Filed under: Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Japan, Military, National Security, Russia, The United States, United Kingdom, World War II | Tags: Six Years at War, The World At War, Why we Must Know History
Here’s a fascinating lecture by Victor Davis Hanson on why World War II matters. It ended 71 years ago, ancient history. The very last of those who served in the war are nearly all gone, and even those who really remember are passing on. How do we make those to whom it is ancient history, who may not even know who was fighting or why they were fighting or why it matters understand?
Dr. Hanson, Central Valley farmer, college professor, military historian, columnist, author and fellow at the Hoover Institution is presented here by the Hillsdale College History Department. Enjoy. It’s well worth your time.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Freedom, Intelligence, Military, National Security, Syria, Terrorism, The United States, United Kingdom | Tags: A Shot From a Mile Away, Britain's Special Air Service, ISIS Executioner Executed
In Sunday’s news:” A British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barrett 50-caliber rifle to strike the fuel tank affixed to the executioner’s back.”
The shot, made from nearly a mile away, exploded the fuel tank killing the terrorist and three of his flunkies just before the jihadist was about to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower. The ISIS butcher had been on a US “kill list” for several months. He apparently delighted in burning hostages alive, tied to stakes or thrown in cages before being torched.
The flunkies who were killed were a film crew planning to film the executions for recruiting purposes.
British and American Special Forces rescued the eight men and four women who were about to be murdered.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Election 2016, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Immigration, Intelligence, Iran, Islam, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Fifth Century Barbarians, Hatred Spelled Out, Why They Hate Us
ISIS publishes a glossy magazine to spread their propaganda called Dabiq. Issue 15 is entitled BREAK THE CROSS.
The debate about the fault lines in American and Western politics has concerned whether jihadist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are motivated by their religion or by politics, more specifically, by grievances against Western Foreign policy. Some insist that Islamic doctrine is the basis of their violence, others insist that such groups are not truly Islamic, but are instead using the guise of religion to lash out against Western influence and intervention. A recent issue of Dabiq settles the question.
American scholar Raymond Ibrahim has “sought to translate and publish al-Qaeda’s internal communiqués to fellow Muslims side by side with al-Qaeda’s communiqués to the West to show the stark differences in tone and purpose. The volume is The Al Qaeda Reader, in which he proves that radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances, but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith.”
In a recent article from Dabiq titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You” the Islamic State offers six reasons, but Reason number one says it all:
We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone'” (Al-Mumtahanah 4 [i.e., Quran 60:4]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option [“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims [per Quran 9:29].
This is completely plain, and grounded in Islam’s traditional worldview. Unrelenting hatred fuels their jihad — not grievances. Islam commands Muslims to hate non-Muslims. Hard for Westerners to comprehend.” In Osama bin Laden’s communiqués to the West he stressed the idea that al-Qaeda’s war was entirely based on Western foreign policies detrimental to Islam; cease those and terrorism would cease.” A great many Western leaders accepted al-Qaeda’s lies and “it became the default answer to the tired question “why do they hate us?”
So, plain and simple — there it is.
Last November, Hillary Clinton tweeted that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Europe, European Union, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Law, National Security, Progressives, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: A Borderless World, Controlled Borders or, The European Union
Americans have watched the influx of millions of young, Muslim, and mostly male refugees into a European Union poorly prepared to deal with them. The European Union, envisioned as sort of a United States of Europe, has been troubled from the start with an oversupply of political correctness. The Schengen Area agreements which gave free rights of movement within Europe were not planned to deal with the migrants or their numbers. A popular revolt has arisen. Europeans apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the extent that they arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook, and they are learning that their own values and outlook are quite different from what prevails in the Middle East or North Africa.
President Obama has effectively planted a big welcome sign on our Southern border. Since 2012, the U.S. has essentially quit policing the border entirely. He has, by executive order, reduced the requirements for citizenship, scattered illegals across the country inflicting hundreds of new students on unprepared school districts. This has directly led to the rise of Donald Trump and his “great big wall.” It may be as much that someone is finally taking notice of the problem, as the actuality of a promised wall. Victor Davis Hanson, whose home is in California’s great Central Valley has written often about immigration and its resulting problems. He wrote yesterday:
Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term “illegal alien” has given way to the nebulous “unlawful immigrant.” This, in turn, has given way to “undocumented immigrant,” “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant”—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.
Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants. …
Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a “citizen of the world.” Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside and that the higher the fence goes (“higher and stronger,” the Secret Service promises), the more of a deterrent it will be to would-be trespassers. If Obama’s previous wall was six feet high, the proposed 11 feet should be even better.
It’s a long article, but very worth your time. Dr. Hanson has clearly given the matter of borders a great deal of thought.
Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Economics, Economy, Europe, European Union, Politics, United Kingdom
Daniel Hannan is a British politician, author, and Member of the European Parliament representing South East England, who will, I guess, shortly be losing his job to BREXIT, which I believe he favored. Here he is clearing the air a little, about the wonders of socialism.
He is a very clear speaker, and I wouldn’t want to be on the opposing side of a debate with him. Good guy, always interesting.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Domestic Policy, Europe, Freedom, The Constitution | Tags: Free Speech, King Willem-Alexander, The Netherlands
In Holland, a 44-year-old man has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for intentionally insulting King Willem-Alexander, according to a court ruling. The man, from the city of Kampen, had posted a message on his Facebook page in April, 2015 calling the king a murderer, rapist, “oppressor” and thief.
“Hereby the defendant damaged the dignity of the King,” wrote judge Sylvia Taalman in her decision. “This behaviour is not acceptable in our society.”
Many Dutch consider the law “Insulting the Majesty” to be an antiquated relic that should be scrapped, but it has never featured high on the country’s political agenda.
The crime carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of 20,000 euros.
The royal family is generally popular in the Netherlands. Willem-Alexander ascended to the throne in 2013 when his mother Queen Beatrix abdicated. She had reigned for 33 years. The King is not yet as highly regarded as his mother.
It seems worthwhile reminding Americans that free speech isn’t free everywhere, and that our Constitutional rights are worth fighting for. Democrats, naturally, oppose any free speech that criticizes them, or disagrees with their ideas—which are, of course, right, and should be recognized as correct.
Just think how many people would be in prison here, if our comments on social media were monitored for “offensiveness.”esson in