Friday, July 29, 2016

Donald Trump and Noblesse Oblige in Politics - Salim Mansur

by Salim Mansur

The nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party as its standard bearer for the 2016 election displays the utter disdain the “ruling class” holds for the American people

For an outsider striving to make sense of American politics watching the choreographed conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia, the best short introduction to the subject is Angelo M. Codevilla’s The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It (2010). Since its publication I have recommended this monograph, that might easily be read at one sitting, to my students interested in getting a hold of contemporary American politics, and an insight as to why Americans are so greatly discontented with the direction in which their country is headed.

A “ruling class” is a self-perpetuating entity made up of people separated from the rest, as Codevilla reminds his readers, by shared values of privileges and entitlements that give them a sense of superiority to decide for others how their lives should be managed. Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who wrote the most celebrated book on American democracy, would not be surprised in reading Codevilla for he foresaw and forewarned that no free republic could be insulated indefinitely against the corrupting tendencies of fallen human nature.

According to Codevilla, “Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind.” And since the 2008 election no Republican leader in the Congress challenged the assumptions of the Democrats and defeated their policies has meant, therefore, that “the Ruling Class has a party: the Democrats.”

The disdain with which the “ruling class” looks upon the rest is somewhat tolerable as long as that disdain is well disguised by hypocrisy. But eventually the disguise crumbles given the certitude and arrogance that characterize the self-regard of the “ruling class.” We might be witnessing something of this as Americans head into their November election.

The nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party as its standard bearer for the 2016 election displays the utter disdain the “ruling class” holds for the American people. Here is a nominee who barely escaped indictment by the FBI for gross negligence in how she mishandled classified information while serving as secretary of state, apart from her long and dismaying history of questionable judgments and conduct in public life and in her role as first lady.

If Americans, or at least a majority of them, have not completely lost their own self-regard as a free people then the November election should turn out to be a referendum on the “ruling class”, and a massive repudiation of Hillary Clinton’s sense of entitlement to be the first woman elected President of the United States. It is not unlikely that such an outcome in the November election is in the making given how the most improbable candidate in recent American politics, Donald Trump, won handily the Republican nomination as an outsider.

Whatever the outcome in November, the most fascinating story in American politics at least since the end of the Cold War is the emergence of Trump as the standard bearer of the GOP in the 2016 presidential election. His candidacy was derided by just about everyone commenting on American politics when Trump announced in June 2015 he would seek the Republican nomination. But that Trump eventually defied all odds in winning the nomination had as much to do with his own larger than life persona as a business tycoon from New York City, as it had to do with the “Trump phenomenon” or the rising tide of support he received from common Americans who had become thoroughly disgusted with how their republic has been abused by the “ruling class.”

One of the key assumptions of the American “ruling class” is, as Codevilla writes, “that its members are the best and brightest, while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained.” A people long abused by such disdain will have their revenge, and Hillary as a representative of the “ruling class” is woefully lacking in charm and warmth that might have been compensated by her political career if it was not as riddled by questions of impropriety and misconduct.

But Trump has been subject to fierce criticisms by many members of his own party, despite his winning the Republican nomination. To his critics he is an untrustworthy representative of those “conservative” values –- limited government, low taxes, free trade, globalism, open borders, internationalism in terms of defending freedom abroad and nation-building –- that seemingly came to define Republicans in the post-Reagan era. But to his supporters, especially common working-class Americans in fly-over country, Trump’s robust call for “America first” as the core-driving principle of his views on trade, immigration, security, and jobs is what made for the “Trump phenomenon.”  

There is another side to the “Trump phenomenon” –- the seemingly unbreakable bond that Trump has forged with his supporters across America –- that has been insufficiently noted or, perhaps, is more clearly visible when American politics is observed from the outside. I mean by this a sense of noblesse oblige that is perceptible in understanding the support, or even affection, of working class Americans for Trump as a business tycoon and an outsider in politics seeking to be their president.

It was said of Franklin Roosevelt that his politics could best be described not in terms of ideology, but as one driven by a sense of noblesse oblige. This idea is rarely considered and will likely be dismissed as sentimentalism, when politics is viewed more or less under prevalent circumstances as cynical exploitation of the weak and the uninformed for personal or class interests.

The idea of noblesse oblige is that with immense wealth and its privileges come a sense of responsibility towards society and people, of returning in some gratitude what a person of such wealth owes them in public life.

During the past hundred years and more since the turn of the last century there have been three individuals elected to reside in the White House who were born into wealth, the two Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin, and John Kennedy. They entered politics driven in part by the sense that they owed their country service in terms of leadership given their good fortune. Their wealth gave them advantage in politics their opponents did not possess, most important of which was that they were not personally beholden to any special interest to gain and maintain office.

But also what stood out in their politics, despite the different circumstances when they sought the highest office, was the manner in which they identified themselves with the interests of the working class. They spoke for the less advantaged, for the poor, the unemployed, the sick and the hungry, and in defending them they became politically unbeatable by opponents who were seen lacking in those qualities of human warmth, decency, courage, and generosity that made the Roosevelts and Kennedy so irresistibly charming to average Americans in their time.

Trump is seen by his supporters as the first blue-collar billionaire. They see him as their champion and defender of their country’s interests without being beholden to any special interest group. His political slogan “Make America Great Again” resonates with the average hard working patriotic Americans, and it is not sentimental or corny to them as it sounds to the sophisticates in the media and in the academia or those who emulate the “ruling class.”
The whimsicality of Trump’s behavior in public, which grates upon those who see him as a boor or a bully, ironically endears him to that largest segment of the American public that gets ridiculed or punished by political correctness regulated and imposed by the “ruling class.” How much of Trump’s whimsicality is an act or a character trait might be endlessly debated between his supporters and his opponents, while wealth insulates him among those who count as voters as wealth insulated the Roosevelts and Kennedy.

Then there are the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, and the record of their public and private lives. Americans have watched Clintons in public life for the past three decades, and many will recall how they have grimaced hearing or reading some of the sordid stories involving them while they acquired wealth in elected office.

Americans are generally aware of self-aggrandizement of the Clintons, of Bill’s exploitation of women and Hillary’s cover up of her husband’s sex crimes, of the lies Clintons tell and the sort of casualness Hillary displays whether answering questions about Benghazi or how she would put coal miners out of work.

Clintons are the embodiment of the consummate political insider in Washington deeply distrusted by a majority of Americans. They are members and beneficiaries of the “ruling class” that, as Codevilla reminds his readers, “has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and a ballooning debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Hence, in recent years, Americans’ conviction that the Ruling Class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified.”

In contrast Trump is not only an outsider, he is a business tycoon who has nothing personal to gain except stand at the receiving end of relentless abuse from the surrogates of the “ruling class” for the threat he poses to their interests. So why has Trump walked on to the political stage to subject himself to their slings and arrows of outrage, smear, and insults?

For cynics, Trump is one of them cynically exploiting the political discontent of Americans for his own profit. But for middle America that Trump is responding to the distress call of his country as a patriot is an act they can relate to, since they have done the same in their capacity as patriots whenever their country was in distress.

If this simple notion that noblesse oblige has motivated Trump to seek the presidency and help fix America’s problems spreads among common Americans, he will be unbeatable in November as were once the Roosevelts and Kennedy in their time.

Salim Mansur teaches in Western University, London, Ontario and is author of the award winning book Delectable Lie: a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

There are other voices in Europe - Ariel Bolstein

by Ariel Bolstein

The difference between what people on the street think and what is presented by the media elite as the "right opinion" has never been greater.

The doctors of late singer Meir Ariel recommended, as his song Terminal Lominelt tells, a monthly visit to the airport. By the same token, I would recommend that those complaining about Israel's international isolation visit an English pub from time to time, preferably outside of London. While every pub has a television or two, the patrons' opinions about Israel will, for the most part, be very different from what we've become accustomed to hearing on international media networks. 

"Way to go, Jews! Respect! You are succeeding in dealing with all the troubles that Europe is bowing to," said Dale, who sat at the bar at a Manchester pub, immediately after he realized that I am Israeli. His enthusiasm was so great that he gathered the rest of the patrons around us and asked them how to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. And let's just say that the responses were taken from the extreme Right of our political spectrum. After another round of beers, it became clear that there were people of different backgrounds at the bar -- academics, like Dale, manual laborers, Conservatives, Labour Party voters, those who were happy about Britain's exit from the European Union and those who were against it. But everyone supported Israel, without exception. And I asked about the future of Jerusalem -- everyone wanted it to remain in Jewish hands. 

Surprisingly, the same consensus repeated itself at dozens of other pubs that I visited during my two weeks in England and Scotland. Many of my conversation partners even apologized for the British media's completely different attitude. "Here, you hear what people really think," one man told me at a small country pub in northern Scotland. "And there," he pointed at the television screen," There, they will only tell you things that someone determined to be political norms."

This distinction between "here" and "there" is not only in Britain, but in all of Europe. The difference between what people on the street think and what is presented by the media elite as the "right opinion" has never been greater. This is the Europe that nobody talks about, and it is growing bigger and stronger each day. On days when there is an Islamist terrorist attack, it grows twice as much. This new Europe has no negative sentiment toward Israel. The opposite is true -- as the preaching in the pages of The Guardian newspaper about the supposed evils of the Israeli military continues, love for Israel grows in Britain's pubs. The pub-goers are beginning to understand: Israel is fighting the same enemy that sets off bombs in Brussels, slits throats in London and rams into crowds in Nice. 

A few years ago, Israel was for many Europeans the "bad seed" in the Middle East. Arab propaganda achieved a lot and managed to create a terrible image for Israel in certain European countries. But images are fluid, especially when they clash with reality. The reality of the culture war with extremist Islam is causing many Europeans to look at Israel as a preferred ally. 

This trend has not yet found expression in politics, because the political echelon in Europe follows behind the opinion of its voting public. Officials in Brussels were late to identify European voter disappointment in the European Union project, and now they are again late in identifying the public trend from resentment of Israel to admiration of it. Europe is on the verge of a major turning point. The reasons for the rising tides of change are not related to Israel, but Israel must be prepared to ride the waves. 

Ariel Bolstein is the founder of the Israel advocacy organization Faces of Israel.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey: Good News, Bad News - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

In a massive purge, the government sacked more than 60,000 civil servants from the military, judiciary, police, schools and academia, including 1,577 faculty deans who were suspended. More than 10,000 people have been arrested and there are serious allegations of torture.

  • Turkish prosecutors are investigating people who allege on social media that the coup attempt was in fact a hoax.
  • Witnesses told Amnesty International that captured military officers were raped by police, hundreds of soldiers were beaten, some detainees were denied food and water and access to lawyers for days. Turkish authorities also arrested 62 children and accused them of treason.
  • The good news is that the coup attempt failed and Turkey is not a third world dictatorship run by an unpredictable military general who loves to crush dissent. The bad news is that Turkey is run by an unpredictable, elected president who loves to crush dissent.
In 1853, John Russell quoted Tsar Nicholas I of Russia as saying that the Ottoman Empire was "a sick man -- a very sick man," in reference to the ailing empire's fall into a state of decrepitude. Some 163 years after that, the modern Turkish state follows in the Ottoman steps.

Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rule, was staggering between a hybrid democracy and bitter authoritarianism. After the failed putsch of July 15, it is being dragged into worse darkness. The silly attempt gives Erdogan what he wanted: a pretext to go after every dissident Turk. A witch-hunt is badly shattering the democratic foundations of the country.

Taking advantage of the putsch attempt, the Turkish government declared a state of emergency that will run for a period of three months, with an option to extend it for another quarter of a year. Erdogan, declaring the state of emergency, promised to "clean out the cancer viruses like metastasis" in the body called Turkey. With the move for a state of emergency, Turkey also suspended the European Convention on Human Rights, citing Article 15 of the Convention, which stipulates:
"In time of war or other public emergencies threatening the life of the nation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law."
Before July 15, civil liberties in Turkey were de facto in the deep freeze. Now they are de jure in the deep freeze.

On July 27, the Turkish military purged 1,684 officers, including 149 generals, on suspicion that they had links with Fethullah Gulen, a U.S.-based Muslim cleric who once was Erdogan's staunchest political ally but is now his biggest nemesis and the suspected mastermind of the coup attempt. On the same day, the government closed down three news agencies, 16 television stations, 23 radio stations, 45 newspapers, 15 magazines and 29 publishers on the same charges. Two days before those actions, warrants were issued for 42 journalists, as a part of an investigation against members of the "Fethullah [Gulen] terrorist organization."

Turkish police escort dozens of handcuffed soldiers, who are accused of participating in the failed July 15 coup d'état. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Under the state of emergency, it is dangerous in Turkey even to question whether July 15 was a fake coup orchestrated or tolerated by Erdogan for longer-term political gains. Turkish prosecutors are investigating people who allege on social media that the coup attempt was in fact a hoax. Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said that: "Anyone who suggests the coup attempt was staged 'likely had a role' in the insurrection." But there is more.

In a massive purge, the government sacked more than 60,000 civil servants from the military, judiciary, police, schools and academia, including 1,577 faculty deans who were suspended. More than 10,000 people have been arrested, and there are serious allegations of torture. Witnesses told Amnesty International that captured military officers were raped by police, hundreds of soldiers were beaten, and some detainees were denied food, water and access to lawyers for days. Turkish authorities also arrested 62 children and accused them of treason. The youngsters, aged 14 to 17, were from Kuleli Military School in Istanbul. The students have reportedly been thrown in jail and are not allowed to speak to their parents.

The witch-hunt is not in the governmental sector only. Several Turkish companies have fired hundreds of personnel suspected of having links with Gulen. Turkish Airlines, Turkey's national airline, fired 211 employees, including a vice-general manager and a number of cabin crew members.

Sadly, Turks had to choose between two unpleasant options: military dictatorship and elected dictatorship. The good news is that the coup attempt failed and Turkey is not a third-world dictatorship run by an unpredictable military general who loves to crush dissent. The bad news is that Turkey is run by an unpredictable, elected president who loves to crush dissent.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Islamist Terrorism, European Denial - Yves Mamou

by Yves Mamou

Hollande: "They attacked democracy," Hollande said, "democracy will be our shield."

  • Europeans have delegated to the State the exclusive right to use violence against criminals. But Europeans, especially in France and Germany, are discovering that some kind of "misunderstanding" seems actually to be at work. Their State, the one that has the monopoly on violence, does not want to be at war with its Islamist citizens and residents. Worse, the State gives off the feeling that it is afraid of its Muslim citizens.
  • "The concept of the rule of law means that the citizen is protected from the arbitrariness of the State. ... Currently, the rule of law protects the attackers above all". — Yves Michaud, French author and philosopher.
If a group of Jewish or Christian terrorists in Algeria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia had committed the same kind of stabbings, car-rammings, throat-slittings and shootings that France and Germany are suffering now, they would have provoked an immediate reaction. Tens of thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands -- of enraged Muslims would have rushed into the streets to kill, stab or eviscerate the first group of Jews or Christians they met. Within 24 hours, no church or synagogue would be able to open its doors: all of them would have been burned to cinders.

These words are not to stigmatize anyone; they are meant to explain what terrorists want. According to Gilles Kepel, professor at the Paris Institute of Political Studies and a specialist of Islam, "ISIS calls for stabbing dirty and evil French people... because they want to trigger a civil war." Muslim terrorists behind the wave of terrorist attacks apparently assume that thousands of French, Germans or Belgians will rush out into the streets, as they would do themselves, to kill, stab or eviscerate Muslims. Muslim sponsors of terrorism may not even be able to imagine that Europeans may not wish to participate in the pleasure of bloodthirsty riots.

The fact is that even if millions of Arabs and Muslims live in Europe today, Europeans are not Arabs and do not act as Arabs do. Westerners in Europe have delegated the "legitimate use of physical force" -- commonly, if controversially, known as the "monopoly on violence" -- to the State.

Max Weber, in his 1919 essay, "Politics as a Vocation", claims that the State is any "human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." In other words, Weber describes the State as any organization that succeeds in having the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory ("Gewaltmonopol des Staates").

For French and Germans citizens, the mission of the State is to fight Islamist terrorists -- harshly if necessary. But today, instead of the "legitimate violence" of the State, German and French citizens are encountering only denial. The State keeps denying that Islamist crimes are being openly committed in its territory. This denial comes in different forms:

1. The Real Victim is the Terrorist.
  • From Britain's BBC: "Syrian Migrant Dies in German Blast."
  • From Le Monde: "Germany: A Syrian Refugee Dies While Causing an Explosion in Front of a Restaurant in Bavaria" (Allemagne : un réfugié syrien meurt en provoquant une explosion devant un restaurant en Bavière). The headline (which has since been changed) is not about the diners in the restaurant who were targeted by the suicide bomber. The headline is about a victim, who is "the author of the explosion". This "victim" -- apparently only incidentally an Islamist criminal, according to this narrative -- may have had a good reason to seek revenge! He was, after all, "a Syrian refugee whose entry into Germany was denied by the administration." He was not deported for humanitarian reasons. The journalist barely mentions the 15 victims wounded, some severely, in the explosion. There is only one victim, the author of the suicide attack, which some journalists implied was not really a suicide attack, but maybe only a suicide. The man had history of psychiatric problems, after all.
  • According to the Wall Street Journal: "He was known to police and had been treated twice after trying to take his own life, Mr. Herrmann [the Bavarian Interior Minister] said. He was also known because of a previous drug misdemeanor, a police spokeswoman said."
In short, the killer is not a killer but a poor, sick, young man.

After a Muslim suicide bomber injured 15 people on July 24 in Germany, many media outlets rushed to portray the terrorist as the victim.

2. He Was Not an Islamist, Just a Lunatic. Ali Sonboly, the 18-year-old German-Iranian gunman who murdered nine people at a Munich shopping mall on July 25 may be an Islamist killer, but he was more surely psychotic. According to Reuters:
"Materials found at the gunman's home also showed he had been hospitalized for psychiatric care for three months around the same time, and was an avid player of violent video games, the officials told a news conference".
Immediately after the attack, officials said the murderer was not an Arab but an Iranian -- but that would simply make him a Shi'ite Muslim. According to Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian-American who converted to Christianity from Islam, "Sonboly is no Iranian. He is Syrian. His Facebook page showed that he is pro-Turkey's Islamists". However, even more bizarrely, some officials and media outlets said that Sonboly was inspired by the far-right Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik.

3. The Problem Is Not Islam or Islamism, but Too Many Guns on the Black Market. "German politicians have signaled that they will review the country's gun laws, after a troubled 18-year-old was able to use a 9mm handgun and amass 300 rounds of ammunition in a shooting that left nine dead in Munich," according to The Guardian.

4. The Victims Are Responsible for Their Own Murders. In Nice, France, after Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel murdered more than 80 people by driving a 19-ton truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, Julien Dray, a Socialist MP, said,
"The fireworks... It is a popular festival, there are families, children; it is often the only party that these children have, and so people are eager to go, and often checkpoints are removed to help the flow, because people do not want to wait, they want to leave, and that is unfortunately, is the time there may be a problem. "
5. The Attacker "Self-Radicalized" Rapidly. Even if the State is at fault, it found a good excuse to explain incompetence and lack of foresight: the terrorist "self-radicalized" so quickly that he was undetectable. The daily Le Figaro reported:
It seems that the perpetrator of the Nice attack "radicalized very quickly." Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve called it "a new type of attack" that "demonstrates the extreme difficulty of combating terrorism."
Cazeneuve added that Bouhlel, the Tunisian attacker, "was not known to the intelligence services."

6. ISIS Is Not Islamist; It Is a Right-Wing Organization. We can sleep soundly, we are advised. The terrorists, we are told, are not Islamists but Fascists. "In claiming to be part of Daesh [ISIS], the two assassins show once again the bloody nature of this right-wing sect with policies that are racist, anti-Semitic, sexist and homophobic," wrote SOS Racisme, an NGO financed by France's Socialist government in a bid to seduce Muslim voters.

No doubt the next attacks will produce new and interesting explanations of this type whose aim is to reassure people.

Europeans have delegated to the State the exclusive right to use violence against criminals. But Europeans, especially in France and Germany, are discovering that some kind of "misunderstanding" seems actually to be at work. Their State, the one that has the monopoly on violence, does not want to be at war with its Islamist citizens or residents. Worse, the State gives off the feeling that it is afraid of its Muslim citizens.

The question now is: if the State does not want to fight Islamists murderers; if the State does not want to shut down Salafist mosques, deport hate preachers, and break the alliance between Islamists and organized criminals in the no-go zones of France and Germany; if the only solution proposed by President François Hollande is to "remain united", unfortunately it will not work. "They attacked democracy," Hollande said, "democracy will be our shield."

But "national unity has no meaning when no serious measure is taken," wrote Yves Michaud, the French author and philosopher, on his Facebook page:
"The concept of the rule of law means that the citizen is protected from the arbitrariness of the State. The same legal barriers cannot be used to protect those who want to kill citizens and destroy the res publica [republic]. ... Currently, the rule of law protects the attackers above all".

Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump Dominates the DNC - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

The GOP candidate clearly frightens the Democrats to death.

PHILADELPHIA -- Democrats put in plenty of good words for Hillary Clinton during their convention yesterday but they focused most of their energy on trying to assassinate the character of Donald Trump.

The Left is now going after the Republican nominee with brass knuckles. The latest Democrat attack line accuses Trump of committing treason for asking Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton's mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States.

Meanwhile, the prospect of Democrat unity going into the November election fades with every passing hour. Hatred, discord, and disgust are everywhere. The Bernie Sanders people don't trust the Hillary Clinton people. The Hillary Clinton people are growing increasingly angry at a good chunk of the Bernie Sanders people for not falling in line and backing the nominee. Just as internal dissent is roiling the Republican Party, a civil war is brewing among Democrats. In the end most Democrats will probably support their nominee. The question is what fraction of the party will sit the election out, defect to Trump, or embrace the Green or Libertarian parties. The burning hatred of Hillary is still palpable in many state delegations.

All the convention talking points about how brilliant, kind, compassionate, visionary, selfless, humble, and tough Clinton is are wearing thin as the delegates keep clapping their hands like trained seals in the Wells Fargo Center. Democrats want to take the focus off Hillary, who is both a terrible candidate and a terrible person and throw the spotlight on the sometimes erratic Donald Trump.

That is the current state of the party that invented the politics of personal destruction and that during the Obama years has been laser-focused on fundamentally transforming, that is, destroying, what's left of America.

Amidst the continuing heatwave, delegates were still deeply divided, caught up in factional fights during Day Three of the Democratic National Convention here. Disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters were still protesting and booing during speeches Wednesday.

And on the way out the door Sanders stuck it to the party with which he briefly aligned himself. After getting what he wanted from Democrats, the self-described socialist abruptly announced he is leaving the party. Despite his pleas from the convention floor for party unity and an impassioned endorsement of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Sanders said at a Bloomberg News-hosted breakfast that he will return to the U.S. Senate as an Independent.

"I was elected an Independent," he told reporters.

So that apparently closes the book on Bernie's adventures in the Democratic Party.

The Trump-bashing fest was long and loud.

Newly minted vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine mocked Trump's frequent use of the phrase "believe me."

"You know who I don't trust? Donald Trump ... promises a lot. But you might have noticed, he has a habit of saying the same two words right after he makes his biggest promises ... Believe me," the colorless Kaine said.

Imitating Trump, Kaine said, "It's gonna be great -- believe me! We're gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it -- believe me! We're gonna destroy ISIS so fast -- believe me!"

"There's nothing suspicious in my tax returns -- believe me!"

Barack Obama showed up to boost Clinton and say goodbye to the party faithful.

The president mocked Trump for telling the truth about how bad Obama has made things in America. "America is already great," he said, adding "and our greatness does not depend on Donald Trump."

Using the "you think you're so smart, don't you?" rhetorical device, Obama ridiculed Trump, claiming the GOP standard-bearer is promising that "he alone can restore order."

A few minutes before Clinton came onstage and gave Obama a lasting full-body hug, the president called Trump a fascist but not in those words. The great homegrown demagogue from Chicagoland talked about how important it is to stop "homegrown demagogues" like Trump.

One of the most vehement attacks on Trump yesterday came from former New York mayor and media magnate Michael Bloomberg, a control freak who wants to confiscate guns and limit how much soda people can drink. Bloomberg had been considering running for the presidency himself but his candidacy never materialized.

Trump has generated "a well-documented record of bankruptcies and thousands of lawsuits," Bloomberg said. If Trump plans to run the presidency like a business, "God help us."

"I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making," Bloomberg said.

"He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence in the world, and make our communities less safe."

"The bottom line," he said, "is Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice. And we can't afford to make that choice." He called Trump "a dangerous demagogue."

Bloomberg said almost nothing about Clinton except to endorse her because she's "sane." He was booed when he scolded Democrats for being anti-business. "Many Democrats wrongly blame the private sector for our problems."

His Marxist successor as New York mayor, Bill de Blasio, boiled [down] his thoughts on Clinton and Trump to four adjectives for each. Clinton is "smart," "steady," "right," and "ready," while Trump is "reckless," "risky," "wrong," and "scary."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada grumbled that Trump and his running-mate Mike Pence "want to put insurance companies back in charge of your health." Of course Reid wants the government to assume total control over all Americans' health.

The most disturbing development yesterday was a new meme the Left introduced into the media echo chamber to slime Donald Trump.

CNN promoted a bald-faced untruth in the afternoon claiming that Trump encouraged Russia to hack Clinton's emails. It was a strange smear given that there are no emails left to hack. Clinton has acknowledged destroying more than 30,000 emails and all her illicit email servers are now presumably offline.

CNN's assault on the truth offers a window into how the mainstream media lies in order to promote its left-wing agenda. Even though Clinton is the candidate who appears to have violated national security laws with her insecure email servers, the media are now smearing Trump as soft of national security and sympathetic to Russia, or even worse, as a traitor.

In fact Trump belongs to the foreign policy realism school. Just as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher said Mikhail Gorbachev was a man they could deal with, Trump has said that he reckons he can deal with Vladimir Putin. That hardly makes Trump a Russophile.

The lie appears to have originated with the New York Times. The newspaper reported on its website that "Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, essentially encouraging an adversarial foreign power to cyberspy on a secretary of state’s correspondence."

Trump said no such thing.

What Trump actually told reporters at a presser in Florida was, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

From there the lie spread around the world at lightning speed.

Of course the lie became a talking point on the convention stage in Philadelphia. Intelligence community speakers Leon Panetta and John Hutson ran with it.

Panetta, who used to be CIA director and secretary of defense, upbraided Trump for "once again" siding with Russia.

"He asked the Russians to engage in American politics. Think about that for a moment. Donald Trump is asking one of our adversaries to engage in hacking or intelligence efforts against the United States to affect our election. As someone who was responsible for protecting our nation from cyberattacks, it is inconceivable to me that any presidential candidate would be that irresponsible. Donald Trump cannot become our Commander-in-Chief."

Panetta said Clinton is "determined to defeat those who threaten us today: ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab," and take on these terrorists "who pervert the teachings of Islam to kill innocent people going about their daily lives."

He received only polite applause. As he continued talking about foreign policy, antiwar delegates gave him a hard time, repeatedly interrupting him by chanting "no more war."

Convention organizers punished the unruly delegates by turning off the lights over their
seating area. The antiwar delegates protested the darkness by holding up smartphone lights.

Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, one of the few military leaders foolish enough to believe in Hillary Clinton's leadership abilities, attacked Trump, repeating the lie about Russian hacking.

"Donald Trump calls himself the 'law and order candidate,' but he'll violate international law," Hutson said. "In his words, he endorses torture 'at a minimum.' He'll order our troops to commit war crimes like killing civilians ... This morning, he personally invited Russia to hack us. That's not law and order. That's criminal."

CNN easily wins the award for most slanted, obviously biased cable TV coverage of the convention.
Early Thursday morning, a panel hosted by Don Lemon blasted Trump, repeating the lie over and over again that he asked Russia to hack its way into Clinton's emails.

The slippery Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a man who lies for a living, said it was "mindboggling" that Trump would invite Russia to get involved in the American electoral process.

Bakari Sellers, identified as a Hillary Clinton supporter, went farther than Sherman, saying Trump is committing "treason."

But the fact is that Clinton's behavior more closely approaches the definition of treason.

It wasn't that long ago that FBI Director James Comey said in essence that Clinton’s email adventures violated the Espionage Act but then refused to recommend the former top U.S. diplomat be prosecuted for her crimes.

With her hacker-friendly private email servers that appear to have been penetrated by foreign intelligence agencies, Clinton is now in the company of Aaron Burr, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden all of whom betrayed the public trust.

The congenitally corrupt Clintons created the clandestine communications system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requesters, shield Hillary's correspondence from congressional oversight, and steer money to the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which, amazingly enough, still enjoys tax-exempt status.

The offsite email servers Clinton used while at the State Department are at the heart of the scandal over her mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.

Left-wingers love to yell during speeches because they are ruled by emotion, not reason. Many of their addresses sound like incitements to riot. They turn the volume up to 11 because they think that makes them more persuasive.

A case in point is Vice President Joe Biden, who walked onto the stage to the theme song from Rocky and received a rock star's welcome from the crowd.

In a speech that mostly consisted of screaming, he called President Obama "the embodiment of honor, resolve, and character" and lauded Clinton, saying she "gets it."

"Everyone knows she's smart, everyone knows she's tough, but I know what she's passionate about," he said. "I know Hillary."

When he slammed Trump he spoke mostly in hushed tones. Biden said "his cynicism is unbounded."

Like other speakers he attacked Trump for giving what he characterized as pessimistic speeches -- speeches that conservatives know are merely realistic assessments of the deep and lasting damage the Obama administration has wrought on the culture, rule of law, economy, and civil society.

"We cannot elect a man who exploits our fears of ISIS and other terrorists who has no plan whatsoever to make us safer, a man who embraces the tactics of our enemies," said Biden. "Donald Trump, with all his rhetoric, would literally make us less safe."

The Democratic Party effortlessly attracts Hollywood celebrities. It takes them for granted. Like the first two days of the convention, the stars came out.

Actors Sigourney Weaver and Angela Bassett spoke and Lenny Kravitz performed.

A group of entertainers appeared on the stage to sing "What the world needs now is love." The song was recorded recently and proceeds from sales will go to the LGBT Center of Central Florida to help people affected by the Islamofascist massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando. Among the identifiable celebrities belting out the tune on stage were actors Kristen Bell, Tyne Daly, Sharon Gless, Richard Kind, Debra Messing, Rosie Perez, Ben Vereen, B.D. Wong, and Tom Wopat.

Some attendees complained that Chick-fil-A sandwiches were being sold at the convention. The Left, which is nothing if not petty, has smeared that restaurant chain as homophobic because its CEO, a fervent Christian, opposes same-sex marriage.

An "in memoriam" video paid tribute to notable Democrats who died since the last quadrennial convention, along with people the DNC really, really wishes had been Democrats.

Boxer Muhammad Ali, South African head of state Nelson Mandela, and poet Maya Angelou were honored. So were Democrat officeholders Sens. George McGovern and Daniel Inouye, along with New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

But two activists on the most extreme fringes of the Democratic Party were also on this celluloid honor roll, a reminder of just how radical the party has become in recent years.

One was labor organizer Vernon R. Watkins, who rose in the ranks of AFSCME and the ALF-CIO. Watkins also belonged to the small-c communist group Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). He died in 2015.

The other was another DSA member, Georgia state senator Julian Bond, who also died last year. Bond once said the Republican Party "would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side." Bond was the initial president of the execrable slander shop known as the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Eugene V. Debs Foundation, whose namesake founded the Industrial Workers of the World (a.k.a. the Wobblies) and ran for president on the Socialist Party of America ticket five times, gave him an award in 2002.

Lurking around the convention were trash TV pioneer and former Cincinnati mayor Jerry Springer, disgraced former journalist Dan Rather, former California Assemblyman and Sixties radical Tom Hayden, Midwest Academy founder and Saul Alinsky devotee Heather Booth, singer Lance Bass, and actor Billy Baldwin.

And as President Obama prepared to address delegates yesterday, Wikileaks published hacked voicemail messages from the Democratic National Committee, the governing body of the Democratic Party.

The Washington Times reports that it listened to the messages but that none "contained anything immediately obvious as embarrassing or incriminating." But it cautioned that "the very fact the DNC voicemail system has been hacked is embarrassing and could augur the release of far more damaging material later."

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said there is "a lot more material" related to the election to be released.

Believe him.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama increased aid to Arab countries, but not to Israel - David Rosenberg

by David Rosenberg

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham reveals White House shot down aid package requested by Israel.

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham blasted President Obama this week, condemning his refusal to increase American aid to Israel, as well as his efforts to bar Israel from spending the aid money within the Jewish state.

Speaking to Haaretz, Graham revealed that Israel had previously requested an increased aid package from the White House, with $4 billion a year for regular military funding, plus $600 million towards Israel’s missile defense network.

But, Graham said, the administration rejected the request, despite similar increases to Arab states, such as Jordan.

“I made a decision, given the deterioration in the region, that Israel needs more funding,” said Graham. “In the last three years, we increased funding to Jordan by $275 million outside of the MoU, because Jordan was under siege.”

“The administration didn’t object to that increase, but they are objecting to the increase to Israel for 2017.”

In 2015 the White House announced plans to raise the amount of aid to Jordan by more than 50%, topping $1 billion per year.

Despite Obama’s rejection of Israel’s aid request, Graham noted, Congress is under no obligations to abide by any agreements the White House makes with Israel.

“I am not bound by the MoU as a member of Congress. Congress is not a party to the MoU and the MoU can’t bind Congress. Everybody in Congress wants to be generous to Israel like we did with Jordan.”

Graham added that Congress overwhelmingly backed not only an increase in funding for Israel, but opposed the president’s goal of ending the convertibility of a portion of the aid package to shekels, allowing Israel to use the money to pay for fuel or purchase arms from domestic producers.

While Israel is currently allowed to spend a portion of the aid money in Israel, Obama has sought to gradually end the practice, requiring that the aid be spent entirely within the US.

“Eighty-three senators signed a letter to the president that we be generous towards Israel. It is my belief that there are not even 10 members of Senate who object to allowing the IDF to buy fuel from U.S. aid money or [object] that the money be used to boost Israeli defense industries. I have never heard one member of Congress concerned about this.”

In voicing his support for elevated levels of military aid to the Jewish state, Graham noted the increased geostrategic threats facing Israel.

“Netanyahu told me Hezbollah received from Iran precision-guided missiles that are military game-changers,” he said. “According to the prime minister and his team, these missiles present a greater threat than presented previously.”

“I want Iran to see that Israel gets more support from the U.S. and not less. I want to send a signal to Iran that while they get stronger, our allies in the region also get stronger. I don’t think it is an American interest for Iran to think we are negotiating a deal with Israel that is less generous.”

David Rosenberg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Sanders Delegate is Member of Fuqra Terror Cult - Ryan Mauro

by Keith Edwards

A delegate for Sanders at the Democratic National Convention is a member of Muslims of the Americas, which is a rebranding of Jamaat ul-Fuqra.

During his press conference yesterday, Donald Trump was making note of FBI director Comey’s conclusions regarding the FBI investigation into Hillary’s personal server when he added this statement:
Russia, if you’re listening… I hope you’re able to find the thirty thousand emails that are missing.
The liberal media went totally ballistic over Trump’s statement, and their response can be best summed up by what David Gregory said:
You know, I've run out of words to express my shock in how, uh, completely beyond the pale that Donald Trump is as a potential leader of the Free World, the commander-in-chief of our country.  This was truly beyond the pale.  I mean, he is encouraging Russia which, by all accounts, was behind a leak of our major – uh, one of our major political parties – uh, to do more, to go beyond, to try to hack into, uh, Hillary Clinton's server to find missing emails, to kind of get in the middle of the scandal.  It's as if, you know, eh, this is a child, eh, playing with matches who doesn't understand how badly he and the country can get burned.  It's a very serious thing.
What’s ironic about David Gregory’s comment is that his premise and conclusions actually fit better with Hillary’s server scandal than Trump’s off-the-cuff statement.

In fact, Mr. Gregory’s remark is basically a summation of FBI director Comey’s statement regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s personal server and Director Comey’s subsequent remarks made before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

If you heard or read Director Comey’s statement regarding the FBI investigation and saw the congressional hearing or read the transcripts of Comey’s remarks before the congressional committee, you’d come to the following conclusions:

1. That Director Comey was “shocked” by Secretary Clinton’s disregard for the security of highly confidential government secrets.
2. That Director Comey implied that Secretary Clinton’s incompetence was “beyond the pale” for a sitting secretary of state, who should have known better.
3. That Director Comey surmised that Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” with the safety and security of all Americans during her tenure as secretary of state.
4. That Director Comey did not recommend an indictment of Secretary Clinton because she was “acting like a child playing with matches” who doesn’t understand how badly she and the country could get burned.  Basically, Director Comey said what Secretary Clinton did while she was secretary of state was a very “serious thing” – no joking! 

Just whose actions are “beyond the pale”?

Keith Edwards


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Where is the BDS Movement in the face of the Turkish Stalinist purge? - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

BDS seems to only work in one direction.

59,628 professors whose teaching license has been withdrawn. 1,577 university presidents who have been forced to resign. A climate of persecution, denunciation and suspicion in university classrooms and at the Ministry of Education. It is great academic purge that Recep Erdogan launched after the failed coup.

Numbers reminiscent of the Stalinist academic purges in the USSR. In light of this dramatic assault on intellectual freedom in Turkey, one would expect that Western academic legions would be in turmoil to show solidarity with Turkish colleagues, besieged and persecuted. Yet, these Western champions of freedom who have embraced the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) against Israel did not find the time to launch any campaign against the Turkish purge, unworthy even of a raised eyebrow of scandal.

In England, the National Association of Teachers in Higher Education and the Association of University Teachers, which have adopted the boycott of Israel, have been silent about Turkey. Same silence from the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, which was signed by 500 American professors. Silence from the 300 Italian academics who promoted the Israeli boycott. 

Double standards have already emerged from the words of Curtis Marez, the president of the American Studies Association who voted to boycott Israel. When he was asked why his organization was only attacking Israel and not, for example, China or Saudi Arabia or Turkey, Marez answered: “One has to start somewhere”.

The president of the American Studies Association had also said that the boycott of Israel “is the best way to protect and expand academic freedom and access to education”. This does not apply to the 59,628 Turkish teachers.

Only the Jewish State, the only democracy in the Middle East where BDS supporters enjoy freedom and visibility, deserves Western condemnation.

A boycott of Turkey would prove that they are not the useful idiots of Arab-Islamic rejection. These Western professors would have the opportunity to say no to the Turkish discrimination against the Kurds, who unlike the Palestinian Arabs, have no autonomy and parliament and police.

But apart from the BDS Movement's visceral hate against Israel, another possible explanation for the Western academic silence about their Turkish colleagues may be the involvement of Turkey in the boycott of Israel. 111 universities in Turkey have already aligned themselves with BDS on the same order of Mr. Erdogan.

Could an academic bureaucrat from London or Paris or New York rally against his own protector? It would be asking too much from those hypocrites. One has to start “somewhere”. And from where if not from the Jews?

Giulio Meotti


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

France's Bleeding Heart - Stephen Brown

by Stephen Brown

The meaning behind Islamic terrorists invading a church, murdering a priest and giving a sermon in Arabic afterwards.

For centuries, France has always proudly borne the title “Eldest Daughter of the Church.” But two days ago, the Roman Catholic Church’s beloved child was barbarically violated and desecrated in a manner probably unseen since Clovis I was baptised in Reims on Christmas Day in 496 C.E.

Striking at France’s religious heart and traditional roots, two Islamic terrorists invaded the sixteenth-century St. Etienne church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, a town of about 30,000 near Rouen in Normandy, Tuesday morning after 9:00 a.m during mass. Eighty-four year-old priest Jacques Hamel was presiding over the ceremony with several nuns in attendance when the two entered the church by a back entrance armed with knives and “fake explosive belts.”

With reported yells of “Allahu Akbar,” present at all such horrifying Islamic undertakings, the two terrorists forced Father Jacques to his knees and proceeded to slit his throat before the terrified onlookers attending morning mass.

One nun, Sister Danielle, reported the “shocking details” of Father Jacque’s murder.

“They forced him to his knees. He wanted to defend himself. And that’s when the tragedy happened,” she said. “They recorded themselves doing it. They did a sort of sermon around the altar in Arabic. It is a horror.”

More shockingly, Sister Danielle said the terrorists told her: “You Christians, you kill us.”       
One nun, however, managed to slip away and notify authorities.

“I left when they began to attack Father Jacques,” she said. “I do not even know if they realised that I was leaving.”

The Islamic murderers used two nuns “as human shields” for about an hour inside the church, during which time security forces had surrounded the building. When they exited the holy place, both terrorists were shot and killed. An elderly parishioner was also critically injured, but the circumstances concerning this person’s wounding are unclear. Three other hostages were reported unharmed.

The Islamic State (IS) was quick to claim responsibility for the attack, calling the two murderers its “soldiers.”

And as unsurprising as the Islamic State’s claiming ownership of such barbarism is the fact that at least one of the Islamic killers, identified as Adele Kamiche, 19, was well known to authorities. Described as a “known terrorist threat,” he had twice tried to join the Islamic State. Reaching Turkey in the second attempt, he was caught and deported. After his return to France, Kamiche received a 30-month jail term for trying to join IS but served less than 12 months before receiving parole in March of this year.

The conditions of Kamiche’s release stipulated that he had to live with his parents, wear an ankle bracelet that tracked his movements and was allowed out unsupervised only between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. when the bracelet was deactivated, according to Paris prosecutor, Francois Molins. (Well, the authorities who released him can at least be happy he wasn’t violating his parole conditions when he butchered Father Jacques). A prosecutor had appealed Kamiche’s release order but, tragically as it turned out, was unsuccessful.

Security authorities were also remiss in not having predicted the attack on Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. The church’s name had appeared on a hit list of buildings security authorities seized from a “suspected Islamist extremist” in April last year.

But the fact that the 32-year-old Algerian extremist found with the list, Sid Ahmed Ghlam, was about to stage church attacks himself when arrested should also have served as a wake-up call to intelligence services. Ghlam’s plans, however, were thwarted when he murdered a French woman when hijacking her car to carry out a church attack, accidentally shooting himself in the leg in the process.

“Documents found at his flat and in a search of his computer and telephone suggested Ghlam was in contact with a French speaker in in Syria who had ordered him to carry out attacks on churches,” reported one newspaper.

And yet, there were no guards presented yesterday in front of St. Etienne.

As usual, French president Francois Hollande rushed to the latest Islamic murder scene, leaving one to wonder when he has time to run the country, the terrorist attacks coming so fast and furious nowadays. French television viewers are probably no longer impressed seeing on their screens every few weeks, and sometimes every few days, the same politicians’ faces at such bloody carnage, repeating the same words, since nothing new appears to occur to them.

But what is worse, Hollande does not mean what he says. In St. Etienne-du-Rouvray, after the usual call for unity, the French president said France is at war and that war “will be a long one.” And he will fight it “using all means necessary.”

If that is the case, then one must ask, for example, why several hundred French Muslims of the more than one thousand who have fought with IS have been allowed to return to France where some have been involved in terrorist attacks. As well, French security services have “carded” about 10,500 French Muslims as “security threats,” and yet they are still allowed to walk around free. At least one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attack last November was “carded.” So it should not surprise if the two involved in the St. Etienne outrage were also classified thus.

If Hollande were serious about winning the war against IS, he would have French soldiers on the ground in Syria, backed by French warplanes in the air, attacking IS strongholds. He also would be doing whatever it takes to defend France, including barring the borders to anyone representing a threat to the country’s security and deporting others already within.

But the French should not hold their breath that such desperately needed actions will be taken. Hollande’s Socialist Party relies on the growing Muslim to stay in power, so he does not want to do anything that would offend this vote-rich group. He indicated how important he views this community in a speech he gave to residents of an immigrant ghetto before the 2012 election.

“Here is the new France, the one which is emerging, the one which is beginning, the one of the future,” he said. “You the inhabitants, Islamic or not, of the housing projects, you are the future of France, you are the rising generation, the one which will save this country from ruin…”

Well, at least Hollande was half right. Adele Kamiche was from a housing project in St. Etienne-du-Rouvray and does represent France’s future. But he and his cohorts are not going to save the country from ruin but rather lead to it.

What Hollande and the socialists are actually hoping for is that the French people will get used to terror attacks, much like they have become desensitised to honour murders and polygamy. The French government knows it has lost control of the situation and is at a loss what to do about it.

French socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls admitted as much in a speech to high school students last year. In a disgraceful message of surrender and hopelessness rather than of hope, he told the young people that his government was powerless to stop Islamic terrorist attacks.

“French youth has to get used to living with the threats of attacks for a long period of time,” Valls said, apparently not recognising the enormity of what he was saying. “Your generation, your age class must accustom itself to living with this danger for years.”

Valls also admitted defeat in his speech in Nice after the recent terrorist attack there, using almost the same words. He said France must “learn to live with terrorism.”

The only French leader who appears not to have surrendered is Marine Le Pen, head of France’s populist National Front Party. After yesterday’s murder of Father Jacques, Le Pen first took the politicians who “have ruled France the last 30 years” to task, stating their responsibility for France’s present security situation is “immense” and “to see them chattering is revolting.”

But more importantly, showing the never-surrender spirit of the French resistance fighters who opposed the German occupation of France during World War Two, Le Pen has proposed a plan of action. Recognising the seriousness of the threat facing her country, the National Party leader stated in a tweet she is going to rejoin France’s military reserves and “invites all young patriots to do the same.” Weapons training for as many as possible for the ‘new resistance’, she recognises, is probably the only thing now that can save France and her people.

“They are killing our children, assassinating our police officers and cutting the throats of our priests. Wake up!” she stated. “In the West like in the East, Christians must stand up in order to resist Islamism.”

For France’s sake, I hope her people are listening.

Stephen Brown


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.