Tuesday, October 25, 2016

November 8th: Trump +5

By Andrew Grant White

Conventional wisdom says that Trump's a dead duck, and we all know how prescient is conventional wisdom. Only two weeks left until election and RealClearPolitics (RCP) puts Clinton about 6 points ahead. So confident is Hillary (supposedly) that one newspaper now urges her to divert some from the presidential campaign and help Democrats in Senate and House races. We should be so lucky.
Back to the point. Presidential polls are split into two camps: MSM polls and non-MSM polls. They have starkly different characteristics and results. MSM polls come from those you already know, and the companies themselves have already shed their last shred of dignity and objectivity to throw in with Hillary. They also poll in discreet measure (i.e. release a poll whenever they want one to come out).
Non-MSM polls are not as well known but quite accomplished (e.g. Rasmussen, LA Times/USC, IDB/TIPP - the most accurate in 2012 election, btw). They also poll daily (actually an average of the last three days). Finally, MSM polls consistently show Hillary up by an average of 8%, whereas the non-MSM polls have shown variation based on events and a logical current tightening of the polls down to basically +/-1% or so per candidate (e.g. Trump in the lead right now by 2% in Rasmussen's poll).
What if the polls change more favorably for Trump? Great, but I'm not counting that here. What about the 2012 party sampling (or worse) adjustment to data? Have you seen the difference in the candidate's rallies? But so what? I'm not factoring that in either. No, I'm not talking about polls changes or the supposedly awoken silent majority giant. I'm talking about the Bradley Effect.
For those not familiar with the Bradley Effect, it doesn't happen too often. Specifically, it is named after a black LA major who ran for California Governor against a white man in 1982 (unusual for the times). Bradley was ahead in the polls when on election day, the exact opposite occurred. He lost. Supposedly the polls were flawed because people did not want to sound racist when polled. The Bradley Effect is not specific to one race, though, nor to race itself. It occurs in unusual times at different magnitude.
Can you think of a candidate today whose name causes hush practically anywhere you go? I can: Trump - "The Love that dare not speak its Name."  Such uniform pervasive societal and personal pressure not to support Trump has led to the distinct possibility of another Bradley Effect. In essence, Trump has closet Democrat, independent and -- yes -- Republican supporters whose support simply does not show up in any poll of either camp. How do I back this up? Simple: I don't. It's a gut feeling, an intuition, a logical conclusion for out times, and a resulting 3 points added onto Rasmussen's current Trump +2%.
Therefore, I will now go on record that -- even if nothing happens in the polls or sampling of today -- Trump will win on November 8th by at least 5%. The man no one said would/could run; the man no one said would make it out of the primaries alive; the man whose epitaph has been written by the MSM so many times its even been done literally; the man whom supposedly everybody hates...will be President of the United States-Elect. Get used to it. Oh, and, buy stocks on the market swoon and dump your debt.


German Police Carry out Raids on Suspected Terrorist Financiers

German police on Tuesday stormed an accommodation facility for refugees and 12 homes around the country that were believed to house people suspected of financing terrorism. Police searched residences in the eastern states of Thuringia and Saxony as well as in Bavaria, the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia and in Hamburg, police in Thuringia said in a statement. The investigation has so far not uncovered any concrete risk of attack, they said. No one was arrested during the raids, a police spokeswoman eastern state of Thuringia said. A non-dangerous substance had been found and that was now being investigated. The police have been investigating a 28-year-old Russian citizen of Chechen origin since the second half of 2015 who was suspected of preparing “a serious act of violent subversion”, the statement said. They believed he intended to fight for Islamic State in Syria. During the course of investigations, suspicion arose that that person as well as 10 other men and three women – all Russian citizens of Chechen origin – were financing terrorism. The suspects were living in Thuringia, Hamburg and Dortmund, are asylum seekers with unclear residency status, and are aged between 21 and 31, police said. Earlier this month a Syrian refugee who was arrested on suspicion of planning a major attack in Berlin was found dead in prison after he initially evaded police during a raid on his apartment where 1.5 kg of explosives were found. Authorities said he had committed suicide.

Austrian Party Leader: Merkel Is The Most Dangerous Woman In Europe

Leader of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) Heinz-Christian Strache has said German Chancellor Angela Merkel was “Europe’s most dangerous woman” because of her migrant policies. The anti-mass migration populist leader of the FPÖ spoke on the “state of the nation” at the Austrian parliament and used the opportunity to blast German Chancellor Angela Merkel calling her “the most dangerous woman in Europe”, reports Die Welt.
Mr. Strache acknowledged that whilst Mrs. Merkel is the most powerful woman in the European Union (EU), the actions of the German Chancellor were “criminal”. He said she bore responsibility for the floodgates being opened to millions of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.
According to the FPÖ leader, the promises of Merkel to uphold the law and to control the migrant crisis were “empty words” as the crisis continues to impact Europe with thousands of migrants from Africa hitting the shores of Sicily and southern Italy every week.
Strache also hit out at the “welcome culture” he claimed that Merkel had fostered with her slogan “wir schaffen das”, or “we can do it”, saying that it helped “launch the largest migration of peoples for centuries”. He stated that mass migration had become a legitimate threat to Europe.
Calling the current threat an “abyss of evil”, Strache hit out at the mainstream media and political parties in Austria who had ignored the warnings of the party on mass migration and integration. “Ethno-culturally foreign immigration”, Strache said, should not exceed a fixed amount.
The policy of a cap on migrants or prioritisation of those from Christian or Western values backgrounds is a sentiment shared by the coalition partner of Mrs. Merkel, the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), as well as the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD).
Strache, along with the leader of the AfD Frauke Petry, has made a conscious effort to form alliances with other anti-mass migration parties and politicians like French Front National Leader Marine Le Pen under the banner of the Patriot Spring, a term coined by Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders.
The FPÖ are enjoying immense popularity in Austria as polls in Vienna show them with a 40 per cent favourability and many betting on their presidential candidate Norbert Hofer to win the delayed presidential election in December.
The popularity of the FPÖ follows the trend of other parties like the Front National, the AfD, and Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom who are projected to win at least ten parliamentary seats more than the current ruling party in the coming Dutch national election next year.

UK to Take Hundreds More ‘Child’ Migrants After French Pressure

The number of ‘child’ migrants the UK is expected to take in the next 3 weeks, thanks to a new loophole in immigration law, has shot up from 450 to 650, with 200 having already arrived in the past week. The revelation came after France accused the UK of trying to stall the process. According to The Times, an official close to the French interior minister said the Élysée Palace was furious Britain had “engaged in extremely difficult negotiations on a case-by-case basis [for each migrant]”.
Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, blamed the French but announced after the row that Britain would take “several hundred more” migrants.
The migrants from Calais began to arrive in the UK last week, despite the government promising not to accept them from safe countries such as France, after the unelected House of Lords pushed through the Dubs Amendment’ to the immigration bill.
It was promised they would only be the most vulnerable children, with families in the UK. However, the Home Office has admitted they do not always confirm they have links to the UK and have no way of verifying their age, leading MPs to accuse the Home Office of “eroding public trust”.
Furthermore, it has been reported that around two-thirds of the ‘child’ migrants screened by Home Office officials in the past year have been found to be adults. After press scrutiny, a 15-foot high screen was erected to hide the migrants’ identities as they arrive in the UK.
French authorities are rushing to dismantle the notorious Jungle camp in Northern France in coming days, and the 6,000 to 10,000 people living there are being sent to centres all over France where they can apply for asylum.
Despite the fact the camp is set to disappear, the Home Secretary also pledged £36 million of extra funds for security, lighting, and fencing in Calais. The money can also fund deportations and relocation centres for migrants.
Ms. Rudd said yesterday: “The government has sought every opportunity to expedite the process to transfer children to the UK.
“My officials were only given access to the camp to interview children in the last week, and similarly we have only recently received agreement from the French government that we could bring Dubs cases [children with no family connection in Britain] to the UK.”
She added: “Before this we worked closely with the French behind the scenes but without their agreement it was not possible to make progress on taking non-family cases from Calais.”

Editor of Austria’s Largest Paper Charged with ‘Hate Speech’ over Migrant Article

An editor of Austria’s largest paper, Kronen Zeitung, is to be tried for hate speech over a commentary he wrote about the migrant crisis last year.

On 25 October 2015, Christoph Biro wrote of the masses of migrants who were travelling through the Styrian countryside and remarked on the assaults and property damage committed by migrants, reports Kurier.
Calling the majority of the migrants “testosterone-driven Syrians”, Mr. Biro recounted the multiple reports of migrants carrying out, in his words, “extremely aggressive sexual assaults”.

He also detailed Afghan men had slashed the seats of the trains that were transporting them to Germany because they refused to sit where Christians had previously sat.The commentary provoked a negative reaction at the time with 37 complaints lodged against Mr. Biro. He took four weeks off from his position at the time, claiming that he had lost perspective and proportion of the situation.Many, including the Austrian train company ÖBB, denied that Afghans had destroyed their seats, though cases of sexual assault have been rampant across Austria over the past year.
The prosecutor in the Styrian capital of Graz has confirmed they will be seeking charges against Biro for his comments after the case was brought to them by left-wing SOS Mitmensch. The group released a guide for Austrians earlier this year on how to successfully get people tried for hate speech crimes.
SOS Mitmensch describes itself as a pressure group for human rights and has been a staunch opponent of the anti-mass migration Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) who have significantly risen in the polls over the course of the migrant crisis. Head of the left-wing group, Alexander Pollak, has claimed that his organisation has been inundated with requests on how to report anti-migrant comments to the police.
While many private individuals in Germany and Austria have been successfully prosecutedfor anti-migrant, or even migrant-critical rhetoric, the case against Mr. Biro marks the first time a member of the press has been prosecuted in Austria since the migrant crisis began.
A similar case in neighbouring Germany had been that of comedian Jan Böhmermann, who faced charges for insulting the President of Turkey in a crude poem he recited on his television programme; the charges against him were dropped by prosecutors earlier in October.
Even politicians are not immune from hate speech investigations. A Vienna prosecutor is currently looking into charges against FPÖ leader Heinz-Christian Strache over posts made on his Facebook page by other users that may be deemed inflammatory by Austrian law. The prosecutor is looking into whether Mr. Strache or his staff could be liable for not removing offensive comments fast enough.

Muslim refugee with FOUR WIVES and 23 CHILDREN ‘claims £320,000 a year in benefits'

A SYRIAN refugee with four wives and 23 children has sparked outrage after it was claimed he was receiving a staggering £320,000 a year in benefits.The migrant, known only as Ghazia A, fled Syria last year along with his family. He has since resettled in Germany with his four wives and 22 of his children. One of his daughters has since moved to Saudi Arabia where she has married.The family could be receiving more than £320,000 a year in benefits according to a financial manager on the Employers’ Association website. There is no official confirmation on this figure. Under Islamic tradition, the 49-year-old can have up to four wives – as long as he can support them financially.Germany does not legally recognise polygamy, meaning that Ghazia A was forced to choose a “main wife” so the rest of the family could claim benefits. The other three wives are categorised as “friends” of the Syrian migrant. But a local official in the town of Montabaur described the situation as an “exemption”. Ghazia A now lives with his “main” wife Twasif and their five children in Montabaur, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate – while the other three wives and children have been moved into neighbouring communities up to 31 miles away.The man used to work in a garage and car hire service in his homeland but has not worked since resettling in Germany. Mr Ghazia expressed an interest in working again but noted his commitments to his family made this difficult. He said: "In our religion it is my duty to visit every family and to be with them.”One of Ghazia’s neighbours, Sergei Jaufmann, said: "The children play football in the street. The mother I often see, when it comes from shopping." Social media users vented their frustrations, with one claiming “the Syrian with 4 women and 23 children is now being sold to us as a new normality”.

Trump '87% certain' to win in November

By Arnold Cusmariu

Months before Donald Trump became the GOP nominee, I saw an interview on FNC with a college professor predicting with near certainty that Trump would win the election against Hillary Clinton.
My reaction: Yeah, right.
At the time, it was far from clear that Trump would be the nominee, so here was someone skipping over that critical fact and boldly predicting that Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in November. Besides, Bernie Sanders went on to give Clinton quite a scare during the primary season before departing from the scene with his thirty pieces of silver, bitterly disappointing ardent supporters likely to stay home next month.
I wondered what happened to the professor’s prediction until I saw him again on FNC the other day. Is he still predicting Trump will win? Is he willing to bet money on it? Yes and yes. Maybe Clinton campaign representatives will shortly reach out to the professor for a “conversation.”
The professor is Helmut Norpoth, who has tenure and teaches political science at Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York. His course load on the university website includes at the undergraduate level POL 317: American Election Campaigns, POL 318: Voters and Elections, and POL 336: U.S. Foreign Policy; and at the graduate level POL 617: Electoral Behavior. Dr. Norpoth holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.
Academic credentials established, the next question was the reasoning Professor Norpoth used to make his prediction. The website has available a PDF file with the fine print. Here are key points:
Donald Trump is predicted to defeat Hillary Clinton by 52.5% to 47.5% of the two-party vote.
The prediction is based on presidential primary results and swings in an election cycle. The model has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996. 
The model predicts that the candidate with the stronger primary performance wins against the candidate with the weaker primary performance. For elections from 1912 to 2012 the model correctly identified the winner every time except in 1960.
Trump significantly outperformed Clinton during the primaries. For example, he won the Republican primaries in both New Hampshire and the South Carolina while Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders split the Democratic primaries in those two states.
Based on primary performance, the model predicts that Clinton would beat both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Recall that during the primaries, John Stossel said the “smart money” was on Rubio against Trump. The “smart money” is now betting on Clinton against Trump.
The 1960 exception does not falsify the model. Why not? Because a scientific model is entitled to assume that proceedings under analysis are not rigged, otherwise predictions are meaningless -- reminder to global warming fanatics. However, we now know that Kennedy stole the 1960 election, aided in large measure by powerful Democratic Party machines in Texas and Illinois.
So, Trump was right to warn against a rigged election in November and to assert that he will not stand for Democratic Party skullduggery at the polls. Republican talking heads (real or alleged) who ganged up on Trump for making that point during the third debate need to calm down and imagine a Nixon win in 1960.
In my view -- I’m hardly alone -- there would have been no Cuban missile crisis with Nixon in the White House. Nikita Khrushchev met Nixon as Eisenhower’s vice-president and knew what to expect. He thought Kennedy, a rich playboy, was soft and decided to test him to see what he could get away with, a tried-and-true Soviet tactic. This nearly got us all blown to bits. Castro still owns Cuba.
The world thinks the Obama presidency is a huge joke. A corrupt, pay-for-play Clinton presidency will engender even louder laughter around the globe, especially in Tehran. To mollify the mullahs, Clinton is likely to give the Iranians what they most desire, the State of Israel. American Jews need to keep in mind that the Ayatollah Politburo answers to a different authority altogether.    


Monday, October 24, 2016

Thousands More Migrants Arrive in Italy Over Weekend

 This handout picture taken and released by the Italian Red Cross on October 22, 2016 shows migrants landing in Vibo Marina, after a rescue operation in the Mediterranean Sea.  
Nine people drowned, ten were missing and nearly 1000 migrants were rescued off the Libyan coast on October 22, with over seven-thousand rescued from the Mediterranean Sea this week alone.  / AFP / ITALIAN RED CROSS / YARA NARDI        (Photo credit should read YARA NARDI/AFP/Getty Images)
Massive migration into Italy continues unabated, as some 6,100 migrants were rescued at sea over the weekend as they attempted to cross the Strait of Sicily from North Africa into Italy. In a series of 24 different rescue operations coordinated by the Italian Coast Guard, vessels recovered thousands of mostly African migrants as well as 14 dead bodies off the coast of Libya beginning on Friday and continuing all the way through Sunday.
The Italian coast guard said it recovered seven dead bodies on Friday and another seven the next day, while a number of people are still reported missing.
Participants in the rescue efforts included EU Navfor Med, an Irish naval vessel, various merchant ships and NGOs such as Doctors without Borders, Boat Refugee Foundation, Lifeboat, SOS Méditerranée and Sea Watch.
The latest arrivals push the number of migrants arriving in Italy to over 150,000 since January 1, 2016, a figure that exceeds the numbers of migrants arriving in 2015, which had itself been a record year.
According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) less than 2,000 migrants have subsequently left Italy, while the immense bulk have remained. The Populist Five Star Movement has used these data to attack sitting Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, insisting that he has zero clout within the European Union and has no idea how to solve Italy’s enormous migrant crisis.
Italy is the principal destination for migrants traveling from North Africa and seeking to reach Europe. The voyage across the Strait of Sicily is perilous, and more than 3,000 migrants have lost their lives attempting the crossing this year.
According to Professor Anna Bono, who teaches African History and Institutions at the University of Turin, most of the migrants coming to Italy are not refugees escaping from war or even poor people fleeing hunger. The migrants tend to be young, middle-class males, she says.
Bono says that the enormous costs of emigration contradict the common thesis that migrants are fleeing dire situations of indigence, noting that those who want to come to Europe must procure as much as 10 thousand dollars to pay traffickers for their passage.
The professor also stated that there is extensive propaganda by traffickers in African countries promoting emigration to Italy.
“In the countries of sub-Saharan Africa there are advertisements inciting people to go to Italy, explaining that everything here is free. And indeed it is,” she said.
“I imagine the phone calls these guys make home to their friends, confirming that everything is actually given them for free,” she said.

British No Borders Activists Plan to Attack Police Dismantling Calais Migrant Camp

British anarchists and open borders activists have promised to “fight the police” in Calais this week to stop them demolishing the illegal Jungle migrant camp. France is due to begin the work on Monday, and the 6,500 to 10,000 migrants living there will either be deported or moved to one of 300 temporary refugee centres across France.
“Lots of us will be going down”, promised a member of the No Borders group at a rally in South London last week, where leaflets bearing a picture of masked, club-wielding activists smashing up a law enforcement van were displayed.
According to The Sunday Times, the “No Borders social” also involved the Anti-Raids Network (ARN), the UK end of No Borders.
The two groups have previously brought chaos to the town in northern France, whipping up riots and encouraging migrants to board ferries in the port, tear down fences, and invade the Channel Tunnel en masse.
ARN frequently ambushes and attacks immigration officials here in the UK, and in 2015, they vandalised and slashed the tires of border force vans attempting to detain illegal migrants.
The leaflets at the event, titled “Fight the raids”, boasted about this “attack”, and was illustrated with graphic images of three hooded activists, one with a rock, one climbing on the roof with a club, and one kicking in the rear window.
Above the picture, the text instructs activists to “cover your face and any identifiable clothing” and “avoid sending compromising messages on your phone”.
It also instructs activists not to “film anyone doing anything compromising, even if you plan to blur/delete this later, as there’s always a risk of getting stopped and searched/arrested by the police in a protest situation”.
“The war against the borders is not just at the frontiers of Brenner, Idomeni or Calais, but also in our own neighbourhoods,” the group explains on Facebook.

No Justice in the Netherlands

A court in The Hague decided on October 14 that the charges of hate speech against Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for statements he made in March 2014 at a political rally, are admissible in a court of law. It thereby rejected the Wilders' appeal to throw out the charges as inadmissible in a court of law on the grounds that these are political issues and that a trial would in fact amount to a political process. The criminal trial against Wilders will begin on Monday, October 31.
While campaigning in The Hague in March 2014, Wilders argued the need for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. At an election meeting in The Hague, he asked those present a number of questions, one of which was "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that."
Because of the "fewer Moroccans" statements, repeated again in an interview a few days later, Wilders will be prosecuted on two counts: First for "deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race." Second, for "inciting hatred or discrimination against these people."
Wilders' defense attorney, Geert Jan Knoops, has argued that the trial amounts to a political trial against Wilders and his party, the PVV: "Sensitive issues must be judged by public opinion or through the ballot box,", Knoops said "The Prosecutor is indirectly asking for a ruling over the functioning of the PVV and its political program. The court must not interfere with this."
As a politician, Wilders can say more than an ordinary citizen, Knoops said, arguing that Wilders used his statements to point out shortcomings in the Dutch state. "It is his duty to name shortcomings. He takes that responsibility and proposes solutions." Knoops argued that the prosecutor is limiting Wilders' freedom of speech by prosecuting him for his statements.
The court's response was that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression, they should "avoid public statements that feed intolerance" and that the trial would determine where the border lies between politicians' freedom of expression and their obligation, as the court sees it, to avoid public statements that feed intolerance.
Other politicians, notably all from the Labour Party, have uttered the following about Moroccans without being prosecuted:
The court discarded Wilders' defense attorney's argument that the failure to prosecute any of these politicians renders the trial against Wilders discriminatory. The court said that because of the different time, place and context of the statements of other politicians, they cannot be equated with the statements of Mr. Wilders and for that reason, the court considers that there has been no infringement of the principle of equality.
The statements of those other politicians, however, were, objectively speaking, far worse in their use of language ("sh*t Moroccans") and what could be considered direct incitement ("We must humiliate Moroccans"). What other time, place and context could possibly make the above statements more acceptable than asking whether voters would like more or fewer Moroccans? And what circumstances render it legitimate to call someone "sh*t" because of their ethnic origin?
It is deeply troubling that the court already in its preliminary ruling, and before the criminal trial itself has even begun, so obviously compromises its own impartiality and objectivity. To the outside world, this court no longer appears impartial. Are other European courts also quietly submitting to jihadist values of curtailing free speech and "inconvenient" political views?
The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that Dutch courts are obligated to interpret domestic legislation in a way compatible with the ECHR and the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated[1] that Article 10
"...protects not only the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected".
Even more important in the context of the trial against Wilders is the fact that according to the European Court of Human Rights' case law,
"...the extent of protection depends on the context and the aim of the criticism. In matters of public controversy or public interest, during political debate, in electoral campaigns... strong words and harsh criticism may be expected and will be tolerated to a greater degree by the Court". [emphasis added]
Let us review what Wilders said and the context in which he said it: "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?" After the crowd responded "fewer" Wilders said, "We're going to organize that." He repeated that statement in a subsequent interview, where he said, "The fewer Moroccans, the better."
The context in which he said it was an election campaign in March 2014 against the backdrop of considerable problems with Moroccans in the Netherlands. According to Dutch journalist Timon Dias:
Statistics show that 65% of all Moroccan youths have been arrested by police, and that one third of that group have been arrested more than five times.
Wilders emphasizes the inordinate costs associated with the disproportionately high number of Dutch Moroccans registered as social welfare beneficiaries and who are implicated in welfare fraud.
Now, if you are a politician and concerned about the future welfare of your country, you should, logically, be able to discuss the pertinent issues of the day, including existing problems with immigrants and other population groups. This discussion will only make sense in a democratic society if it takes place in public, and certainly with voters at a political rally during an election campaign. Asking whether voters want fewer Moroccans in their city or country may seem crude to some and offensive to others. However, in the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects political speech with a very wide margin, especially that of political actors and political campaigns, it is very difficult to see, if not impossible, how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be covered by article 10 (2).
According to article 10 (2), freedom of speech can be limited when
"necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
Wilders did not incite to violence or prosecution (or humiliation), nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted above.
It is more difficult to see how the statement, "We must humiliate Moroccans" by Labour politician Hans Spekman, who was not prosecuted, could be legitimized, as it constitutes direct incitement to some form of humiliating action towards Moroccans. Then again, Hans Spekman is not Geert Wilders.
Clearly, in the Netherlands, justice is no longer blind and the courts no are longer independent and impartial state institutions. This should deeply concern all Dutch citizens.

[1] Monica Macovei: A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, p 16, (Human rights handbooks, No. 2, 2004).

Sunday, October 23, 2016

12-Year-Old Muslim Refugee Turned Out to Be Hairy Man Good With a Rifle

Who's afraid of a few widows and orphans... with beards and rifle experience? Only Islamophobes who hate refugees for entirely irrational reasons. Rational people are willing to believe that grown men are just children who need our love, care and firing ranges.
Kind-hearted Rosie welcomed Jamal into her family after social workers said he was a 12-year-old orphan who had fled Afghanistan.
Like the rest of the #RefugeesWelcome gang, the truth was slightly bent just a little bit.
But she became suspicious when she noticed how hairy he was, and how adept he was at firing a rifle.
But we ought to integrate him anyway. Just think how much enrichment he can bring to our staid and boring societies with his exciting Jihadish interests.
Jamal was rumbled when a dentist estimated he was a decade older than claimed. Taliban material and child abuse images were later found on his mobile.
This whole thing is a lovely metaphor for the entire European refugee mess.
When Rosie and husband Pete, 57, took in Jamal they all switched to halal meat.
She said: “He looked thin and I thought, ‘Bless him’. He was so humble, polite.”
He roomed with a boy, aged 13. Two girls, 12 and 14, were also in the house.

Stellar parenting right there. Politically correct parenting.
At a climbing centre he shimmied up ropes with ease, and at a shooting range he stripped a gun before firing it.
It's almost like he was practicing for something.
Jamal’s behaviour worsened. He put the 13-year-old in expert holds, demanded cash and got calls from unknown numbers.
Who are we to judge his culture?
His last words to Rosie were: “I’ll kill you and I know where your children are.”
He has yet to be deported.

Fear of Crime Soars After Year of Migrant Attacks in Germany

New statistics from mass-migration magnet Germany shows average citizens are increasingly fearful of public spaces, the news coming after a year of intense reports of crime committed by migrants in public spaces across Europe. The new statistics collected in Germany by pollster YouGov show fear of being a victim of crime in particular public spaces is surging, with women more likely to be afraid than men. Standing out among those Germans most fear is railway stations and subway trains, as well as what the survey termed “large outdoor events” such as festivals and carnivals.
Top German broadsheet newspaper Die Welt reports the German people are conscious of a worsening security situation in their country, with 68 per cent of respondents stating their belief that their safety in public had “deteriorated somewhat or strongly” over the past few years. Again, women were more likely to think the situation had gotten worse — but only by a couple of percentage points.
While women found some areas conspicuously risky — notably parking lots — the greatest demographic gap was by age, with few young people feeling threatened but an increasing number of older Germans more worried. By contrast the most wealthy felt the least worried, perhaps reflecting — as pointed out by Welt — their access to private cars and taxis, while not depending on night-busses, public parking lots, and train stations.
Those living in the countryside were more likely to feel safe than those in cities.
Religion also sees a difference in the statistics. Of Protestant and Catholic Christians questions, some 70 per cent thought Germany was becoming less safe. Among Muslims, only 39 per cent thought so.
The German railway denies their stations are becoming less safe, but as reported the premises are seeing a proliferation of stab-vest wearing security officers with body-cams, pepper spray, and service dogs.
Breitbart London has reported at length over the past 12 months on the sudden proliferation of crime in Germany’s public spaces that may account for the sudden lack of confidence among German citizens this year. Attacks have seen hundreds molested, robbed, and raped outside Cologne’s central railway station, commuters swung at by Islamist axe-men, and girls assaulted at music festivals.
2016 crime statistics show without migrants, Germany’s crime rate has remained broadly static since 2014. Today, 70 per cent of pick-pocketing is committed by non-Germans, and 34 per cent by recent asylum seekers. Non-Germans account for nearly a third of homicides.

Muslims Stage Massive Protest, Chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ Outside Rome’s Colosseum

 Muslim men attend the Friday prayers during a demonstration near Rome's ancient Colosseum on October 21, 2016.
Members of the Muslim community of Rome gathered by the Colosseum to pray and demonstrate against the alleged shutting down of unofficial mosques by the police. / AFP / GABRIEL BOUYS        (Photo credit should read GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)
Thousands of Muslims gathered in protest outside Rome’s Colosseum Friday after Italian authorities shut down a number of so-called “garage mosques” to avoid young people becoming radicalized. The Muslim community of Rome chose the iconic Colosseum, a worldwide symbol of Christian persecution and martyrdom, to stage their demonstration against the alleged shutting down by police of illegal places of Muslim worship in the city.
An imam led the group in chanting “Allahu Akbar,” which means in Arabic “God is great,” as they prostrated themselves on the ground.
Many Roman citizens were visibly disturbed by the protest, noting that in its propaganda videos, the Islamic State has repeatedly employed images of the Colosseum when threatening to conquer Rome and the “Crusaders.”
Two months ago, Italian police set up a high-security perimeter around the Colosseum, after the Islamic State issued a new threat to “conquer” Rome in its latest video.
New entrance gates have also been installed around the Colosseum to enable better surveillance and control by law enforcement, according to Rome’s police chief Nicolò D’Angelo.
A Bangladeshi Islamic group called Dhuumcatu reportedly organized the demonstration, saying that police had closed three makeshift mosques in Rome in the last few months.
Italian Interior Minister Angelino Alfano did not deny the allegations, and in fact in August said that “mini mosques in garages” should not be allowed as it makes them difficult to monitor, possibly raising the risk of radicalization.
Until now, Italy has shown itself to be remarkably resilient to attacks from Islamic terrorists and has been proposed as a model for counterterrorism for the whole world, in part because of its willingness to deport radicalized individuals seen as a threat to national security.
Italian counterterrorism advocates profiling as a necessary means of maintaining national security, and has deported a number of radicalized imams over the past year. As of mid-October, Italy had deported a total of 56 Islamic extremists in 2016, bringing the total since January 2015 to 122 such expulsions.
Last fall, leading military analyst Edward N. Luttwak praised the Italian “model,” arguing that Italy has been successful in thwarting Islamic terror attempts because of its swift and decisive action.
In an essay titled “Doing Counterterrorism Right,” Luttwak noted that despite many factors going against Italy, Islamic terrorists have failed to kill a single person on Italian soil. He contrasted Italy with France and Belgium, observing that although Italy is much more vulnerable than they are, it has been far more effective at stopping would-be terrorists before they strike.
A cross now stands outside the Roman Colosseum with a plaque bearing the inscription: “The amphitheater, once consecrated to triumphs, entertainments, and the impious worship of pagan gods, is now dedicated to the sufferings of the martyrs purified from impious superstitions.”

20 reasons to vote for Donald Trump

By Timothy P. Farrell

It seems clear that this presidential election will determine whether America remains a Constitutional Republic or continues to be “Fundamentally Transformed” into something the Founders warned against and tried to prevent.
Despite this, there still remain Conservatives and Republicans who are "Never Trump". They are either voting for a third-party candidate, not voting at all, or -- in the worst choice of all -- voting for Hillary Clinton. I think that is foolish. For me, a former Ted Cruz supporter, the choice is clear. I will be voting for Donald Trump.
With hat-tips to other American Thinker contributors, here are 20 specific reasons why Trump will be getting my vote:
  1. Donald Trump is “impeachable”. Any serious misstep by Trump will be exposed by the MSM and invite impeachment and removal from office. Neither political party would hesitate in bringing impeachment proceedings on Trump or in forcing him to resign. As a Democrat and the first woman president, Hillary Clinton would not be impeached no matter what she does.
  2. Trump has stated that he will appoint judges who respect the Constitution and he has issued a list of potential Supreme Court justices that confirms this.
  3. He will enforce the Rule of Law. Under Obama, there have been many acts committed by government employees, bureaucrats and elected officials –including Hillary Clinton -- that are unethical or downright illegal. However, with notable exceptions, these people “skate” under the current system.
  4. Trump appreciates the work that the police do in ensuring the safety of all communities.
  5. Donald Trump knows that it is important to use the energy sources that we have in the USA and utilize techniques such as fracking and offshore drilling in order to secure these resources.
  6. Trump understands Capitalism, realizing that high taxes and regulations increase the cost of doing business and have contributed significantly to the loss of American jobs. Hillary Clinton will increase business federal taxes, payroll taxes and regulations.
  7. Trump understands finance. This means he knows that that continuing to increase the National Debt is a bad idea.
  8. He has said that treaties such as NAFTA were "badly negotiated" and that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a disaster.
  9. Trump recognizes that a nation without borders in not a sovereign nation. WikiLeaks has revealed that Hillary Clinton wants “completely open borders”.
  10. Donald Trump sees ISIS as a “Clear and Present Danger” to the United States, the West and the Middle East. In addition, he understands that "something is wrong with Islam". 
  11. Trump has stated he will rebuild the military -- which is now reduced to cannibalizing planes, vehicles and ships for spare-parts.
  12. He has called the agreement with Iran a “bad deal”. He knows it does not stop Iran’s nuclear weapon development and gives them funds to increase their conventional military forces, purchase military hardware, develop more potent ballistic missiles and finance terrorism.
  13. Trump realizes that "nation building" -- especially in areas of the world not known for western-style Democracy -- is a waste of lives, time and resources.
  14. Trump has correctly stated that other nations, many of them with significant wealth, have used the American umbrella of military protection and have not paid "their fair share" for it.
  15. Donald Trump has functioned as an effective executive -- which is the job of the President of the United States.
  16. Trump has a history of honest business deals and integrity, as opposed to Hillary Clinton who has a history of dishonesty and shady deals. 
  17. He knows all about taxes. Knowing all the loopholes used by the super-wealthy to avoid paying taxes, Trump will close the loopholes. Hillary Clinton will not do this – which is why the super-wealthy are supporting her and not “one of their own”.
  18. Trump realizes ObamaCare is a disaster. He will replace it with a free-market based system. Hillary Clinton will double-down with even more government control.
  19. Trump is unabashedly pro-American and has expressed his intention of putting America's interests -- and that of its citizens -- first. That would be reflected in any negotiation with foreign entities regarding any treaty or agreement.
  20. Trump is beholden to no one except the American People. The Democrat Party has moved far to the Left and must satisfy the desires of various constituency groups. As a result, in order to maintain the votes of these “blocks”, policies are pushed that may not be in the best interests of the American people. 


‘Expert’: Give Syrians Their Own City in Germany To Prevent Radicalisation

A left wing expert on Salafism has suggested that Germany has no real culture and that Syrians should be allowed their own city rather than be forced to integrate into German society. Expert on Salafism and Green party member Kurt Edler is proposing a radical idea on how the German government should handle the integration of Syrians and other migrants into German society.
Mr. Edler contends that Germany has no real culture to speak of and that the migrants shouldn’t have to integrate and instead he claims they should be afforded their own city in an area like Vorpommern reports, Die Welt. 
Mr. Edler admits after the attempted bombing in Leipzig and other terror attacks in Wurzburg and elsewhere, that Islamism has formally arrived in Germany.
Speaking on the need for migrants to integrate into Germany he said, “the indigenous people themselves have completely disintegrated. The common word is dominant culture. There is none. There are lifestyle milieus.”
Since there is no common culture, according to Edler, there should be no problem in simply creating what he calls a “New Aleppo” in somewhere like German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Chancellor is still reeling from the  recent regional election loss to the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD).
On the subject of the AfD Edler said support for the party was a reaction to the mass experience of “social modernization.”
The new Syrian city would foster a sense of community that Edler says those in the West have given up on. “Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has said a wise phrase: ‘There is no society’. Indeed” he said.
Adding that the concept of a homeland, the German word heimat, and notions of the West were “pseudo utopias” he added “the West has long since perished.”
The idea of separate cities fro Muslims has been floated before by a German academic named Ulrike Guérot who also agrees with Edler that the idea of “dominant culture” is “Fascistic.” The agreement of the two academics shows that the ideas may have growing prominence in German academic circles.
On the notion of young radical Muslims Edler echoed comments made by French scholar Gilles Kepel who called the third generation of Muslims the “Jihad Generation” due to the rising popularity of Salfism among them. Kepel warned these young people could be taking Europe down the path of future civil war.
Mr. Edler is more optimistic about the future of young Muslims claiming that Salafism will likely dissipate over time. “Much of what we experience as juvenile Salafism is a fashion and subculture,” he said. Part of the reason for this, he claims, is that the Islamic State is losing territory and battles proving that they aren’t the invincible warriors they portray in their propaganda.
Many experts, police and security agencies are fearful of the rise of radicalism in Muslim youths. Polls have shown that the rise in radicalisation among young Muslims is a growing trend and few have the answers to reversing it.

Liberal Submission: Protect Islam, Defame Christianity

The world's biggest shopping portal, Amazon, sell many Halloween costumes. One of the novelties in 2016 has been the "Sexy Burka", the typical obscurantist cloak that the Taliban and the Islamic State impose on women. But the sexy burqa, which on Amazon UK was priced at £18.99, did not last long.
The commercial colossus of Jeff Bezos removed the item from the website, after Amazon had been swamped with accusations of "racism", "Islamophobia," of marketing an Islamic garment with the white face of a model and using "a religious garment for commercial purposes". "You are disgusting, my culture is not your costume", wrote many users of the Islamic faith. Others used a less adorable tone: "Whoever you are, you should fear Allah. This is not a joke."
A spokesman for Amazon promptly responded: "All Marketplace sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who don't will be subject to action including potential removal of their account. The product in question is no longer available".
So that Halloween parody of the global symbol of female oppression has been censored. It is because Islamic veils contradict Western values of freedom, equality and human dignity so totally that this relativistic progressive mentality defends these Islamic veils, as it does the burkini, with loyalty.
But here also lies a double standard. What about the "Sexy Nun" Halloween costume that mocks the Catholic Church? Despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the "Sexy Nun" is still on sale at Amazon. Isn't a form of "Christianophobia"? Also, a nun is a religious figure, while a burqa is mere cloth.
Spot the offensive costume -- or the hypocrisy. Online retailer Amazon removed the "Sexy Burka" costume (left) after accusations of "Islamophobia." But despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the "Sexy Nun" (right) is still on sale at Amazon.
Take The Guardian, the most famous British liberal-left newspaper. When the Pussy Riot performers put on their supposedly offensive 3-minute show in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral, for which two of the three performers served jail time rather than repudiate the text (the third apologized to avoid jail), the paper defended them as "pure protest poetry." When the political group PEGIDA called to protest against Islamization in Germany, the same media blasted it as "a vampire we must slay." The same double standard also emerged during the battle to build a mosque near Ground Zero, when the liberal media sided with the Muslim community.
In January 2006, Norway's most famous cartoonist, Finn Graff, announced that he was censoring himself over Mohammed. Graff never had a problem in making fun of Christians, whom he depicted as wearing brown shirts and swastikas. Graff had also penned a number of controversial drawings against Israel, one of which showed the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as the commander of a Nazi concentration camp.
The same happened with German-American filmmaker Roland Emmerich, director of many disaster movies. He abandoned a plan to obliterate Islam's holiest site on the big screen for fear of attracting a fatwa (religious opinion) calling for his death. For his movie, "2012", Emmerich wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. "You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa", Emmerich said. At least he was honest.
After the massacre of most of the staff at the French satrirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, all major Western liberal newspapers, television networks and photo agencies, starting with the "Big Three" (MSNBC, CNN and AP), competed in justifying their shameful decision to censor the cover of Charlie Hebdo, in which the Islamic Prophet Mohammed says "all is forgiven." CNN said it might offend "the sensitivities of a Muslim audience." One year later, when Charlie Hebdo published a new cover depicting a Judeo-Christian "killer God" rather than the Islamic Prophet, CNN showed it.
In 2015, the BBC described the Charlie Hebdo's cover but did not show it, a choice that the British network did not repeat a year later when Charlie Hebdo released the new anti-Christian cover. The same double standard came from the British conservative paper the Daily Telegraph, which cut the cover with the caricature of Mohammed but published one with an Abrahimitic God.
The Associated Press in 2015 censored the Islamic cartoons of Charlie Hebdo as well. The reason? "Deliberately provocative." In 2016, the agency had no trouble in showing the new cover depicting not Mohammed but the Judeo-Christian God.
This double standard of the liberal elite had also emerged at the New York Times, which out of "respect" towards the Muslim faith censored the Mohammed caricatures of Charlie Hebdo -- only to decide, in total disrespect, that the Gray Lady could and should publish the work "Eggs Benedict" by Nikki Johnson, exhibited at the Milwaukee Art Museum, in which condoms of various colors form the face of Pope Benedict XVI.
The "Caliph" of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of "hate speech," while the work of Chris Ofili "The Holy Virgin Mary," in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as "free speech." Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?
If an imam violently protests something, the liberal elite always supports the false charge of "Islamophobia." If a peaceful protest is led by a Catholic bishop, the same elite always rejects it under the name of "freedom of expression."
Forget the "Sexy Burqa".
On Halloween night, only the "Sexy Nun" is available, while "Caliph" Baghdadi can rape his Yazidi and Christian sex slaves with impunity.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Outrage as Cologne New Year’s Eve Sex Attacks Wiped from Crime Record

Events in Cologne on New Year’s Eve gained international attention as mobs of migrants robbed insiscriminately and launched group sex attacks on a scale previously unseen in Europe, but they failed to make any impact on police statistics. Of the 500 attacks which were filed in detail with the police, only 17 appear in the Police Crime Statistics (PKS) — the best known and most often cited police statistics — and those that do appear are recorded for the months of April and June.
Christian Democratic Union (CDU) MP Ina Scharrenbach noticed the discrepancy between reports of the events of New Year’s Eve and the lack of any indication they occurred in official police data, and demanded to know where the other reports went.
The state’s Interior Minister, Ralf Jäger, told her that reports of crime are not recorded in the PKS until they are forwarded to the public prosecutor and explained that “this is not always the same as the month in which the crime was committed”.
In addition, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) minister said cases are only submitted to the prosecutor if they are particularly serious. “The vast majority of acts on New Year’s Eve in Cologne were criminal offenses like pickpocketing, and insults on a sexual basis,” he said.
Scharrenberg, the CDU faction’s spokesman in the parliamentary committee for the events of New Year’s Eve, said: “It takes my breath away that the offences of the night were apparently not serious enough to be detected.”
While group sex attacks have been brushed under the table in North Rhine-Westphalia, authorities in Brandenburg last month announced a new methodology was put in place to ensure that as many “right-wing crimes” as possible are recorded in police statistics.
Brandenburg Prime Minister Dietmar Woidke said the influx of migrants to Germany seen last year had brought about a surge of such crimes. He spoke to rbb24 about how the state has made changes to its recording system so that this will be reflected in the data.
The SPD politician explained: “The police will count each attack, in which there is no evidence that the perpetrator has no right wing motivation, [as a right-wing hate crime] in the statistics.”
A police report from the German federal police (BKA) in July revealed that across Germany on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Stuttgart, and other cities over 1,200 women were sexually assaulted.


Turkey's Wars

By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

Turkish air and ground forces are attacking northern Syria.  The target is not ISIS – the presumed threat to Turkish interests – but rather Kurdish forces that have borne the brunt of anti-ISIS ground fighting and are key to the battle for Mosul in Iraq. 
Since the July aborted coup in Ankara, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been making internal war against what it calls the "Gülenist threat," followers of Turkish cleric Fetullah Gülen, who Erdoğan believes engineered the coup.  Tens of thousands of Turks have been arrested, dismissed from their jobs, and otherwise harassed.  Turkey has also been conducting an external war – either overtly or by proxy – to control sensitive areas of Iraq and Syria and short-circuit any possibility of Kurdish independence or large-scale autonomy emerging from the wreckage of wars in both those countries.
After shelling Kurdish positions just north of Aleppo, the Turkish Air Force bombed headquarters, ammunition dumps, and shelters.  Turkish sources claimed 200 dead; Kurdish sources said 10 people were killed.  They were PKK, said the Turks – members of the Peoples Workers Party, which has carried out operations inside Turkey for decades.  The People's Protection Units (YPG), however, said in a statement that the airstrikes targeted fighters from the YPG-affiliated Jaish al-Thuwar (Revolutionary Front), which was advancing against ISIS in the city of Ifrin.
Turkey makes little distinction among Kurdish groups.  The U.S. takes a different tack, agreeing that the PKK is a terrorist organization but arming and training the YPG and finding it the most effective force on the ground fighting ISIS.  A U.S. official says the particular Kurds targeted this time were not among those we have trained, so there were no Americans in the area of Turkish fire.  This time.  But the possibility of direct U.S.-Turkish confrontation is rising daily.
There has been little mention of Turkey's wars in the American press, aided by the fact that militias, rebel armies, terrorist groups, and sub-state actors sound like alphabet soup: FSA, PKK, PYD, YPG, JAN, ISIS, AQI, and more fight in Syria and Iraq.  Even when they have names, Americans are likely to find themselves confused.  How does Jaish al-Thuwar relate to the Khalid ibn al-Walid Brigade, or the Free Syrian Army or the Authenticity and Development Group, the Sun Battalion, the Al-Qousi Brigade, or the Truthful Promise Brigade?
Confusion is serving Turkey well.
There are an estimated 60 million Kurds in the Middle East and adjacent regions, divided among Turkey (25.8 million), Iran (11 million), Iraq (10.2 million), Syria (4 million), and Afghanistan (9 million).  Another 2 million are estimated to be in Europe, primarily in Germany. 
Turkey adamantly opposes independence for the Kurds, and the U.S. had trouble gaining even reluctant Turkish acceptance of Northern Iraq's regional autonomy after the 2003 ouster of Saddam from Baghdad.  The dissolution of Assad's control of Northern Syria and the possibility that Iraqi and Syrian Kurds might construct a contiguous Kurdish area appears to pose a greater problem for Turkey than the rise and spread of ISIS.  It is against the Syrian Kurds, therefore, not ISIS that Turkey has been operating for months.
In late August, Turkey directly intervened with tanks and planes to assist the Syrian Nour el-din el-Zinki rebel group in attacking Kurdish forces.  The Kurds, members of the YPG militia, had captured the ISIS-held town of Manbij, but the Turks wanted them to hand the town over to its proxy.  The U.S. caved to Turkish demands and ordered the YPG – its ally – out of town.
Following U.S. pressure on the Kurds, the Turks have increased the pace and lethality of their attacks.  Unsurprisingly, Kurdish groups have begun to challenge reliability of the West – and the U.S. in particular.  This round of fighting began just before a scheduled visit to Turkey by U.S. secretary of defense Ashton Carter.  Carter, no doubt planning to ensure continued use of Turkey's Incirlik air base to launch strikes against ISIS and to support Iraq, struck a conciliatory tone toward Ankara when asked about the airstrikes – something sure to rankle the Kurdish militias.  "With respect to Turkey, our partnership is very strong in the counter-ISIL campaign," he said.  "We're working with the Turks now very successfully to help them secure their border area."
To many in the Middle East, the United States not only appears unreliable, which is bad enough, but seems to have frequently abandoned its friends and allies, which is worse.  In the Obama administration, not only the president, but also the vice president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense bear responsibility for these impressions.  While Turkey is, by treaty, an American ally and a NATO member, the U.S. has to either rein in the Turks or face the consequence of a powerful and reckless Turkish government shooting up Turkey and its neighborhood – and our allies.
If the Kurds are really the West's best hope for a ground force against ISIS, there are several steps the U.S. can and should take to impress upon the Turkish government the seriousness with which we take their aggression in Syria and Iraq.
As matters of policy, the U.S. should:
  • Insist that Turkey stop attacks on Kurds outside Turkish territory.
  • Demand that Turkey remove its forces from Iraq and Syria.
  • Demand that Erdoğan restore rule of law to Turkey and end the persecution of Gülenists and Kurds.
Moving from demands to action, the U.S. should:
  • Stop delivery of military hardware to Turkey, including spare parts, and demand that all NATO allies do the same.
  • Stop cooperation and any coordination with Turkey's military and intelligence organs until Turkey complies.
  • Increase the arms flow as well as intelligence and other cooperation with the Kurds to ensure they are defended as well as possible.
Without these steps, Turkey, a powerful country, will become a genuine threat to the region as it tries to reestablish a modern form of Ottoman suzerainty.