various reasons, among them that they had died (186).

The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes. 11.8 per cent of the stented group had any one (or more) of the end points against 9.9 per cent of those who had had endarterectomy. 6.9 per cent of the stented group had had strokes while 5.6 per cent of the endarterectomy had had strokes. Although none of the differences among various sub-groups was statistically significant, they were all slightly in favor of endarterectomy and one has to remember that statistically significant difference is not a measure or real or actual difference; and the authors seemed believe that there was a difference between the two modes of treatment because they attribute the difference to the fact that the patients assigned to stenting were slightly more at risk in the first place.

The authors conclude that there is nothing to choose between the two types of treatment. I found their statistical presentation very difficult to understand, and checked it with an eminent colleague who specializes in comparative trials, who likewise found it muddled and difficult to understand; but it is likely that most surgeons and interventionists will just accept the conclusion without testing it further.

An accompanying editorial raises further difficulties. How far is a trial which selects for the best practitioners in the field applicable to the general population of practitioners? It might not be at all applicable. Furthermore, the trial has no control group for the medical treatment of carotid stenosis, which has improved greatly since it was first shown years ago that endarterectomy is beneficial in severe carotid stenosis without symptoms.

In other words, the two treatments here compared might not be necessary at all in a large number of cases. Certainly the quantity of such procedures performed in various advanced countries varies greatly. The editorial’s authors say that with modern medical treatment, neither endarterectomy nor stenting are necessary except in the most severe asymptomatic stenosis, and that this means that approximately 80 per cent of the procedures carried out in the United States for carotid stenosis are unnecessary – not a trivial matter, given the rate of complication.     

Even if this trial established more unequivocally than it does that stenting is as good as endarterectomy, it does not establish in what cases either is necessary. Is your journey really necessary, asked the poster in England during the war? Is your procedure really necessary might be a good poster to put up in hospitals.

First published in PJ Media.

Posted on 02/27/2016 9:36 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Saturday, 27 February 2016
Soho mosque bans women worshipers because it is 'too full'

From the London Evening Standard 

A London mosque has faced a backlash after banning women worshipers from prayers.

The Soho Islamic Centre added a notice to its doorway telling female worshipers they could no longer pray there due to a lack of space.  The sign at the mosque in Berwick Street reads: "There is no prayer facility for Sisters in this Masjid."

Researcher Anita Nayyar told the Standard she used to visit in her lunch break every day, but said it has now become increasingly difficult for herself and her female friends to pray there. Ms Nayyar said several of her female friends had reported being turned away when trying to pray at the mosque.

She added: “You are supposed to feel very serene when you are going to pray when actually I was walking there thinking, ‘Am I going to have to argue with them?’ “It’s became more intimidating and oppressive. . . "

The sign stuck on the door directs women to another mosque about half-a-mile away in Goodge Street.

Yasar Chaudhry, a regular user of the Islamic centre, said that there is not enough space or facilities inside for women."...It is not that the Sisters are not allowed, it’s just because it’s so busy there is no space and everyone is over each other to find a place.”

Thomas Mackenzie, 29, who works on a food stall opposite, said: “Sometimes there are so many people that they do have to pray out on the street. But for me, I prefer to treat men and women equally.”

Cue application for Mosque expansion, or even a new and spacious mosque . . . 

The mosque is not breaking any laws as the Equality and Human Rights Commission says gender segregation is permissible during collective religious worship and supported by the Charity Commission.

Posted on 02/27/2016 4:09 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Friday, 26 February 2016
"Those sons of bitches were raping little girls down in Texas. I knew it and they knew I knew it, and this battle rages on today."

More on Fundamentalist Mormons and their "prophet" in the news today. The Jessops were one of the original families to join.

The parallels with polygamous Muslim populations are striking. Everything from the prevalence of child brides to incest to the problem of excess males, which is not as severe a problem among Muslims due to their unique jihad mandate, to the systematic bilking of the welfare state, to high rates of genetic disease due to inbreeding. In the UK the Pakistani community accounts for 30 per cent of all births with recessive disorders, despite representing 3.4 per cent of the birth rate nationwide, due to the prevalence of first cousin marriages. In the FLDS community a rare genetic malfunction called fumarase deficiency is causing severe mental retardation among other congenital complications and a high incidence of domestic abuse is present in both populations.

The Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Church was headed for many years by Rulon Jeffs, a.k.a. “Uncle Rulon,” until his death in September 2002, when the sect was taken over by his son, Warren Jeffs. According to Jon Krakauer in Under the Banner of Heaven:
Uncle Rulon has married an estimated seventy-five women with whom he fathered at least sixty-five children; several of his wives were given to him in marriage when they were fourteen or fifteen and he was in his eighties. His sermons frequently stress the need for total submission. "I want to tell you that the greatest freedom you can enjoy is in obedience," he has preached. "Perfect obedience produces perfect faith.”
Comparing this with the Muslim concept of freedom as “perfect slavery,” we see an eerie similarity. Both systems remove the power of choice from individuals who are most often born into the system rather than having chosen it originally. Both seek obedience through coercion, threats and fear. Both construct crude clan systems that militate against the state by claiming the loyalty of believers first and foremost. Both systems set up a state within a state and claim legal authority over territory and believers.
For women, being born into polygamy is to be born into slavery. The individual will of women over their most basic life choices is utterly coerced. Young girls are often incestuously abused by male family members and then married off to much older men, who must (one would imagine) enjoy the thrill of coercing young women into strict obedience in every particular. And along with polygamy comes arranged marriage in both Muslim and Mormon polygamous populations. 
Again I say, to take away a woman’s basic right to pursue happiness, to love and be loved, to find her own place in the world and to develop her own gifts and talents; this is more than tyranny. This is unconscionable slavery. And it is happening in America, Europe and the UK with surprising impunity.
Turning to another form of abuse; this time the abuse of the good will and resources of the state according to Krakauer:
Polygamy is illegal in both Utah and Arizona. To avoid prosecution, typically men in Colorado City will legally marry only the first of their wives; subsequent wives, although "spiritually married" to their husband by Uncle Rulon, thus remain single mothers in the eyes of the state. This has the added benefit of allowing the enormous families in town to qualify for welfare and other forms of public assistance. Despite the fact that Uncle Rulon and his followers regard the governments of Arizona, Utah, and the United States as Satanic forces out to destroy the UEP, their polygamous community receives more than $6 million a year in public funds.

More than $4 million of government largesse flows each year into the Colorado City public school district—which, according to the Phoenix New Times, "is operated primarily for the financial benefit of the FLDS Church and for the personal enrichment of FLDS school district leaders." Reporter John Dougherty determined that school administrators have "plundered the district's treasury by running up thousands of dollars in personal expenses on district credit cards, purchasing expensive vehicles for their personal use and engaging in extensive travel. The spending spree culminated in December {2002}, when the district purchased a $220,000 Cessna 210 airplane to facilitate trips by district personnel to cities across Arizona."

Colorado City has received $1.9 million from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to pave its streets, improve the fire department, and upgrade the water system. Immediately south of the city limits, the federal government built a $2.8 million airport that serves almost no one beyond the fundamentalist community. In 2002, seventy-eight percent of the town's residents living on the Arizona side of the state received food stamps. Currently the residents of Colorado City receive eight dollars in government services for every dollar they pay in taxes; by comparison, residents in the rest of Mohave County, Arizona, receive just over a dollar in services per tax dollar paid.

"Uncle Rulon justifies all that assistance from the wicked government by explaining that really the money is coming from the Lord," says DeLoy Bateman. "We're taught that it's the Lord's way of manipulating the system to take care of his chosen people." Fundamentalists call defrauding the government "bleeding the beast" and regard it as a virtuous act.
Posted on 02/26/2016 2:29 PM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 26 February 2016
Feminist Terminology 4: Structural Violence - TFF Episode 26

Posted on 02/26/2016 10:00 AM by David Solway
Friday, 26 February 2016
Revolution in 2016?

“If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable.” - JFK


The probability that any American political candidate will propose any “revolutionary” domestic reforms in 2016 is slim to none. Even means testing for entitlements is anathema across the American political spectrum.

Nonetheless, Bernie Sanders promises a “revolution” in November. What he really means, if elected, is more of the same, only bigger - more taxes, more spending, and more redistribution of other people’s money.

American politicians of both parties posture, pander, and prosper on the supply side of entitlements. If there is to be real difference among 2016 candidates, variations are likely to be found mostly in foreign/military policy, not social programs.

Foreign policy is, and always has been, the existential consideration. Indeed, we could argue that it, and apathy on the right, defeated Mitt Romney in 2012. Recall that during the last series of party debates, whenever candidate Obama mentioned terror, war, or  foreign policy, candidate Romney’s stock response was, “me too.”

Of all prospects in 2016, Donald Trump represents a clear potential departure from decades of foreign policy malpractice.

Beyond the bluster and bombast, Trump is substantially different on several existential issues: Israel, Islam, jihad, Russia, and immigration to name the most obvious. No small coincidence that all these hot buttons are related in important ways.

Trump prospects in 2016 are still iffy, but more than any other candidate, right or left, he has reset the foreign/military policy table.


Trump’s loud support for Israel is not without hiccups. Most American Jews identify with the Democrat Party and the American left. Nonetheless, Trump has been outspoken in siding with Likud policies and Israeli politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump is also outspoken in his criticism of Israel’s Shia and Sunni enemies alike. The Iran nuclear agreement and any “two state” Palestinian deal are unlikely to make any Trump “to do” list.

Trump likely sees Israel as the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine, the lone civilized democracy in a very bad Muslim neighborhood. Wither Israel, so goes the Mideast – and probably Europe. Compared to team Obama’s neglect, if not hostility, Trump’s Israel policy is likely to be a sea change.

And in the global propaganda war, Donald Trump is unlikely to allow State, CIA, DOD, or National Security Council apparatchiks to define what is or is not “Islamic.”


Donald Trump doesn’t seem to have any illusions about the politics of Islam and the host of related problems associated with toxic politicized religion: problems like terror, small wars, war crimes, human rights atrocities, and the 5th Column potential of so-called “migrants.” Most significant is Trump’s willingness to call a spade a spade. He actually uses words like “Islam” and “Muslim” to describe national security threats.

Trump’s candor infers that he believes that jihadist Islam knows why it fights, while America and Europe do not. The call to “make America great again” implies Trump believes that America has lost faith, preeminence, and a sense of purpose. Oblique as it may be, Mr. Trump’s political logic has become the lodestone for Yankee angst in 2016.


Withal, Trump’s take on those Muslim small wars is a mixed bag. He seems to think the Afghanistan tar baby was a good investment, but Iraq was a “disaster.” In fact, both ongoing theaters of war are American quagmires where progress is elusive and Muslim native “allies” do not fight – at least not fight well.

Trump is closer to truth on the handling of 9/11 where the Bush regime failed and then repatriated a host of likely Saudi Sunni culprits before an investigation could even begin. The 9/11 disaster was the worst warning failure since WWII and yet the then NSA chief, Michael Hayden, was promoted by President Bush in the wake of failure.

Rewarding tactical, operational, and strategic failure now seems to be an American national security meme. Trump made “you’re fired” the buzzwords of a decade. If he brings that ethic to office, fear and loathing amongst national security elites in Brussels and Washington is understandable.

Saudi Arabia and the Emirates still provide sanctuary, succor, and finance to the growing theofascist mutation that underwrites jihad, small wars, and Muslim terror worldwide. For the moment, America is allied with the worst of Islam: Iran, Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan.

Given the American treasure and lives invested in liberating Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and now Syria; Trump’s suggestion to seize and hold ground wealth to pay for Muslim wars and counter terror operations is spot on. Oil and opium pay for mosques, madrassas, toxic ideology, and the swords of Islam. Fighting Islamic propaganda and petro-terror with Arab or Muslim oil money would be a brilliant, if not game changing, policy.

The Russian Air Force and the Kurdish army are now in the process of cutting the fiscal throats of a corrupt Turkish regime and the genocidal Islamic State. The Russian/Syrian/ Kurd coalition has done more damage to imperial Sunni Islam in a few months than the American mythic “60 state” coalition has done in 20 years.


American policy towards Israel, now Russia, is a kind of contemporary political penis envy. The West now resents decisive and successful leaders like Netanyahu and Putin simply because they are strong men with a clear vision of their national interests.

Europe and America, in contrast, have been captured by a generation of effete, dithering social democrats where emotional issues undermine security, achievement, and military success. Open borders is an example. Indeed, American and European weakness has made the modern, passive and aggressive, Muslim crusades possible. The West can’t say no to imperial Islam. And the jihadist wolf in Islamabad, Tehran, and Riyadh can’t say no to easy pickings either.

Muslim apologetics, compassionate intervention, regime change, and open borders are all symptoms of a West hijacked by clueless bleeding hearts in Brussels and Washington. Humanitarian intervention is a 21st Century oxymoron.

Donald Trump says he can do business with Vladimir Putin. We should hope so. The Obama Cold War over Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, or Syria is a policy driven by personal demonization not ground truth. Good relations with Russia are essential to any prospect of success in Eastern Europe, the Muslim world, or outer space for that matter.

Trump, unlike the Pentagon, does not consider Russia to be a major national security threat to NATO or America. Nonetheless, the chimera of an aggressive Kremlin today serves two purposes for both American political parties: military spending and a continuing excuse to change the subject, avoid confronting Shia and Sunni Islam as the global existential threats.


Muslim migration is one of two things; a humanitarian crisis or the second wave of imperial Islam, a cultural blitzkrieg. Neither Europe nor America can decide which. Impaled on a moral dilemma of its own making, Brussels and Washington have accepted open borders by default. Concurrently, there are few open borders in the Ummah. Trump says that unvetted Muslim immigration is an evolving disaster. If national sovereignty and national security are still virtues, he is correct.

A hiatus on Muslim immigration pending rigorous vetting and improved border control facilities is simple common sense. Acknowledged or not, the Islamic world is the nexus of modern global instability. Chaos, terror, sedition, and religious fascism are now Islam’s primary cultural exports.

The Ummah problem is both jihad and religious ideology. Islam is at war with the world, but only ayatollahs, imams, and gadflies like Netanyahu and Trump seem to acknowledge that reality.

Donald Trump often obscures intimations of policy with bombast, bad manners, and broad strokes. Fortunately, Trump is running for commander-in-chief, not Secretary of State. He defends the absence of specifics so as not to telegraph his punches. Indeed, the telegraphed punch has become a battle standard of hapless team Obama in the Levant and South Asia. If Trump does nothing else in 2016, his broad policy strokes may herald a pragmatic and much needed revolution in 21st Century American foreign/military affairs.

Often, the ship of state must come about before it can fire for effect. Policy wonks, Shia ayatollahs and Sunni imams can wait for the details.


G. Murphy Donovan writes about the politics of national security. He is the former Director for Research and Russian (nee Soviet) Studies at USAF Intelligence.


Posted on 02/26/2016 9:44 AM by G. Murphy Donovan
Friday, 26 February 2016
Once Again, Polygamous Leader Indicted, But Not For Polygamy
When, or when, will officials enforce our laws against polygamy? Why is this blatant abuse of women and children allowed to continue? The arrest was for food stamp fraud.
Posted on 02/26/2016 9:34 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Friday, 26 February 2016
Prosecutor Confirms: Alberto Nisman Was Murdered

Jewish Press:

Ricardo Sáenz, the prosecutor at the Buenos Aires Criminal Appeals Court, on Thursday insisted that the probe into the mysterious death last January of Alberto Nisman, the chief investigator of the 1994 car bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) in Buenos Aires, which killed 85, be handled by federal judicial authorities. Sáenz confirmed that Nisman’s death was a homicide, the Buenos Aires Herald reported.

In a ruling presented to the Appeals Court, Sáenz supported the hypothesis of the plaintiffs in the case, Nisman’s daughters, his ex-wife Sandra Arroyo Salgado, and his mother and sister, arguing the case could no longer be handled by Judge Fabiana Palmaghini, who took over the probe from prosecutor Viviana Fein last December. He insisted the investigation required a federal magistrate.

“The procedural action in this case according to the evidence produced until now is the hypothesis that Alberto Nisman was the victim of a homicide,” the prosecutor said, and mentioned Diego Lagomarsino, the IT engineer who worked with Nisman at the AMIA special unit, and was the source of the .22 caliber Bersa gun that ended Nisman’s life.

Alberto Nisman was found dead in a pool of blood in his bathroom with a bullet in his head on January 18, 2015.

Nisman was appointed Special Prosecutor in charge of the AMIA bombing investigation on September 13, 2004. The probe into the 1994 terrorist attack against the AMIA had been marked by judicial misconduct, and was at an impasse. On October 25, 2006, Nisman formally accused the government of Iran of directing the AMIA bombing, and the Hezbollah militia of carrying it out. The theory was that Argentina had been targeted by Iran as punishment for its decision to suspend a nuclear technology sale to Tehran. In November 2007, Interpol published the names of six individuals officially accused for their role in the terrorist attack: Imad Fayez Moughnieh, Ali Fallahijan, Mohsen Rabbani, Ahmad Reza Asghari, Ahmad Vahidi and Mohsen Rezaee.

In 2008 Nisman asked to arrest former president Carlos Menem, along with Judge Juan José Galeano, who first presided over the AMIA case until his removal in 2004. WikiLeaks revealed that US diplomats considered that Nisman may have done it as a gesture to new President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, since he was seeking the post of Argentina’s General Prosecutor.

In January 2015, Nisman accused President Kirchner, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and other politicians of covering up the roles of Iranian suspects in the case, in exchange for Iranian business. The charge was based on wire tap reports of meetings of Kirchner’s people with Mohsen Rabbani, a former cultural attaché at Iran’s embassy in Buenos Aires.

Nisman’s body was discovered on the day he was supposed to appear before a parliamentary committee to present his case against the president (who has since lost her post).

Posted on 02/26/2016 8:41 AM by Norman Berdichevsky
Friday, 26 February 2016
Do Criminals Perform a Valuable Economic Function?
Economics is a difficult subject and I don't understand it. Take armed robbery, for example: does it stimulate or retard the economy?
The question arose in my mind when I went with my neighbour recently to a jeweller's shop. My neighbour wanted his expensive watch repaired but to enter the shop we had to pass through a kind of airlock entrance as if we were being scanned or decontaminated. We talked to the jeweller who pointed also to the rapid-descent bullet proof screens which operated at the touch of a button and which had been installed at the insistence of an insurance company that refused to insure the shop further unless they were installed.
This was after a spate of armed robberies of jewellers' shop around the country, including in this shop. The manager had been held at gunpoint and described how he had been down on the floor with the gun held in his chest for what seemed to him like fifteen minutes, but which CCTV recordings showed to have been for just over a minute. 
The robbers of his shop had been an Estonian gang that struck twice in six weeks. They were ex-soldiers with training in the use of guns, and I suspected (on the firm grounds of prejudice) that they must have been Russian Estonians rather than Estonian Estonians. At the time of the robberies there was one such robbery being carried out every week somewhere in the country.
The counter-measures insisted upon by the insurance company cost upwards of £100,000: '£100,000 straight out of profits,' said the manager ruefully. But perhaps he should have said 'Out of our profits,' for of course the profits of the company or companies that made the anti-robbery equipment would be increased. Some economists, at any rate, are fond of referring to the multiplier-effect of public expenditure; why not, then, the multiplier-effect of armed robbery?
As to the insurance company's attitude to armed robbery, it must surely resemble that of St Augustine equivocal attitude to chastity. Let armed robbery cease, by all means, but not just yet, or at least not totally, for it increases insurance premiums at the usual margin of profit. Indeed, where would insurance companies be without crime? As Émile Durkeim, the great French sociologist said, criminals perform a valuable function in society, though he did not mention their valuable services to the insurance industry. He thought that they exercised a unifying effect on non-criminal society, a bit like (in Britain) the NHS. 
First published in Salisbury Review.
Posted on 02/26/2016 8:32 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Showing 31-46 of 180 [Previous 15] [Next 15]

Pre-order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!

Order at Amazon or Amazon!

Order at Amazon or Amazon UK

Amazon donates to World Encounter Institute Inc when you shop at #AmazonSmile #StartWithaSmile



Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew Harrod (4) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bill Corden (3) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (865) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (627) Daniel Mallock (5) David J. Baldovin (1) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Dexter Van Zile (74) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (8) Esmerelda Weatherwax (9819) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (73) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (164) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (330) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (17) Hugh Fitzgerald (21226) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (24) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janice Fiamengo (1) jeffrey burghauser (1) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2517) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (3) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (6) John M. Joyce (392) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Hanson (1) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (29) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (2) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (44) Matthew Stewart (1) Michael Curtis (685) Michael Rechtenwald (27) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2590) New English Review Press (100) Nidra Poller (73) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (148) Rebecca Bynum (7208) Reg Green (2) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Samuel Chamberlain (1) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (30) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (901) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (32) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
Site Archive