Quick On The Draw

 An elderly lady from Florida did her shopping and upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving with her vehicle. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at the top of her lungs, “I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!” The four men didn’t wait for a second threat.
They got out and ran like mad. The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the old womancar and got into the driver’s seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition. She tried and tried, and then she realized why. It was for the same reason she had wondered why there was a football, a Frisbee, and two 12-packs of beer in the front seat.

A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down. She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the police station to report her mistake. The sergeant to whom she told the story couldn’t stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a mad, elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun. No charges were filed.

Moral of the story? If you’re going to have a senior moment…make it memorable! 

Morning Briefing – The Telegraph

Good morning.

Boris Johnson took to the stage last night for our EU debate, and banged the drum for Brexit – which he billed as a “fantastic prize” that awaited Britons. You can catch up on what happened in our blow-by-blow liveblog here, and Michael Deacon captured the liveliest exchanges, which tended to be when the former Mayor clashed with Alex Salmond. “The pair argued about house prices, national security, workers’ rights. At one point, and with particular intensity, they even bickered about bananas,” he wrote, “The quest for hard fact takes many forms.” So who won in the end? Tim Stanley was impressed by Liz Kendall’s performance, suggesting that she showed “what might have been” had she been elected Labour leader, Juliet Samuel praised the Brexiteers’ “positive tone” on immigration while James Kirkup notes Boris Johnson’ seriousness and self-control.

There were moments of heat in the Telegraph/HuffPo/YouTube debate, but also some light. Boris Johnson seemed to rule out the idea of having a second referendum if the vote is close, saying the vote will settle the issue for a “generation”, explaining that politicians “should not regularly remit fundamental questions to people in this way”. This contrasts with Nigel Farage, who said that a close Remain win would require a second ballot in order to settle the “unfinished business”, although the race is still tight – with ComRes putting Remain just 1 point ahead of Leave – so will Johnson’s stance last if Remain wins by that small a margin? “We are faced with two dismal alternatives,” writes Maurice Saatch in today’s paper. “To remain is too frustrating. To leave is too frightening. No wonder the country is ambivalent, split 50/50, right down the middle.”

Michael Gove is the next Brexiteer to take to the stage, and he will do so tonight for a special BBC Question Time in Nottingham. But before that, he is set to unveil with Boris Johnson new laws that the Leave campaign would implement immediately as part of a “post-Brexit manifesto”, including legislation to divert money saved by quitting the EU into the NHS and to end  the power of the European Courts. The proposals are meant to address concerns that leaving the EU could take up to a decade of negotiations, during which Britain would still be under the influence of Brussels. Some Brexiteers have previously insisted Vote Leave didn’t need to get into specifics as it wasn’t running for election but merely trying to secure a Brexit, so things have changed fast.

Meanwhile Remainers are making promises of their own for what could happen after Brexit, but they sound much more threatening. George Osborne will warn today that a vote to leave would force him to make £15 billion worth of cuts and just as much in tax rises for an emergency “Brexit Budget”, including an extra 2p on the basic rate, 3p on the higher rate and a 5p rise in inheritance tax rates. Conservatives have reacted with fury to this “punishment Budget” and warned that a Brexit vote would force him to consider his position as Chancellor, while Guido Fawkes dubbed it the “Anti-Vow” in tribute to the Scottish independence campaign. “The Remain campaign has tried to terrify voters about the risks of leaving. But the perils of staying are greater, because the EU will not stand still,” warns Phil Johnston in today’s paper.

The Chancellor’s threat is crude, but Remainers will be pleased to see it has gained traction, with the Mirror splashing on his “brutal Brexit budget”. If that gets Labour voters out to vote Remain, the pro-EU camp will consider it mission accomplished. They’ll also be relieved to have overshadowed Labour’s new rift over immigration. Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson has joined Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls in calling for tighter controls on EU migration, while Jeremy Corbyn has insisted his support for free movement remains unchanged.  Labourites may hope to persuade voters to remain in the hope that they could one day renegotiate for these controls, but are they sure they can do any better than David Cameron? Some voters may well conclude a faster way to control immigration is to vote for Brexit.

Europe’s fight to get on top of the migration crisis shows why immigration is such a sore point for Remainers, as the UN refugee agency has cut its forecast for “up to 1 million” refugees to arrive in Europe this year to 248,000, which would still sound like a large number.  Meanwhile, the European Union’s ambassador to Turkey has resigned after less than a year in the job, casting further doubt over the fate of a flagship agreement that has stemmed the flow of refugees to Greece. This may explain why Remainers have been so keen to get Labour’s divide on immigration out of the headlines. You can follow what happens today on our liveblog

And France Doubles Down

Beyond the Cusp

Right on the heels of the disastrous French initiative taking confab of twenty plus Foreign Ministers last week where they could not even join together to condemn Israel, let alone demand Israel commit some form of concessions once again to restart the moribund peace process, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault now had the audacity to lecture Israel about the extra security measures taken after the deadly Tel Aviv terror shooting. His claim was by cancelling the work and other passage permissions for the extended family of the terrorists and the cancellation of the Ramadan liberal permissions in response to the attack which murdered four and wounded a score more was simply collective punishment and would lead to more terror and exacerbate an already difficult situation. You can read about and see videos and pictures of the actual assault and aftermath in our article on the terror attack and other related…

View original post 1,409 more words

Israel and “Palestine”: What International Law Requires

International law has one overarching debility. No matter how complex the issues, virtually everyone able to read feels competent to offer an authoritative legal opinion. While, for example, no sane person would ever explain or perform cardio-thoracic surgery without first undergoing rigorous medical training, nearly everyone feels competent to interpret complex meanings of the law.

This debility needs to be countered, at least on a case by case basis. In the enduring controversy over Palestinian statehood, there are significant rules to be considered. For a start, on November 29, 2012, the General Assembly voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the status of a “Nonmember Observer State.”

Although it is widely believed by many self-defined “experts” that this elevation by United Nations has already represented a formal bestowal of legal personality, that belief is incorrect. Under law, at least, “Palestine” – whatever else one might happen to think of “fairness” – remains outside the community of sovereign states.


Yazidi Girl Exposes ISIS Rape Hellhole

A new televised interview, conducted in Arabic with a Yazidi girl who endured sexual captivity at the hands of the Islamic State, was published on March 22, 2016. It appeared on “Shabaab [Youth] Talk,” hosted by Ja’far Abdul.

The teenage girl, who went by the pseudonym of Birvan, was enslaved when she was 15 and endured months of captivity before she managed to escape. She is now 17. Based on the 40-minute interview, her story is as follows:

Yazidis were escaping from their war-torn village near Tel Affar, Iraq, when they were intercepted on the road by four ISIS operatives. The men swore that if the Yazidis would cooperate and answer some questions, no harm would befall them and they would be allowed to return home in peace. Asked how many Yazidis there were, Birvan says she recalls only 95 men and their families — “many, many women and children.”


Trump’s Speech: A Game Changer

Trump’s speech on national security, which he delivered yesterday, will change the dynamic of this election. The speech was specific, detailed and on the money. Trump showed how strategic securing the border is, how important stopping immigration from terror zones like Syria is, and how deadly political correctness has become. Political correctness – which transforms the Islamic world, which has a lot to answer for, from aggressors into innocent victims – functions as a shield for Islamic terrorists, and handcuffs law-abiding citizens prompting them not to report suspicious activities by Muslims for fear of being called racist.

Trump was especially courageous (and politically incorrect) in pointing out that the Muslim communities in which the terrorists operate know what is going on but don’t say anything. What a contrast with Hillary’s speech today, which focused on reinforcing political correctness – attacking so-called assault rifles, as though guns and not fanatics were the problem, and emphasizing the importance of not alienating Muslims by acknowledging that a large and growing segment of the Islamic world is at war with us. What contempt for Muslims who are also victims of Islamic terror! Does denying reality encourage non-belligerent Muslims to help us? For seven and a half years the Obama administration has closed its eyes to the Islamic dimensions of the terrorist threat, has refused as long and as much as possible to even use the word “terror.” And what has been the result? Muslims in San Bernardino and St. Lucie – as Trump had the political courage to point out – saw something but said nothing about the atrocities brewing in their communities. At the same time the progressive enablers of Islamist terror have been busy blaming Christian conservatives for the anti-gay hatred that is a core belief of the Islamists, rooted not only in their religious texts but relentlessly broadcast through their Imams and mosques.


Islamists Tighten Grip in Africa

Boko Haram — one of 34 ISIS affiliates and among the world’s deadliest terror groups — in 2014 notoriously kidnapped more than 200 school girls in Chibok, Nigeria.

The administration responded with a memorable Twitter campaign featuring first lady Michelle Obama holding a placard with the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls.

Somebody should have mentioned that her husband is the leader of the free world and as such has access to resources other than social media. It’s too bad nobody did. Those girls are still missing, along with thousands of other innocent men, women, and children since then.

Radical Islamist violence is increasing exponentially in lethality and geography in Africa and shows no signs of slowing, according to a new statistical analysis of recent trends in Islamist terror by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).