"The Swedish police recently released a map of 55 areas where they publicly admit to having surrendered control to the criminal gangs. These areas have long had problems with mailmen, fire trucks and ambulances being attacked when trying to enter, which has led to them routinely requesting police escort. Now it’s the police being attacked outright.
These no-go zones are primarily so-called “exclusion areas” which is the politically correct term for the 186 ghettos that have sprung up around Sweden in the past two decades. These areas are predominantly populated by immigrants from muslim countries with low education and even lower employment rates. The exception being the enthusiastic entrepreneurs in the fields of drug dealing, protection rackets and robberies.
Since the real law doesn’t apply, the function of justice has largely been taken over by the gangs themselves, not unlike how the mafia is seen as the go-to place in rural Italy when the local police is too corrupt to serve its purpose. Unofficial courts are held and punishments are meted out based on the cultural norms of the dominant gangs. Some no-go areas even have vehicle checkpoints at the border. Not police checkpoints, but the gangs protecting their turf from law enforcement and rival gangs.
This development would have been inconceivable only 20 years ago, and one would think this official surrender by the police would have made big headlines. This is not the case; the most attention it seems to have received in mainstream media is an opinion piece in national paper Svenska Dagbladet.
It can be speculated that this is due to the fact that any reporting on this could be seen as “support” for nationalist party SD that wants to restrict the vast inflow to these ghettos, which is an absolute no-no amongst the journalists and could cost them their jobs. The world’s most extreme immigration from the MENA-region must continue unchallenged, and another 100 000+ must be added annually to the ghetto gangs’ recruitment base.
Edit: Scratch that. They just announced they’re setting the sights higher with a significantly increased immigration for 2015. The new forecast should put the total immigration above 200 000 per year by the time all is said and done."
An LDS U.S. Marine from Indiana was killed during combat in Fallujah, Iraq."He chose to serve his country and was willing to make the sacrifice."
Lance Cpl. James E. Swain, 20, of the Kokomo Ward, Lafayette Indiana Stake, died Nov. 15 "as a result of enemy action," according to the U.S. Department of Defense.
"It is such a loss, there is deep pain," said Lafayette Indiana Stake President Patrick Connolly.
Lance Cpl. Swain is survived by his parents, Daniel E. and Mona R. Warner Swain, a brother and two sisters.
A member of the Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Lance Cpl. Swain had reportedly been serving as an intelligence analyst in Osaka, Japan, before volunteering for combat duty.
"He wanted to be there and felt he needed to be there," his father, Daniel Swain, told the Kokomo Tribune.
A 2002 graduate of Kokomo High School, James Eric Swain was a member of the National Honor Society, was active in his school's drama club and was involved in many community projects.
Daniel Swain said his son was the type of person who unknowingly touched many lives.
"James was an endearing person," the Marine's father told the Kokomo Tribune. "He tried to be invisible to everyone, even though he is 6-feet tall and a redhead. He was a practical joker."
Lance Cpl. Swain had reportedly hoped to study at Brigham Young University after finishing his military commitment.
A memorial scholarship in Lance Cpl. Swain's name is being created at Kokomo High School.
"It will be given to a student with good grades in a service position," Principal Harold Canady told the Kokomo Tribune. "James was so noted for his service to the high school. He was always involved in helping people."
Principal Canaday described Lance Cpl. Swain as an "All-American boy."
"To address the election more directly: I loathe what the Democratic Party has done these last few years and I dearly hope that today sees the dethroning of Harry Reid. I would also like to be represented in Washington by someone other than Senator Shaheen and Congresswoman Kuster. Nonetheless, I regard the Republican Party as a largely repulsive institution. Yesterday, one of the last of this season's election flyers arrived at my Post Office from the GOP. It read:
SCOTT BROWN HAS A
STRONG RECORD OF FIGHTING
FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.
SCOTT IS PRO-CHOICE & SUPPORTS
ISSUES IMPORTANT TO WOMEN.
Now Scott Brown is certainly "pro-choice", as is his right. It hasn't been a big part of his campaign - he got a lot of traction from immigration, and from Jeanne Shaheen's abysmal debate performances - and realistically, whatever one feels about abortion, today's election results won't make a whit of difference on the issue. Still, I'd have no objection to Mr Brown sending out campaign literature bragging about his position.
But this flyer came from the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.
The official position of the State Committee is that it is opposed to abortion. You can read the platform here:
We believe that life is sacred, from conception to natural death and that we cannot diminish the value of one category of human life without diminishing the value of all human life.
In addition the NH GOP is committed to...
Support the unborn child's fundamental right to life and implement all possible legal protections
Encourage individuals and organizations who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers through adoption, support, counseling and educational services
Now maybe that's all squaresville, uptight social-conservative stuff, and not where the party needs to be in 2014. Nevertheless, it's the official position, and the base has been disinclined to change it. So when a pro-life State Committee sends out leaflets boasting about being pro-choice, they're telling you that those two bolded words "we believe" are meaningless when uttered by a New Hampshire Republican official. Why would what they claim to "believe" on Obamacare or debt or foreign policy be any more reliable? When a man tells you his word is bullsh*t, take him at it.
More revealingly, look at how the State Committee characterizes Brown's position: The candidate is "pro-choice" and "supports issues important to women". That's Democrat framing: Opposition to abortion is part of the Republican war on women, etc. Furthermore, being "pro-choice" is evidence that Brown "has a strong record of fighting for what is right". So it's not just a policy dispute or a matter of personal conscience on which people of good faith can disagree. Being "pro-choice" is "what is right" - which presumably means being pro-life is what is wrong.
This is what the supposedly pro-life Republican Party is mailing its base on the eve of a low-turnout midterm election."
"If political material gets posted online but no one pays to post it, does it get regulated?
It’s literally “free speech” and right now, the answer is basically no, it’s not regulated — but in a surprise move late Friday, regulators said they were honing in on the YouTube videos, tweets and blog posts that have been playing an ever-larger role in political campaigns.
Conservatives, bloggers and even parody makers could all be targets.
Ann M. Ravel, a Democrat and the vice chair of the Federal Election Commission, announced Friday evening that the FEC would begin moving to regulate internet-based campaigns and videos, items which are currently free from most federal regulation, the Washington Examiner reported.
“A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” Ravel said.
Ravel’s statement came after the FEC board was split 3-3 over whether two anti-Obama YouTube videos violated FEC rules because the videos, placed on YouTube for free, did not come with any disclosure and the campaign that produced them did not report financial information, the Examiner noted.
Since 2006, the FEC has left political videos and websites largely unregulated — except in cases where, for instance, a campaign paid money to place a video on a website — but now a huge swath of the internet could become subject to new regulations.
“I told you this was coming,” FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, told the Examiner, citing his earlier warning that federal regulation of conservative online political activities — including parody videos and political blogs — was likely on the way.
The aggregator site Drudge Report, one of the first and foremost conservative presences on the internet, gave the news of the FEC move top billing Saturday morning as the Examiner noted that right-wing websites will likely be targeted under the new regulations."
"With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, candidates around the country are scrambling to make their case to voters. Republicans—whose brand has been weakening for at least a decade—are hoping to make big gains, particularly in the Senate. Polls indicate that many races are still tight, so the outcome is far from certain.
The conventional wisdom regarding what the GOP must do to repair its image—and eventually win on the national level again—has included two basic pieces of advice. The first is to reach out to younger voters, women and ethnic minorities, mainly blacks and Latinos. The second is to downplay the issues of marriage and the sanctity of life, and it’s no secret that the socially liberal Republican leaders would like to get rid of those issues altogether. These two ideas are typically cast as the GOP’s only realistic path forward.
What too many political consultants fail to understand, however, is that the marriage and life planks of the GOP platform hold the key to any hope they have of building a more diverse coalition. Unfortunately, many powerful party decision-makers seem to get their information about women and minorities from media stereotypes, assuming they all favor a socially liberal agenda. If they bothered to look at widely available data, they would realize that women are evenly split on the issue of abortion, younger voters are increasingly pro-life, and blacks and Latinos are far more religiously devoted and family oriented than the rest of the country...."
"Democrats are compassionate people who want to help others. Republicans are greedy rich people who care only about themselves. When I was a liberal, those were my impressions.
Having transitioned from left to right over the past seven years, those long-held beliefs changed dramatically. No thanks to the GOP. The party appears unable or unwilling to articulate a compelling message, which leaves one wondering what they stand for.
Thomas Sowell has addressed this problem many times. In August, he wrote:
One of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans is that we at least know what the Democrats stand for, whether we agree with it or not. But, for Republicans, we have to guess.
Last year he wrote:
You might think that the stakes are high enough for Republicans to put in some serious time trying to clarify their message.
As the great economist Alfred Marshall once said, facts do not speak for themselves. If we are waiting for the Republicans to do the speaking, the country is in big trouble.
Democrats, by contrast, are all talk. They could sell refrigerators to Eskimos before Republicans could sell them blankets.
The prior year Sowell wrote (here and here):
…the Republicans' greatest failure has been precisely their chronic failure to spell out their principles…. (snip)
…The net result is that articulate Democrats can get away with the biggest lies, without any serious rebuttal from most Republicans. (snip)
But so long as Republicans don't seem to feel any urgency about refuting the Democrats' claim that they just want to help the rich at the expense of the poor, they are courting defeat on election day. Why lose to a lie because you didn't bother to explain the truth?
So what’s the deal?
Is the GOP devoid of principles? Do they have principles but no interest in spelling them out in plain language? Do they think they’re doing a good job and there’s no need to address their messaging problem?
My guess is it’s a combination of all of the above. As far as I can tell, the GOP has become increasingly watered down over the years, straying further and further from values that once made the party strong. I mean, my goodness, they hardly even talk about national security any more -- an area where they once distinguished themselves.
I also think the power brokers in the party are suffering from a chronic case of arrogance. As a result, they’ve lost touch with how their message does or doesn’t resonate with people, or whether they even need to bother assessing if the message is getting through. Or more fundamentally, what the message is. Which circles back to: What are their principles?
So what are we left with? The predictable and rarely explained mantra of “lower taxes” and “smaller government.”
To say this message is inadequate would be inadequate.
First of all, these two talking points don’t resonate with millions of Americans, in part, because the GOP does not spell out how or why these ideas are right for America. They do not point out historical patterns that prove time and again that bigger government has never benefited the citizenry. Worse, how bigger government turns into tyranny.
Second, and more importantly, “lower taxes” and “smaller government” are not core principles. The core principle is freedom. And that is what we need to be talking about. Instead, the Republican Party rambles on incoherently while the Democrats put their values on full display -- touting all the ways they want to help people. Their misguided ideas typically go unchallenged by the GOP."
"At a Democratic rally in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to attack “trickle-down economics,” resulted in a spectacularly odd statement.
Clinton defended raising the minimum wage saying “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.”
She went on to state that businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America. “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” the former Secretary of State said.
Clinton’s comment will likely be used frequently to attack her as another big-government Democrat. She is seen by many as already running for president in 2016."
"In the fall of 1991, the relatively small and quiet university of Alfred University in New York State was engrossed in controversy. Indignant professors led students in protests, heated debates raged throughout the divided campus, editorials filled the school and local papers. At the heart of the controversy was the newly-installed statue of King Alfred, the medieval English monarch after whom the town and school was named. Ten years prior, when the monument was commissioned, no one could foresee the controversy it would eventually cause. Yet, its placement offended the sensibilities of the university's history professors.
By the strong and negative reaction one would think that Alfred must have been a tyrant, an oppressor of his people, a man deserving of the title Alfred the Terrible. Surprisingly, it is the opposite that that is true.
From 871 to 899, Alfred was the King of Wessex, one of the four kingdoms that would eventually become England. During his reign he revived the tradition of learning that had died with the fall of the Roman Empire. He required all of his nobles be literate and increased their education by translating the great Latin texts into English. Additionally, he has the honor of being the first king in English history to write a book, preceding King James by eight centuries. Thus, he is known as the "education king."
King Alfred the Great
More significantly, for the first time, English law would be written and would establish the tradition of England being a land 'ruled by laws' rather than by the whims of powerful men. Within these laws we find the genesis the principles of due process, trial by jury, and respect for the individual; no matter how lowly. His laws protected the commoner from arbitrary and excessive punishment. Even slaves were protected by his laws. There were limits on the number of hours they could be forced to work and were granted 37 work-free holidays per year. Furthermore, the slaves were allowed to work on their own behalf and retain all proceeds from their endeavors. Through the church, Alfred created a system that fed the poor and provided them with medical care.
For the 9th century, Alfred was a very enlightened king who was loved by his people and for this reason he is the only king in English history to be bestowed the moniker "the Great." Alfred the Great, the father of England and education king.
So why would the history professors be opposed to a memorial to this great proponent of education?
The truth is that the opposition to Alfred had more to do with what he symbolizes rather than actual history. Linda Mitchell, who specializes in Medieval history, was one of the protesting professors. As she explained in a New York Times interview, Alfred "is not a good logo to promote a modern university because virtually any historical figure who had any social or political influence is undoubtedly going to be a D.W.E.M. -- dead white European male," she said, "it would be foolish to choose a symbol so exclusive and effective in emphasizing the straight white male power structure of history."
For Alfred, being a DWEM (Dead White European Male) means that his great achievements are to be ignored because they do not fit into the ideologically-driven, anti-Western civilization, revisionist history that is currently being taught in schools."
"The Obama Administration operates on the sound principle that, if you're going to have a scandal, it's best to have dozens of them and then no one can keep up, and none of them becomes large enough to matter.
In this case, Jonathan Dach is the son of an influential Obama donor and Walmart lobbyist with ties to the First Lady's "healthy eating initiative". Two years ago, Dach Jnr was part of the White House advance team dispatched to Cartagena ahead of the President's visit. The evidence from the hotel register conclusively proves that he had a prostitute in his room. But the White House hushed it up, on the grounds that he did not actually bill US taxpayers for his hooker. How did that happen? Well:
Dach "was not charged for additional guest as a benefit of Hilton Honor Member."
So under the Hilton Honors program the first hooker stays for free. Who knew? Did young Jonathan Dach only have all those points on his Hilton card because he was doing so much presidential travel? In which case, his complimentary hooker was in a sense a perk of office.
Anyway, when he paid off the prostitute and came back from Colombia, Jonathan Dach was given a job at the White House "working on Global Women's Issues". In Cartagena, he was working on Global Women. Now he's working on Global Women's Issues. Ah, well. There's no real need for US officials to travel to Latin America, is there? We're trending quite Latin-American enough in Washington: The Democrats and media have trained the public to accept a certain level of government corruption as perfectly routine, no matter how absurd and obvious it is.
I think it's worth keeping an eye on the big picture here. First, as I wrote two-and-a-half years ago, there was no reason for Mr Dach or any of the other at least two dozen federal johns to be in Cartagena at all: They were cavorting with prostitutes all night long because there was nothing for them to do:
What we know so far is this: All eleven Secret Service men and all ten U.S. military personnel staying at the Hotel Caribe are alleged to have had "escorts" in their rooms that night. All of them. The entire team.
Twenty-one U.S. public servants. Twenty-one Colombian whores. Unless a couple of the senior guys splashed out for the two-girl special...
Why were 21 officials of the United States government able to enjoy a night of pleasure with 21 prostitutes..? The answer isn't difficult. Indeed, one retired agent spelled it out: "They just didn't have anything to do."
So they did Dania Suarez and her friends instead.
The 21 dedicated public servants jetted in on the so-called car-planes, the big transports flying in the tinted-windowed black Suburbans for the presidential motorcade. The "car-plane" guys show up a few days in advance, but usually two weeks or so after the really advanced advance team has hit the ground. And there was nothing for them to do. There is no reason for them to be there.
And now we know that the presidential-entourage hooker culture isn't confined to the agents but extends to the dweeby wonk aides as well.
So the obvious solution would be to lower the number of presidential flunkeys. Which is a standing joke at global summits - that the US President has to be accompanied by more hangers-on than all the other presidents and prime ministers put together. They're not there to do their duty, they're there to do the local booty.
In 2012, when I wrote about this incident, I quoted Congressman Peter King:
It was totally wrong to take a foreign national back to a hotel when the president is about to arrive.
And, after spraying coffee all over my desk, I commented:
It's wrong to take a "foreign national" up to the room, but it would have been okay if she'd been from Des Moines? We're all in favor of outsourcing, but in compliance with Section 27(e)viii of the PATRIOT Act this is the one job Americans will do?
The problem isn't that they're foreign nationals, it's that they're prostitutes. Nevertheless, a new regulation was subsequently introduced forbidding Secret Service agents to have foreigners in their hotel rooms. So at, say, last year's G7 summit in Northern Ireland, it would have been a firing offense for the Presidential advance team to invite the local MI5 guys to their suite to liaise on security, but if they'd flown in a dominatrix from Tuscaloosa, no problem.
As I said, I wrote about all this two years ago. Since then, we've had the Mandela funeral fiasco, where America's money-no-object security entourage stuck the President on stage two feet from an "interpreter" who turned out to be a violent, convicted criminal who'd been part of a "necklacing" gang. In the last few weeks, we've had a knife-toting intruder jump the White House fence, a gun-toting felon in the elevator with the President... There have been apparently more than a thousand security breaches in the last five years. And all for the perfectly obvious reason that, when it comes to security, more equals worse.
The federal motorcade hooker-culture is a symbol of government decadence, and a potentially catastrophic loss of government integrity.The Queen is safer with one car in front and one behind than the President is with a 40-car motorcade of expense-finaglers wondering if their Hilton Honors card will cover the two-girl special."
"A Canadian man who was killed by police after trying to run over two soldiers in Quebec 'had become radicalized', the government said after the first such incident since the country joined the fight against Islamic State militants.
The Canadian government did not specify what it meant by radicalised but in the past has used the term to refer to Canadians who become supporters of militant Islamic groups..."
"RADICALISED MAN RUNS OVER TWO SOLDIERS IN CANADA.
In Canada police has killed a man who earlier had run over two soldiers. The incident took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in Quebec. The perpetrator would be a radicalised man. One of the soldiers was wounded very badly, the other one received only light injuries..."
