Let’s get the easy historical analogue out of the way. In 1932-33, Hitler wedged his way into the left-wing gap slashed open by years of warfare between the German Social Democrats and the Communist Party. During the Weimar Republic years, the Communists, smaller and more militant, usually polled 10-15 percent of the vote. Starting in 1928, Stalin, the chief of all Communist chiefs, began denouncing social democracy as the “twin brother of fascism.” The more numerous Social Democrats, when in power (as during 1928-30), considered that “red equals brown” and sometimes turned their guns against Communist workers. Once Hitler came to power, the Communists adopted the slogan “Nach Hitler uns”—after Hitler, ourselves. You know how well that turned out.
The moral is obvious. The circular firing squad is perhaps the left’s favorite formation.
You may say that for all the parallels, this tale is too neat. It constitutes reductio ad Hitlerum. So, let’s stipulate: Trump does not equal Hitler. The Germany of 1932-33 is not the America of 2016. So, let’s look at a harder case—a more awkward precedent, an American one.
Israel is illegally demolishing Palestinian homes built with EU funds.
A legal process exists for applying for building permits in the areas controlled by Israel in the West Bank. The Palestinians, however, flout the law and build houses and other structures illegally. The European Union is knowingly investing millions of Euros to build structures â€“ houses, tents, barns, pens, schools — that don’t have the required permits. Israel has, as the law provides, demolished structures that lack the required permits infuriating the EU donors to the point of threatening that relations with Israel may be damaged by Israel’s actions.761
Why are the Palestinians building illegally?
The principal reasons appears to be a land grab to create “facts on the ground” aided by the EU.
The least important fact about the Orlando club assault was that the club specialized in entertainment for gay men as that may have figured somewhat in the attackers motivations but his main motivation was satisfying his fanatical religious beliefs. The Tel Aviv attack proved that the aim is murdering those who are non-Muslims, the Kafirs, and if they are Gays or Jews it just makes it all the better in their minds. They even take just as much pleasure murdering Muslims who have the audacity of being the wrong kind of Muslim or even the right kind of Muslim but following a rival terror group such as the state of war between the Islamic State and the al-Nusra Front, both offshoots from al-Qaeda and both Sunni Muslims and both dead set on murdering the other simply to prove which is superior. If this reminds you of the Highlander series…
View original post 2,455 more words
Theresa May has been rather quiet during the EU referendum campaign so far, having made just one big speech – back in April – on Brexit. Fellow Remainers Harriet Harman and Jean-Claude Juncker have been in the media more than her over the last month, according to Loughborough University, suggesting that when she speaks, you know every word will have been carefully considered. Westminster may have been busy watching the Brexit flotilla battle the Remainer boats outside Parliament, but there is much to pore over in her latest intervention, telling BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg yesterday that EU free movement rules need “further reform” beyond what David Cameron secured. During the interview, in which the Home Secretary refused to rule out a leadership bid once the Prime Minister leaves, she said more controls on immigration would be needed “in the future”, which will surprise George Osborne, who had ruled out such changes hours earlier on the Today programme.
Brexiteers will argue that Britain is unlikely to secure much by way of immigration reform if it votes to Remain, as the threat of leaving will have passed. But could Brussels be preparing a last minute concesssion, akin to the “Vow” made to Scotland, to avert Britain’s departure? If so, they’re keeping quiet about it, as Peter Foster reports that European leaders are now increasingly resigned to the prospect of Britain quitting the EU, but are not prepared to offer further concessions. “We wish and pray that it goes well, and that Britain stays, but we are expecting the worst. The likelihood is that things will go wrong, rather than go well. Life will have to go on afterwards,” one senior EU diplomat told him. Remainer – and former Attorney General – Dominic Grieve isn’t quite so relaxed about the prospect of Brexit, telling Newsnight yesterday that he feared a “chaotic depature from the EU” as the EU “can refuse to have anything else to do with us”. “The civil service in this country would not even be prepared to draft the legislation [to leave the EU] and the attorney general would resign,” he added. “This seems to me to be the height of folly.”
May has also joined with 20 female Conservative ministers and whips in making the case for Remain today, writing as part of a collection of essays that Britain is “big enough and strong enough” to survive outside the European Union but would be better off staying in. She may not be a full-throated Europhile, but Remainers hope her support – as sceptical as it may be – will resonate with undecided voters. When immigration remains a major concern for voters, with a lorry full of migrants from Kuwait and Iraq only yesterday pulled over by police in London, having the Home Secretary think it is still worth staying in the EU can be valuable. You can follow our liveblog of today’s events here.
However, some Remainers will be getting nervous about her decision to force the spotlight back onto immigration, as it is an issue voters typically trust Brexit to solve. The Brexiteers aren’t passing this opportunity up, with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove challenging David Cameron to “guarantee” that Turkey will never join the European Union by pledging to use the UK’s veto to block it. This comes after the Justice Secretary warned on the BBC’s special Question Time last night that Turkey would join the EU “in our lifetimes”. Cameron might insist that its accession won’t happen until the year 3000, but the EU’s own migration commissioner struck a much more cordial tone, saying the migration deal was “bringing Turkey closer to Europe” and that it now has the “road open” to “join the European family”. Dimitris Avramopoulos might feel forced to say this in order to reassure Turkey that it is getting somewhere by playing its role in the migrant deal, but it will sound significantly less reassuring to British voters.
The “kamikaze Chancellor” (as Allister Heath dubs him) may be grateful to have today’s referendum debate shift onto immigration, as it gets the spotlight off the massive backlash his threat of an austerity-filled “Brexit Budget” has sparked in the Tory ranks. Over 65 Tory MPs, a number several times greater than the Government’s majority, have threatened to block it and questioned Osborne’s political future, while four former Tory leaders and Chancellors have accused him of “ludicrous scaremongering born of desperation“. You can read the broadside from Iain Duncan Smith, and Lords Lamont, Lawson and Howard in today’s Telegraph. Nicola Sturgeon has been doing her best to capitalise on the Tory infighting, warning Scotitsh voters that Brexit could lead the “most Right-wing UK Tory Government in modern times”, but other Conservatives have called for calm. Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 committee, warns colleagues against fighting like “rats in a sack” in today’s paper.” The British people have risen to the referendum challenge better than many national politicians. In the days ahead we must live up to the standard that the voters have set,” he says.
Sometimes you can see a whole society’s self-delusion in under a minute. Consider a single minute that occurred in Britain this week.
On Monday night, Greater Manchester Police staged a pre-prepared mock terrorist attack in a Manchester shopping centre in order to test emergency responses capabilities, readiness and response times. At one stage, an actor playing a suicide bomber burst through a doorway in a crowded part of the shopping centre and detonated a fake device.
It turned out that the actor pretending to be a suicide bomber had shouted the words “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is Greatest”) before the simulated attack. This may have helped make the simulation more realistic, but it had an immediate backlash. Nobody complained about the simulated attacks. What disturbed some people was the simulation of the signature Islamist sign-off.
Once controlling an empire spanning every continent, the United Kingdom has been undergoing an identity crisis in recent years. In 2014, Scotland, which has been part of the United Kingdom for over 300 years, held a referendum on whether to remain part of the country. Now in 2016, after years of discontent with the European Union (EU), the British people will decide on whether or not to leave the 28-country bloc in a June 23 referendum.
For the British-Jewish community, which has faced growing antisemitism and anti-Zionism both within the UK and the EU, the decision holds a wide range of implications. Standing at roughly a quarter million people, the British-Jewish community is the second largest in Europe behind France. Despite its relatively small size, only comprising about 0.5 percent of the UK’s population, the Jewish community has had outsized influence on the country with many leading business and political figures of Jewish descent.
“Like the rest of the population, the Jewish community is really divided. You got some people who support [the] Labour [party] and they want to stay in and some people who want to go out. There really isn’t a clear picture of it,” James Sorene, CEO of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), told JNS.org.
Three years ago, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in for his second term as President of the United States. That same year — 2013 A.D. — marked the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D., the historic guarantee of religious liberty to Christians by the Roman Empire.
Prior to the Emperor Constantine’s key role in forming the Edict’s stance of tolerance towards Christians, they had been persecuted for centuries for not honoring the Roman gods.
The Edict was of explicitly universal significance in the Empire, as it was agreed upon by both Constantine (who controlled the West) and Licinius (in the East) upon their meeting in Milan in February, 313A.D. Constantine was already more than favorably disposed towards the Christian Faith; the Edict therefore was a key step in his role as advocate and protector of the Church. Less than seventy years later, in 380 A.D., Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I.
(Keep that in mind, you young folk, when by 2050 you start hearing talk of making Islam the state religion of the United States, following after Europe’s capitulation in 2025.)