Message from BRUSSELS. I support Donald Trump! via You Tube, March 13, 2016
(H/t The Last Refuge. The video was posted eight days before the Brussels attack.– DM)
Message from BRUSSELS. I support Donald Trump! via You Tube, March 13, 2016
(H/t The Last Refuge. The video was posted eight days before the Brussels attack.– DM)
Cruz Hits Trump on NATO ‘Surrender’ in Wake of Brussels Attacks, Newsmax, Sandy Fitzgerald, March 22, 2016
(At least he didn’t blame the Trump rallies for the violence in Brussels. — DM)
(AP)
GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Tuesday that Donald Trump was engaging in a “pre-emptive surrender” to Islamic terror by calling for a “withdrawal” from NATO on the eve of the Brussels terror attacks.
On Monday, Trump told CNN that the U.S. should greatly reduce its support of NATO.
“It’s too much and frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea,” Trump said of the US-European security alliance.
Cruz said he found it “striking” that the terror attacks occurred on the day after his rival candidate Donald Trump called for reducing the U.S. role NATO.
“We see Brussels where NATO is headquartered as the subject of a radical Islamic terrorist attack,” Cruz said in a press conference from Washington D.C.
“Donald Trump is wrong that America should withdraw from the world and abandon our allies. Donald Trump is wrong that America should retreat from Europe, retreat from NATO, hand Vladimir Putin a major victory, and while’s he’s at it, hand ISIS a major victory.”
Instead, said the Texas senator, NATO would be crucial in any United States effort in “utterly destroying ISIS.”
“And I would note that NATO is ready to act in a way our president is not,” said Cruz.
“Donald Trump’s proposal to withdraw from the world, to withdraw from NATO and Europe is sadly consistent with his statement that he intends to be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Cruz also said Trump’s approach was similar to Obama’s.
“We have seen for 7 years a president that cannot distinguish between our friends and enemies. A president that cannot distinguish between the nation of Israel and Islamic terrorists who seek to murder us, and it would be a mistake to elect another president who buys into the same left-wing moral relativism that equates the terrorist blowing himself you have and murdering innocent civilians to the brave soldiers and law enforcement officers risking everything to keep us safe.”
Cruz was not alone for criticizing Trump on his stand on NATO.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, appearing on Fox News Tuesday morning, said Trump’s plan for downsizing the U.S. role in NATO was dangerous as we confront the grave threat of Islamic terrorism.
Dunford: U.S. Military Isn’t Ready Across the Board, Washington Free Beacon,
Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers Tuesday that the United States military currently is not prepared or capable across all the service branches of addressing the threats facing the country.
Dunford gave his assessment of the military’s readiness while testifying before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Defense Secretary Ash Carter on the fiscal year 2017 proposed defense budget.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), chair of the committee, first listed evidence he has heard from other senior military officers to illustrate how the military does not have sufficient readiness capabilities across the services.
“Let me just offer a handful of other quotes on the record,” Thornberry told Dunford. “[Marine Corps Commandant] Gen. [Robert] Neller said, ‘Our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training and mission requirements, primarily due to Ready Basic Aircraft shortfalls.’ [Army Chief of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and Gen. [John] Allen have testified [that] less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable forces of readiness. The readiness of the United States Army is not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people would expect to defend them.”
Thornberry then referenced Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James’ testimony from last week in which she said that “less than half our combat forces are ready for a high-end fight… the Air Force is the smallest, oldest, and least ready force across the full spectrum of operations in our history.”
“Do you agree that we have a significant readiness problem across the services, especially for the wide variety of contingencies that we’ve got to face?” Thornberry asked.
“Chairman, I do, and I think those are accurate reflections of the force as a whole,” Dunford said. “From my perspective, there’s really three issues: There are the resources necessary to address the readiness issue, there’s time, and then there’s operational tempo.”
Dunford said that the readiness problem is the result of several years of an “unstable fiscal environment” combined with an “extraordinarily high operational tempo,” or rate of military actions.
The general warned it will take many years to dig out of this situation, but said he is satisfied that the FY 2017 budget meets the fiscal requirements of each service for readiness.
The U.S. cannot buy its way out of the readiness problem this year, Dunford said, because of time and the growing need to deploy resources quickly.
He added that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps will not be sufficiently ready to counter the challenges they need to until around fiscal year 2020, and the Air Force likely will not reach that point until fiscal year 2028.
Beyond resources, time, and operational tempo, Dunford explained that depot-level maintenance has been back-logged in Marine aviation, and likely in other branches as well, contributing to the delay in reaching full readiness.
“I think it’s important for us and for y’all to continue to not only watch this issue but really understand down deeper what’s happening,” Thornberry said. “Statistics are one thing, but you talk to these folks eyeball to eyeball, and the sense of frustration and concern is very evident.”
The military has been steadily downsized over the course of the Obama administration, with the number of active-duty ships in the Navy reduced to pre-World War I levels and the Marine Corps the smallest it has been since the Korean War in the early 1950s. The size of the Army has been reduced as well.
Media Already Running “Muslims Fear Blowback” Stories after Brussels, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, March 22, 2016
After every Muslim terrorist attack, the media rapidly pivots to claiming that Muslims are the real victims by running “Muslims fear blowback” stories. Above all else, we must always remember that the real victims are the murderers.
Did a Muslim terrorist just murder a dozen people, behead a soldier or shoot up a synagogue? The media follows its initial sensational footage of the attack by covering the tragic plight of some Islamist activist who claims to have gotten dirty looks on the bus. Because a Muslim settler’s hurt feelings just count for more than the native population which was just murdered.
After each Muslim terror attack, the shift to the “blowback” narrative comes faster and faster. But after the Brussels attack, we appear to have a new “blowback” speed record.
The International Business Times ran a piece by Michael Kaplan, not long after the attack, headlined, “Muslims Fear Backlash After Brussels Attack: Far-Right, Anti-Immigrant Sentiment Often Follows Violence”
It didn’t actually happen yet. But let’s report it anyway. It’s much more important to speculate about another imaginary blowback than to show sympathy for the politically inconvenient victims of Muslim terror.
Kaplan based his piece on Vocativ which ran its blowback piece at 7:45 AM. That’s really impressive. We may have a new “blowback” speed record.
For the future, reporters should simply skip to reporting the Muslim fears of blowback and avoid discussing the attack itself… because that might just generate more blowback. After every terror attack, reporters should immediately rush to a Muslim neighborhood to preemptively interview potential victims of the possible blowback about their fears of a blowback.
Because real journalism isn’t reporting what actually happened. It’s about aggressively shoving your narrative down everyone’s throats until they learn to accept it. And it’s about the assertion that Muslim fears are more important than European deaths.
War in Europe, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, March 22, 2016
At least 28 are dead in Tuesday morning’s jihad attacks in Brussels. Enough.
It’s time for votes of no-confidence. Parliamentary systems generally allow for votes of no-confidence that trigger new elections. It’s time for the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and more to fall. I’m not talking about violent revolution. There are mechanisms for the peaceful replacement of governments in most European nations at times when the existing government is seen widely to be inadequate for the task at hand. It is time to put those mechanisms to use. The existing governments are responsible for policies that have turned Europe into a war zone, and that war is just beginning. The political and media elites have failed Europe and the free world, and put Europe on a course toward civil war and bloodshed unseen on the continent since the days of Hitler.
A new Hitler is in Europe. It is not Donald Trump. It is not the “right-wing.” The new Hitler is very much like the old Hitler: he hates Jews. He has contempt for the historical patrimony of Western civilization. He means to rule by an iron fist and subordinate every other power to his will. He respects only strength, and despises weakness. The new Hitler is not just one man, but millions — millions who believe in an ideology that teaches warfare against and subjugation of free people under its heel.
Historically, Europe saw the threat that the men who held to this ideology posed, and shed blood to resist their advance. Now, the sons and heirs of those who gave their lives to make sure their children and their children’s children would live free have flung open the gates and invited in those who would enslave them. They have invited them into their countries in massive numbers, and vilified and ostracized anyone who dared note the lessons of history and the content of the invaders’ ideology.
This morning, as a result of these policies, Brussels is engulfed in chaos and the grief of blood shed in war. There will be much, much more to come of this.
It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. Europe, if it is to survive as a home of free people, must turn out its entire political and media establishment. This can still be done peacefully, and must be done quickly. If Europe is to survive as a home of free people, it needs governments who recognize that the “refugees” storming into their countries now include an untold number of jihad murderers who mean to kill their people and destroy their societies, and who have the courage to stand up and stop that refugee flow, and turn it back. Saudi Arabia has tens of thousands of air-conditioned tents for hajj pilgrims, and not one refugee. Why? Because they have noted, correctly, that there are jihad terrorists among the refugees.
Can Saudi Arabia protect itself and Europe cannot?
This is a war. It is a war for survival. It is a war that will determine whether Europe (and North America is not far behind) will live in freedom or slavery. The present European political and media elites are inviting the slavery of their people. They must be soundly repudiated. Too much is at stake to continue to countenance their self-delusion and fantasy. Those who are struggling to survive cannot afford to be unrealistic about what they’re facing. In the United States also, we need leaders who will speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the war we’re in. Surely there are some people in Europe who are both able to lead and willing to tell the truth. It is time for them to be peacefully installed in power — before it’s too late, as it very soon will be.
Sharia in Denmark, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, March 22, 2016
♦ Documentary filmmakers in Denmark conducted an undercover investigation, with hidden cameras, into claims that imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims within Denmark.
♦ Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque, told Fatma that her husband is entitled to take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his “sexual rights,” even when he is violent.
♦ The imam of the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque gave Fatma the same answers she had received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without her husband’s permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her, she must not contact the police.
♦ Umm Abdullah told Fatma that she should only meet with Danish people in order to tell them about Islam. This is necessary, she said, to save the Danes from hell, and the only reason Muslims should interact with Danes.
The issue of parallel Muslim societies has sparked renewed debate in Denmark after a three-part television documentary, “The Mosques Behind the Veil” was aired at the beginning of March on Danish TV2.
The documentary consists of an undercover investigation into claims that Muslim imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims within Denmark.
The filmmakers had two young Muslims — brought from outside Denmark — go undercover in Gellerupparken, an area best described as a predominantly Muslim ghetto in Aarhus, Denmark’s second city. For three months, the two lived as a fictitious couple, Fatma and Muhammed, while visiting eight different mosques in Aarhus, Odense and Copenhagen — the three largest cities in Denmark — with hidden cameras. The goal was to hear what imams say behind closed doors about Danish law and authorities, gender equality and general contact with Danish society, such as Muslim women participating in the Danish job market. There are approximately 140 mosques in all of Denmark.
The film is similar in concept to the British BBC Panorama documentary, “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils,” which aired in April 2013. The BBC went undercover to document the discrimination practiced in British sharia councils against Muslim women. (The existence of British sharia councils were no secret to the British; the Danish film, it turned out, documented a Danish sharia council for the first time).
For the purpose of the documentary, Fatma was given a personal cover story — based on real-life dilemmas — for which she would seek advice from the different imams: Her husband is violent, and she does not wish to have sex with him. She cannot get pregnant and his family has found a second wife for him. She consulted with a Danish girlfriend about the violence, which has left her bruised, and the girlfriend told her to go to the police.
What do the imams think she should do?
The series begins in the Grimhøj mosque. The mosque has been in the Danish headlines for years, especially since police statistics in 2013 showed that 22 out of the 27 Muslims from Aarhus who left to fight with Islamic State in Syria had frequented it. The head of the mosque, Oussama El Saadi, has, in fact, said that he hopes the Islamic State will win and that there will be an Islamic world government. The imam of the same mosque, Abu Bilal, was sentenced last year in Germany for inciting hatred against both Jews and non-Jews, and fined €10,000.
Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque in Denmark, was fined €10,000 last year in Germany, after being found guilty of inciting hatred against both Jews and non-Jews. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)
Fatma, during her visits to the mosque, learned from imam Abu Bilal that married women who commit infidelity should be stoned to death, and that Muslims who leave Islam may be killed. He makes no reservations about these teachings. She also learned that young children who refuse to pray should be beaten (a woman asks the imam specifically, how she should conduct those beatings). Fatma was also informed that a woman may not take a job without her husband’s permission.
Abu Bilal further says that her husband is entitled to take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his “sexual rights,” even when he is violent. When she asks the imam if she should involve the police, the answer is an emphatic “no.”
Officially, the spokesman of the Grimhøj mosque, along with spokesmen from three of the eight mosques, professes that the mosque respects Danish law. But behind closed doors — on hidden camera — he advocates polygamy and beating children. He also instructs Fatma to go back to her abusive spouse and to let him commit what amounts to rape.
Fatma attended three other mosques in Aarhus, one of which publicly claims to be “moderate.” All of the clerics gave her the same answers. Some told her that violence is not allowed, but made it clear that there is nothing she can do. The imam at the Fredens mosque added that she might be able to obtain a divorce, if necessary, from their sharia council.
Muhammed, reporting what he experienced in the mosques, told TV2 news that he had been warned in the mosques against the Danes; informed that they were kuffar (unbelievers), and that he should avoid them and their social functions, such as birthday parties. One imam told the couple that they should “not melt into Danish society,” but simply surround themselves with other Muslims.
In Copenhagen, Fatma consulted the leader of the female section of the Islamisk Trossamfund mosque, Umm Abdullah. The claim at Islamisk Trossamfund is that it is in contact with several thousand Muslims every week, and thus among the biggest mosques in Denmark. Umm Abdullah tells Fatma that she must not go to birthday parties; there would be, she says, alcohol and mixed male and female company — and she should only meet with Danish people in order to tell them about Islam. This is necessary, says Umm Abdullah, to save the Danes from hell, and the only reason why Muslims should interact with Danes. When Fatma asks her about her personal problems, Umm Abdullah tells her that she must not contact the police about the violent husband. “Why should you become a laughing stock in front of the infidels?” she rhetorically asks.
Fatma also went to see the imam at the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque in Copenhagen, better known in Denmark as “Stormoskeen” [“the big mosque”]. Named after the former emir of Qatar and fully sponsored by him, it opened in 2014. The organization behind the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque, the Danish Islamic Council, has claimed that the people who operate the mosque have chosen a moderate interpretation of Islam that is compatible with Danish society.
On camera, the spokesman from the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque confidently assured the journalists from TV2 News that the mosque thoroughly respects Danish laws. He even assured them that women enjoy even better rights than men.
When Fatma spoke to the imam of the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque, however, and filmed it with a hidden camera, she was given the same answers she had received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without her husband’s permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her, she must not contact the police. This most “moderate” of all the Danish mosques also advocated polygamy, and the right of the husband to his wife’s body, even when she might prefer to refuse him.
One of the questions Danes are asking themselves after viewing the documentary, is whether Danish Muslims actually listen to the imams and do what they say. According to a poll conducted in October 2015, 40% of all Danish Muslims believe that the law in Denmark should be based solely on the words of the Quran and 77% believe that the Quran should be followed to the word. Ten years ago, the figure was 62%. The poll showed that 50% of all Danish Muslims pray five times a day; ten years ago, the figure was 37%.
While the working assumption has been that with time, Muslims would become less, not more, religious, these numbers fly in the face of the wish that Muslims might be comfortably assimilated into Danish culture.
At the end of the documentary, Fatma and Mohammed visit the sharia council — which, since the documentary aired, has been dismantled, but others are believed to exist — at the Fredens mosque in Aarhus. Here, Fatma pleads over ten times for a divorce from her violent husband, but the council refuses, telling her to go back home and try again.
These were exactly the same responses as those given by the imams of the British sharia councils in the BBC Panorama documentary from 2013. Genuinely abused women pleaded in vain for divorce, and sometimes had to wait for ten years to obtain it. The answers they received from the imam were identical with the answers that Fatma heard from the eight different imams in Denmark: Go back to your violent spouse and try to work it out.
TV2 presented the secret recordings to all the mosques that had been investigated, but the mosques refused to comment on them.
Instead, 31 Danish mosques and Islamic organizations decided to react to the exposure of their goings-on by collectively condemning the way that TV2 had portrayed the Islamic organizations in the documentary. The organizations held the TV station responsible for the “way that it was destroying the integration that the organizations had worked on for the past 30 years in Denmark” and claimed that “Danish Muslims are an integral part of Danish society and play a positive role in integrating Muslims into Danish society.” They also reaffirmed that “Muslims have a right to seek advice about Islam, Islamic rules and Islamic sharia in Denmark.”
The ongoing public debate that has followed the broadcast, shows — unsurprisingly — that neither politicians, opinion makers nor so-called “experts” have any workable plans for how to deal with what the TV documentary revealed. Some have suggested that imams get a special university education or go through a licensing process. Others have suggested closing the Grimhøj mosque — an act that would doubtless be regarded as provocation, and one that would not solve anything in other, similar, mosques. Still other observers have suggested looking more closely at possibilities in the Danish constitution for dealing with the problem. One thing is clear: Denmark is as far away from solving this problem as the rest of Europe — and it is not going to get any easier.
Donald Trump’s AIPAC Speech, Power Line,
(Power Line’s authors have generally opposed Trump. — DM)
Donald Trump delivered his much-anticipated address to AIPAC this afternoon. You can read the speech here.
I thought it was a good speech. Apparently, the audience did too. Trump received applause that at times was raucous. He even brought many to their feet multiple times.
Trump’s focus was right where it should be — on the Iranian threat. “My number one priority,” he said, “is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”
Trump then outlined his three-part strategy for dealing with Iran. First, “stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region.” Second, “totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network.” Third, “at the very least. . .hold Iran accountable by restructuring the terms of the previous deal.” I liked it better when he said “dismantle the disastrous deal.”
Next, Trump attacked the United Nations. He described it as “a complete and total disaster” and insisted that the U.S. must never let the UN impose a deal between “Israel and Palestine.” As president he would use his veto to block such a deal, he promised.
After that, Trump lambasted the Palestinian government for its non-stop incitement of hatred against Israel, especially among children. He said:
When you live in a society where athletes and movie stars are heroes, little kids want to be athletes and movie stars. In Palestinian society, the heroes are those who murder Jews – we can’t let this continue. You cannot achieve peace if terrorists are treated as martyrs. Glorifying terrorists is a tremendous barrier to peace.
One Fox News, one commentator, I think it was Charles Krauthammer, noted that Trump didn’t really describe what he would do about this situation. It’s unrealistic to suppose that the U.S. president can change the way Palestinian society educates children.
But Trump did make clear what he will not do, if elected president. He will not attempt to impose a settlement on Israel. He will not treat Israel’s elected leader like dirt. He will turn a blind eye to Iranian aggression and non-compliance with the nuclear.
In short, a Trump administration would completely reverse President Obama’s approach to Israel and the region in general. That’s good enough for me.
Speaking of Obama, Trump’s best moment was improvised. Reading from his speech, he said, “With President Obama in his final year. . .” Then, with perfect timing, he added “yea.”
The crowd went wild. Jewish activists of the kind who attend AIPAC’s meeting have treated Obama with respect for years. Judging by the reaction to Trump’s line, however, it looks like, deep down, many of them can’t stand the guy.
In this sense, Trump’s speech was liberating. I applaud him for it.
Trump Yarmulkes Are Biggest Seller at AIPAC Conference, Washington Free Beacon,
Donald Trump yarmulke / Marc’s Garden Jubilee
If yarmulke sales are any indication of voter attitudes, Donald Trump was the clear winner at AIPAC on Monday night.
Marc Daniels, a vendor selling campaign logo kippas outside the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington, D.C. on Monday evening, said the “Donald Trump 2016” cap was his most popular item by far.
Daniels said he was “inundated” with requests for the Trump yarmulkes from conference-goers and sold out almost immediately.
“I totally underestimated the degree of support that Jewish people who are attending this event have for Trump,” said Daniels, who runs an online yarmulke shop called Marc’s Garden Jubilee. “I probably had about 50 inquiries for Trump yarmulkes that I could not fulfill.”
Daniels said he sold two or three Ted Cruz yarmulkes and three or four for John Kasich. By 8 p.m. on Monday, the vendor said he only had Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders caps left over, and was finding those tougher to unload.
Trump, Cruz, Kasich and Clinton spoke at the AIPAC Policy Conference on Monday. Sanders did not attend the event.
WE FEAR THAT TERRORISTS ARE STILL AT LARGE – BELGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER
–
Recent Comments