Nukhba jihadists must face charges for their sexual violence crimes

Sharon Zaghagi Pinhas reminds everyone that the sexual violence committed by Hamas/Nukhba jihadists in Gaza during October 7, 2023 cannot be forgotten:

One central question has not been addressed: whether the Nukhba terrorists will be prosecuted for the sex crimes committed on October 7 and in captivity. Despite repeated attempts around the world to silence and deny them, there is no doubt: grave sex crimes were committed strategically, systematically and on a large scale throughout the attack and in captivity. Many of the female and male victims were murdered, whether during the attack or afterward, and many of the crimes were committed deliberately in full view of others in order to sow terror. All publicly accessible sources clearly indicate that the Nukhba terrorists were driven by an extremist ideology rooted in an explicit intent to commit genocide and in the total denial of the humanity of Israel's population.

Since October 7, I have taken part, together with my colleagues in the Dinah Project at the Rackman Center at Bar-Ilan University, in a difficult and exhausting struggle in which the State of Israel and many civil society organizations joined forces to bring recognition and justice for the female and male victims. [...]

After all this, it is inconceivable that the indictments against the Nukhba terrorists will not include charges over sex crimes. Yet for now, all official bodies are silent whenever the question of filing indictments over the sex crimes is raised.

This silence is deeply troubling.

The sex crimes were committed as part of a mass assault by Nukhba terrorists, aimed at dehumanization and genocide. The terrorists operated inside an inconceivable "vacuum" in which everything was "permitted," murder, massacre and sex crimes alike.

Legally, in such a case, all the terrorists who chose to take part in the mass assault can be held jointly responsible for all the crimes committed during the attack, including the sex crimes, even if they did not physically commit them themselves.

And all those guilty must definitely must be held responsible, and severely punished for their repulsive crimes.

Anyway, it's good to inform that the Knesset approved a law to prosecute the monsters:

The Knesset plenum approved the second and third readings of the bill to prosecute the perpetrators of the October 7 massacre on Monday evening.

The law, which passed with a rare consensus of 93 supporters, establishes the legal infrastructure to try Hamas terrorists and their accomplices for the most heinous crimes committed during the murderous attack. The legislation sets the maximum penalty at death.

Furthermore, a dramatic reservation proposed by MKs Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party) and Yulia Malinovsky (Yisrael Beytenu) was approved, stipulating that terrorists tried under this framework will never be released from prison, even as part of future prisoner exchange deals.

Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin welcomed the approval, stating, "This law ensures that the terrorists and their accomplices will stand trial and face justice, including the imposition of death sentences. From the depths of the horrific massacre we have risen - for the memory of the murdered, for their families, for those wounded in body and soul, for those who were taken hostage, and for the entire nation - to fulfill our supreme moral obligation: to bring the perpetrators of this ghastly slaughter to justice. I thank Constitution Committee chairman MK Simcha Rothman, MK Yulia Malinovsky, and all those involved in the vital work of advancing this legislation."

The news about the investigation into the Hamas' sexual violence, interestingly enough, has been covered by CNN for starters, although not without certain PC dictations in descriptions of the monsters:

Hamas militants and their allies raped, assaulted and sexually tortured their victims during and after the October 7, 2023 terror attack on southern Israel “to maximize pain and suffering,” a landmark new report has concluded.

Shared first with CNN, the report presents the most comprehensive body of evidence yet of sexual and gender-based violence against women, men and children, which it describes as “systematic, widespread, and integral to” the assault.

“The most important finding is the fact that the sexual violence on October 7 and against hostages in captivity has been a calculated strategy by Hamas,” lead author and human rights expert Cochav Elkayam-Levy told CNN.

Notice how they stick solidly with the PC term "militants" rather than "terrorists". It shouldn't have to take a genius to make clear that kind of restriction is unacceptable.

The news was also covered by the Toronto Globe and Mail, i24news, the Jerusalem Post, and here's more from them, along with an op-ed that makes clear the racist denialism must end:

With the release of this irrefutable proof, let this be the final day of October 7 denialism. For months, the world has watched as high-profile figures used their massive platforms to cast doubt on the suffering of Israeli women. Former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters has been among the most vocal, publicly claiming there is “no evidence” of Hamas rapes and dismissing the testimonies of survivors and first responders as “filthy, disgusting lies.”

Similarly, activists like Samantha Pearson, a former director of a Canadian sexual assault center, and Canadian politician Sarah Jama signed a letter dismissing reports of sexual violence as “unverified accusations.”

Even entertainment industry figures, such as Susan Sarandon, have contributed to the skepticism by attempting to “contextualize” the events in ways that effectively minimize the crimes. When global feminist organizations and UN bodies waited months to even acknowledge these atrocities, they provided a shield for Hamas and signaled worldwide that the slogan “Believe Women” has a geographic and political limit.

This report removes that shield once and for all. It demands that the world stop asking for “more evidence” when the archives are already overflowing with it.

There is, however, a profound note of hope within these harrowing pages. The report’s extensive legal analysis provides a clear evidentiary basis for the investigation and prosecution of these acts as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts under international law.

Waters is one of the most stunningly repugnant figures in the entertainment industry, and no sane person should buy his music albums. And as for Sarandon, it's about time she retired from acting. And anybody who's going to deny serious crimes cannot work at a center for treating rape victims.

Update: here's more from Breitbart.

2 failed premiers who precipitated October 7, 2023 join forces again

Daniel Greenfield addresses the reteaming of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, who both have some responsibilities to shoulder for bringing about October 7, 2023, which most local leftist press outlets won't clearly admit:

The Israeli Left, which controls the media, judiciary and the cultural opinion shapers in that country, obsessively hates Netanyahu, not because of anything the generally mild-mannered and moderate prime minister has actually done (limited market reforms, refusing to make completely excessive commitments when pursuing dead end negotiations with terrorists) but because he symbolizes their inability to take and retain power.

That’s something the Left did to itself by successively alienating every immigrant group, Holocaust survivors, Middle Eastern Jewish refugees, Russian Jews, with their arrogant abuses.

The Israeli Left is unable to win elections outright and Clinton and Epstein pal Ehud Barak remains the last remnant of a time when the Left could win an election (with a lot of help from Bill Clinton.)

Israelis (outside Tel Aviv and a few of the ritzy suburbs) hate the Left so much that it can only hope to win through a coalition of new fake ‘third way’ parties, along with the usual Muslim Brotherhood parties.

The fake ‘third way’ parties usually involve a retired celebrity general, in this case Yashar with Gadi Eisenkot, who stand for absolutely nothing except making the most of their 15 minutes, and some fake reformist third party promising to use ‘common sense’ to fix things which actually carrying out the left’s program.

In this case, it’s a comeback coalition for political losers Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. Lapid was a vapid nepo baby celebrity TV show host and Bennett, formerly the post-Netanyahu hope on the right, sold out to careerism so badly that he previously allied with Lapid in an alternating prime ministership that turned over gas fields to Hezbollah and allowed Hamas terrorists disguised as ‘workers’ to roam Israel.

The duo get much of the actual credit for Oct 7 though the media would never dare suggest such a thing since Bennett and Lapid are the only real hope of the Left reclaiming power.

Bennett has shed his ‘right wing’ credentials and is now running as a Silicon Valley style technocrat.

Which was actually rather obvious for years now. Worst, what if the twosome actually do end up winning the election? If they do, it'll be awful.

7/10 of French voters support a ban on Islamic veils

More opposition to Islamic niqabs is growing among the French public:

Opposition to outward displays of devotion to Islam appears be growing among the French people, with a survey finding that seven in ten voters would back a ban on the wearing of veils in public.

The liberal secularist values of the Fifth French Republic look set for a collision course with the burgeoning Muslim population, which has been imported mainly from France’s former colonies in the Maghreb region of North Africa.

With surveys suggesting that second and third generations of migrants are becoming more radical in their adherence to the Qur’an as groups like the Muslim Brotherhood take advantage of the emerging parallel societies fostered in ethnic minority enclaves, the issue of assimilation has become more pressing.

One integrationist proposal which appears to be gaining ground is to expand the restrictions on Islamic garb in public. In 2011, the government prohibited full face covering veils such as the burqa or niqab, and now some argue that this should be extended to head coverings such as the hijab.

According to a CSA survey for Le Journal du Dimanche, 69 per cent of French voters would support a ban on the Islamic veil in public. This, the paper noted, was an increase of eight points since 2022, when 61 per cent said that they were in favour of such a move.

Unsurprisingly, supporters of right wing parties such as the populist National Rally and the establishment centre-right Les Républicains were most in favour of a law to bar veils in public, at 82 and 80 per cent respectively. This was followed by supporters of the liberal Macronist coalition, 65 per cent of whom backed a ban.

Overall, 51 per cent of leftist voters also favour a ban, yet, supporters of the hard left Greens or the radical France in Revolt (La France Insoumise/LFI) party of Morocco-born Jean-Luc Mélenchon were both opposed at 65 and 56 per cent.

I think that can tell quite a bit about modern communists, and that perhaps they don't consider their positions as good as those of the Religion of Peace. Suggesting they consider more barbaric ideologies better than their own. That's one of the main reasons the 21st century resurgence of communism is such an awful thing - because it's clearly willing to align itself with the Religion of Peace, which does consider socialism acceptable, and has thus led to considerable disaster for many years now.

This is good to know much of the French public does consider it bad that Islamic veils have become a wide influence. And serious action must be taken against that, along with immigration from countries run by the Religion of Peace too.

Perhaps predictably, but definitely sadly, Zohran Mamdani was elected NYC mayor

The results are in for what possibly - and definitely sadly - was no surprise in the NYC mayoral election: they've gone the way of London and now have their first Muslim mayor:

Democrat Socialist Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral race, defeating former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa after a campaign defined by national attention, polling leads throughout the fall, and public debate over his economic, immigration, and foreign policy positions.

Mamdani — whose name appeared twice on the New York City ballot due to multiple party lines, a routine practice unique to the city’s ballot structure — entered Election Day with consistent polling advantages.

Independent surveys found Mamdani at 43 percent support going into the final weekend, with Cuomo trailing and Sliwa in third. Separate polling also showed that if the race had narrowed to a two-way matchup, Cuomo would have led head-to-head. In addition, the Manhattan Institute polling found Mamdani at 43 percent to Cuomo’s 28 percent in one survey, and leading when undecided voters were removed.

Hollywood involvement marked the final hours before voting, with performers and celebrities including Ilana Glazer, Mark Ruffalo, Naomi Klein, Jeff Hillier, George Takei, Mandy Patinkin, and Cynthia Nixon publicly participating in pro-Mamdani efforts. Michael Moore urged turnout nationwide. Other figures, including Amy Schumer and Marc Anthony, encouraged New Yorkers to back Cuomo.

National political figures engaged directly. President Donald Trump repeatedly urged voters to support Cuomo, warning that choosing Sliwa would benefit Mamdani. Trump also stated he would limit federal funding to New York if Mamdani won.

If anybody feels Sliwa contributed to enabling the awful Mamdani's ascent, the opinions are entirely valid, and I am hugely disappointed with Sliwa for his failure to clearly address the issue of Mamdani in one of Sliwa's campaign interviews. Of course, even Cuomo's seriously to blame for even running in the election to start with, considering his sordid record, which made Mamdani look better by comparison, even though, as noted before, he too made chilling statements on serious issues.

This election is also a defeat for NYC a quarter century after the tragedy of 911, and it's especially a defeat for victims of the horrifying crime. It's disgusting but no surprise only so many Hollywood "celebrities" would give Mamdani their backing, and make it hard to watch whatever shoddy movies they turn out. NYC is headed for the gutter, and only so many of the wrong sources enabled what's bound to be a fiasco in a short amount of time.

Update: also disturbing is that Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg was reelected, despite his catastrophous policies and failure to prosecute the worst of criminals in the city. No doubt, he and Mamdani will be working closely together.

Hamas treated hostages poorly

Families of the rescued hostages told the press that the Hamas had unshockingly been nasty to them:

Family members of released Israeli hostages told reporters Sunday that the hostages had been forced to sleep on benches during their seven-week captivity; that they had to endure waits of up to two hours for the bathroom; and that they were sometimes denied food.

Adva Adar, granddaughter of freed Holocaust survivor Yaffa Adar, 85; and Merav Mor Raviv, cousin of Keren Munder, 54, spoke to reporters in a press conference organized by MediaCentral Jerusalem.

Repulsive, but unsurprising. One more reason why, besides hopefully saving all hostages, we must hope the IDF rids Gaza of the jihadist vermin.

Here's some more news:

The third group of Israeli hostages freed from Gaza on Sunday evening includes a four-year-old child whose parents were murdered by the Palestinian Hamas terrorists who attacked their community on October 7.

According to Israel’s Army Radio, the group of 14 hostages — 13 Israelis, plus one dual Russian-Israeli national — include ten of the 18 hostages taken from Kfar Aza, a community in which Hamas murdered 100 innocent people. Mothers and their children were among those released.

But four-year-old Avigail Idan — who holds dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship — will not be returning with her mother or her father, who were killed.

She is now an orphan. It is not clear if she knows what happened to her parents.

And this is another serious abomination. A child has been orphaned - she's not the only one - by monsters whom, lest we forget, both the Labor party representatives of the past and Ariel Sharon, made possible to take over Gaza.

Supreme court appears to be backing away from undermining Netanyahu

It looks like the uproar over Avichai Mandelblit's intention to indict Netanyahu over petty issues has paid off, and he too seems to be backing away so far. The Jerusalem Post reported on what happened at a hearing to discuss the prime minister's eligibility to form a coalition post-election:

A hearing was held before the High Court of Justice on Tuesday morning to discuss a petition asking that the court rule that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under indictment on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, cannot form the next government. The hearing ended with no immediate decision.

Although the High Court announced that it would decide on the matter at a later point, the overall feel of the justices’ questions to the lawyers was that they would very much prefer to stay out of the issue. [...]

Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit had made it clear before the hearing that he is not interested in personally being the hand that forces Netanyahu out of office.

He has made legal arguments protecting Netanyahu from being forced out on multiple legal grounds of attack, while postponing indefinitely analyzing whether the prime minister can form a new government now that he has been indicted for bribery.

Mandelblit has ruled that the issue can be kicked down the road because it is only theoretical.

Until Netanyahu is actually in a position in which he has the support of 61 MKs – something that may never happen, and in any event is more than three months away given that a third election is imminent – Mandelblit said that there is no reason to rule on it.

It certainly looks so far like they've taken notice of public reaction to what transpired in the past month or so, and realize it would actually harm their own image and help Netanyahu more. This is thankful news. A columnist for the Post said:

Attacks on Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit and the High Court of Justice have worked their magic. We may never know what Mandelblit and the High Court really think about whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is eligible to form the next government, as they probably will never tell us.

Some will be overjoyed by the result. They will say that Mandelblit and the High Court get involved in too many issues beyond their purview and that whoever leads the nation should be left to the will of the voters.

They might be right. Maybe the High Court should not force a prime minister to resign, leaving such issues to the voters, and maybe Netanyahu is innocent of the charges against him.

But what was striking about Tuesday’s hearing before the High Court was that neither the Attorney-General’s Office nor the High Court justices appeared interested in those fateful issues that will shape the nation’s future.

Rather, they were interested in esoteric and formalistic legal arguments about timing, jurisdiction and procedure.

Mandelblit has taken the position that until he must rule on whether Netanyahu is eligible to govern, he would prefer not to. Translation: He is really hoping Netanyahu does not get the support of 61 MKs after March 2 so he never has to give an opinion.

Although the High Court sort of flirted three times over recent weeks, and even Tuesday, with trying to get Mandelblit to reveal his position, they seem to have picked up on his bottom-line message: “Let’s stay out of this” more than anything else.

Based on the startling contempt Mandelblit put on display, and all he did to undermine the government so far, it won't be shocking if it turns out he intends to vote for Benny Gantz's farce of a party to boot. For now, if anything's apparent:

Although it was never 100% clear in the attorney-general’s legal briefs, and it took around 90 minutes of arguments on Tuesday to clarify, the real reason finally became clear as day.

Mandelblit is terrified of the consequences for his office if he intervenes.

A lawyer from his office talked to the High Court on Tuesday about the intensity of public attacks on the High Court over the last week for even daring to hear the issue of Netanyahu’s eligibility. He warned the entire legal establishment could be on the chopping block if there was a wrong move, and they would be accused again of a coup against the executive branch.

This is a radical change from the High Court’s previous readiness to, for good or bad, follow its conscience and address the fateful issues at hand.

It's certainly a positive development, but nevertheless, this should come as a crucial issue in the coming election in March. Mandelblit and those leftists he's serving caused a lot of problems that could've been avoided, and this calls for some serious reforms in the judicial system.

2 members of Lieberman's party want a right-wing government

Avigdor Lieberman's facing pressures within his own party to cut out undermining the formation of a government:

Lawmakers from the secular rightist Yisrael Beytenu party are pressing party chairman Avidgor Liberman to help Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu form a narrow right-wing government if talks for a unity government fail, Channel 12 reported Tuesday afternoon.

According to the Channel 12 report, senior Yisrael Beytenu members, including MK Oded Forer and MK Hamad Amar, are pressuring party chairman Avidgor Liberman to join a narrow rightist government led by Binyamin Netanyahu, rather than let Israel go to its third general election in a year, if unity talks between the Likud and the Blue and White party fail to achieve a breakthrough.

“The State of Israel cannot bear a third election in one year,” the two MKs are reported as saying to Liberman. “There is a country here to run. Blue and White said that they’d put ‘Israel ahead of everything else’, but they are turning down every offer.”

“The time has come to make them pay a price. Blue and White and Yair Lapid need to know that if they continue to refuse [offers for a unity government], then the alternative will be a narrow right-wing government in order to prevent new elections.”

Well that's pretty amazing somebody's willing to talk the sense that should've been brought up before. I don't think Blue & White even cares if there's to be a 3rd election, and Lieberman probably doesn't either. They're just undermining stability, much like attorney-general Avichai Mendelblit is, and if these members of Lieberman's party really care, they'll break off from what's clearly a party centered around one man only, and join up with the rest of the right instead. This whole charade's gone too far already. It's time for it to stop.

Gantz fails to form government, blames parts of his own party for failure

Leftist Benny Gantz failed to form a coalition within the required Knesset deadline, and has given the mandate back to president Reuven Rivlin. But what's really fascinating is that now, he's blaming some notable parts of his own party for the failure, as much as he is prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Gantz was even willing to form a minority government propped up by the Islamic party:

Blue and White leader Benny Gantz has reportedly accused the right-wing flank of his party of thwarting a bid to form a minority government bolstered by the predominantly Arab Joint List, and said his partnership with Yair Lapid reduced the chances of a unity government with Likud.

“Because of Yoaz [Hendel] and Tzvika [Hauser], I am not prime minister, and because of Lapid, the chances of unity dropped,” Gantz was quoted by Channel 12 as telling associates on Wednesday on two occasions.

Gantz on Wednesday night informed President Reuven Rivlin he had failed to form a governing coalition, paving the way to a likely third round of elections in under a year. The centrist leader conceded defeat in a phone call with the president after unity talks with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu broke down.

Liberman hasn't proven any better so far, and if anybody's still willing to vote for him after all the trouble he's caused, they'll be perpetuating a bad situation at a time when the Hamas and Islamic Jihad are proving a local threat.

The Blue and White leader had openly sought a unity government with Likud. Reports indicated Gantz’s party had also explored the possibility of a minority government propped up by outside support from the Joint List of Arab-led parties.

But according to Channel 12, Blue and White MKs Hendel, a former Netanyahu aide, and Hauser, a former cabinet secretary who also served under the Likud leader, reportedly warned they would oppose such an arrangement.

The report also said the hawkish Liberman was not willing to join such a coalition due to his acrimony toward the Arab lawmakers, but would have abstained in no-confidence votes, effectively keeping it afloat. But Hauser and Hendel’s votes were needed to have an edge over Netanyahu’s 55-MK bloc of right-wing and religious political allies.

Gantz was also quoted as attributing the failure to his collaboration with Lapid, without elaborating.

Basically, an impossible alliance. It'll remain to be seen if and how much longer they continue together, because they don't work well together at all, and nobody should delude themselves into thinking this is a great party formation. Why, who knows if Gantz even wanted to form a government for real?

With Gantz’s declaration of failure, the country’s year-long spiraling political chaos entered uncharted territory, formally laid out in law but never before exercised: Israeli lawmakers now have 21 days during which any 61 Knesset members can back any MK as prime minister, including Netanyahu or Gantz. If that doesn’t occur, Israel will go to unprecedented third elections in under a year, likely in mid-March.

I do hope it doesn't have to happen. But if it does, it's also because of all the infighting on the right, which Naftali Bennett for one, led to. Now that they may have joined up with the Likud, it's to be hoped he's repenting and neither he nor Ayelet Shaked will ever try those offensive tricks of theirs ever again. We'll see how things turn out in the next month.

If Mendelblit chooses to indict Netanyahu over petty issues, he'll be destroying democracy

Caroline Glick spoke of how the leftist-run prosecution in Israel is utterly obsessed with getting rid of Netanyahu at the expense of democracy:

The ongoing criminal probes against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are reaching their climax. After conducting a marathon four-day pre-indictment hearing for Netanyahu earlier this month, Israel’s Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit reportedly intends to complete his review of the state prosecution’s cases and decide whether to indict Israel’s longest-serving prime minister by the end of next month. The main charges against Netanyahu relate to his associations with media owners.

For three years, illegal leaks from the investigations have dominated the news. The key question – indeed, just about the only question – that has been endlessly discussed is whether or not Mendelblit will end Netanyahu’s political career by indicting him on corruption charges.

The importance of this question is self-evident. On the one hand, we have a democratically elected leader. On the other hand, we have unelected state prosecutors who wish to oust him from power by indicting him.

For nearly a year, Israeli politics have been in a state of chaos because of the criminal probes. The probes played a central role in the April Knesset elections and arguably were the primary reason that Netanyahu failed to form a coalition despite his electoral victory. Today the probes and Mendelblit’s deliberations are the primary reason that no one can form a government in the wake of last month’s repeat elections. If Israel holds a third election in the coming months, the probes will again be the central issue determining both the result and the ability of whoever wins to form a government. The center-left Blue and White party is using the probes as an excuse to refuse to join a coalition government with Netanyahu.

While the probes’ impact on Netanyahu’s political future is a key question, and on the composition of the next government is certainly a big deal, neither of these issues is the central matter than hangs in the balance as Mendelblit holds his deliberations.

If Israel’s attorney general relies on these probes as a means to end Netanyahu’s career, he will do far more than overthrow a political leader. He will embrace a legal doctrine that rejects the very essence of democracy.

Read the entire item.

Meretz throws Ehud Barak a lifering with a merger as his party's prospects sink

The anti-Zionist, anti-religious Meretz party is forming an alliance with Ehud Barak as his reception began to slip following the news he'd associated with Jeffrey Epstein, all for the sake of toppling Benjamin Netanyahu:

In a dramatic reshuffle on the Left, the far-left Meretz and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's Israel Democratic Party will be running on a joint ticket in the Sept. 17 election under the name Democratic Union, with Labor MK Stav Shafir as No. 3, the party leaders announced Thursday morning.

According to the agreement reached between the parties, Meretz leader Nitzan Horowitz will hold the No. 1 slot on the list, followed by Shafir. Barak will be placed 10th at his own insistence, according to a statement released by the faction Thursday. He will, however, be guaranteed the first pick of ministerial posts if the party enters the government.

Former GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, who recently joined Barak's party, was allotted the third slot on the list, with former Meretz leader Tamar Zandberg placed fourth. The top 10 places also reserve two other slots for candidates from Barak's party.

Shafir decided to leave Labor after she failed to convince new Labor chairman Amir Peretz to run on a joint ticket with Meretz and Barak.

What's really disturbing is whether there's a segment of the public out there who're willing to vote for them despite the Epstein scandal. And whether they'll succeed in wiping out the Labor party all for the sake of this. It's a valid worry, and for now, it unmasks Meretz as not true to any claim they make that they're in favor of women's rights, when they're willing to associate with somebody whose own connections are that repellent.

This is decidedly atrocious news, proving how morally bankrupt the left is, and not true to their slogans at all. And what "democratic" values do they actually uphold? None that I can think of.

MILLION STUDENT MARCH MOVEMENT: THE NEW KHMER ROUGE

KHMER ROUGE OCCUPY PHNOM PENH

PBS:

After years of civil war, Khmer Rouge forces seize Phnom Penh and establish their regime. They drive city-dwellers into the countryside in an attempt to create an agrarian, communist utopia. Brutal persecution of intellectuals, religious figures and ethnic minorities begins. The Khmer Rouge bans family relationships and begins an aggressive campaign of brainwashing young children to worship the state and spy on their parents. If parents try to disguise themselves as uneducated peasants, children are instructed to report them as enemies of the state.

KHMER KIDS

WIKI: 

The regime recruited children to spy on adults. The pliancy of the younger generation made them, in the Angkar's words, the "dictatorial instrument of the party."[citation needed] In 1962 the communists had created a special secret organisation, the Democratic Youth League, that, in the early 1970s, changed its name to the Communist Youth League of Kampuchea. Pol Pot considered Youth League alumni as his most loyal and reliable supporters, and used them to gain control of the central and of the regional CPK apparatus. The powerful Khieu Thirith, minister of social action, was responsible for directing the youth movement.

Hardened young cadres, many little more than twelve years of age, were enthusiastic accomplices in some of the regime's worst atrocities.

FRONTPAGE - 2005:

Communism needs children. Only children will obey the tyranny of adult delusions without question. Only the young are naïve enough to hate all authority and to destroy all achievement. For youth, Communism is not a delusion but an exciting, heroic cause. 

Cambodia’s Pol Pot knew this. He overtook his country on April 17, 1975, with a huge gang of young teenagers called the Khmer Rouge. Through these obedient subjects, Pol Pot murdered nearly 2 million people of his own nation, one-third of the population. In less than four years, Pol Pot created a society of pure Communism—ghastly, murderous tyranny.

Jean-Louis Margolin, in “Cambodia: A Country of Disconcerting Crimes,” in The Black Book of Communism (ed. Mark Kramer. Harvard: 1999), says that Pol Pot tried to establish Communism “in one fell swoop, without the long transitional period” that characterized the Marxist method.” Though his party was called the Party of Democratic Kampuchea, it was a horde of raw hellions. “Money was abolished in a week, total collectivization was achieved in less than two years; social distinctions were suppressed by the elimination of entire classes of property owners, intellectuals, and businessmen, and the ancient antagonism between urban and rural areas was solved by emptying the cities in a single week” (p.577).

The enforcers of this disaster were “programmed” youth. Pol Pot separated children from parents and indoctrinated them with fanatical denial of natural affection and respect for familial relationships. He understood the latent resentment of youth toward parents and adults, and youth’s penchant for destruction. Destruction is naturally exciting. Pol Pot knew that there was a “killing field” in the heart of the young, and he tapped into that virgin resource. This is clear in Roland Joffé’s 1984 documentary, The Killing Fields.

Children surrendered their natural family bonds to the unnatural vision of the Anka, the party, the Big Brother. Children became part of a national gang, and they reveled in the thrills of vandalism. Youth were given orders to not only be disrespectful to parents and adults, but to betray them, to be physically cruel to them, and even to murder them. Children under this satanic delusion could not be dissuaded or relieved.

THIS PERFECTLY DESCRIBES THE MILLION STUDENT MARCH MOVEMENT - A MOVEMENT RUN AND FINANCED BY SOROS AND HIS MINIONS, UTILIZING ALINSKY TACTICS, WITH THE FULL COOPERATION OF THE OBAMA REGIME:

OBAMA AND PAYTON HEAD

THEIR AIM IS TO TAKEOVER ALL COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO INDOCTRINATE ALL YOUTH.

COLLEGE CAMPUSES USED TO BE A SAFE SPACE FOR CONTROVERSIAL DEBATES.

THESE LEFTISTS ARE TURNING THIS ON ITS HEAD:

A SAFE SPACE ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS MEANS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE THE PARTY LINE, AND WHERE, IF YOU DO, YOU GET THREATENED OR ATTACKED.

DOGMA AND INTIMIDATION RULE WHERE ONCE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ROAMED UNFETTERED. THE CAMPUS HAS MORPHED FROM A PLACE FOR EDUCATION, TO A RE-EDUCATION CAMP.

THEY WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH CONTROLLING THE FACULTIES OF DEPARTMENTS IN THE HUMANITIES AND ARTS.

THEY WANT TO CONTROL ALL ASPECTS OF CAMPUS LIFE - AS A WAY OF EVENTUALLY CONTROLLING ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE IN THE USA.

AND NOW, THE NEW INTERIM CHIEF OF MIZZOU IS ONE OF THEM.

FERGUSON - WHICH SOROS ALSO FINANCED - BLM AND RAPE EPIDEMIC WERE JUST THE WARM UP ACTS FOR WHAT'S COMING, UNLESS WE ELECT A CONSERVATIVE POTUS.

IT'S 2016, OR NEVER...

NOTE:

BRAINWASHING YOUTH IS WHAT THE ENEMIES OF LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY DO ALL OVER THE WORLD:

HAMAS KIDS

WE MUSTN'T LET THEM GET GREATER CONTROL OF OUR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES;

IN FACT, WE MUST BEGIN TO TAKE AWAY THEIR CONTROL OF OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM  - AND THE MASS MEDIA.

THE BRAINWASHING MUST BE STOPPED.

IF WE FAIL, THEN ALL WILL BE LOST... AND HUMANITY WILL BEGIN A NEW DARK AGE, WORSE THAN ANY WHICH HAS COME BEFORE...

MULTICULTURALISM IS THE NEW RELIGION IN SCANDINAVIA

Front Page Magazine talks about the new multi-culti faith that's turning Scandanavia into something wholly different:

During recent travel to Scandinavia after a six year absence, the take-away now is even more pronounced: Christianity is a diminishing reality and the new faith that has arisen is multiculturalism. It may be more evident in Sweden than in Norway or Finland, but nevertheless, it is found everywhere. As you watch the morning commuter trains unload, four -- if not five -- out of every ten non-tourist passengers appear to be non-native. A significant number of the city’s bus drivers in Oslo are Africans. Many of the uniformed personnel in Sweden and Norway appear to be of Middle Eastern origin. [...]

In Sweden, concern about uncontrolled immigration was expressed by Magnus and Jerry (both in their late 20’s) and living in different parts of Stockholm. Magnus, was concerned about the future character of Sweden and was particularly worried about the influx of Middle Eastern Arab-Muslims. Jerry revealed that he has voted for the conservative Sweden Democrats (SD) party. He confided, however, that in Sweden today, political correctness (PC) makes it a taboo to disclose his having voted for the SD party, particularly in his place of employment. He would be shamed if he told his colleagues about his choice. Yet, over a million Swedes voted for the SD party.

Jerry and Magnus both maintained that the Swedish government gives preferential treatment to immigrants in terms of housing and education. Although college tuition in Sweden is free, most students are living in dorms or in rentals, and Stockholm’s rentals are very high, leaving students with huge debts, when compared to the rest of Europe. Whereas the immigrants receive subsidized housing and free tuition, native Swedes are stuck with overwhelming debt. According to Jerry, this is one of the key reasons why the SD party rose to become the third largest party in Sweden.

It is ironic that the Swedish government, which boasts about the helping hand it gives to refugees and its support for a Palestinian state (without having to negotiate peace terms with Israel), is doing little to protect its citizenry. In a February 14, 2015 article written by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard (editors-in-chief of the Swedish based Dispatch International) for the Gatestone Institute International Policy Council titled “Sweden: Rape Capital of the West,” they assert that “[f]orty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa. Significantly, the report (by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention) does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.”

Both the dominant liberal-left media and the multicultural elites in government and academia seek to hide the fact that ethnic Swedish women are being raped by Middle Eastern and African immigrants. Carlqvist and Hedegaard go on to report that “[t]he internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonposten and Expressen to ask why they described the perpetrators as ‘Swedish men’ when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.” These politically correct so-called journalists forgot that reporting the true facts of a story is a journalistic duty.

Worse, they practically support communist tactics. And that could all end up becoming their downfall as the country ends up reaping what it's sown.

LEFTIST REACTION TO CHARLESTON ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE: THEY BLAME THE COLLECTIVE AND NOT THE PERP

The left is all about 3rd party responsibility and the collective, and all about opposing the indiviual.

They blame widespread racism and the confederate flag for the horrific murders in Charleston, and not the perp.

It's how they think and how they do politics.

If you are part of a group which is part of the leftist machine, then you get goodies because you are a victim who deserves special treatment or you are an indulged member of the party elite who deserves special treatment because you exclusively understand what must be done for the common good.

If you are not, then you pay for the goodies. And you get lambasted.

South Carolina has a more diverse array of elected officials than any state in New England and is less segregated than NYC. But that doesn't stop the left from portraying this horrific mass murder as a colllective problem of South Carolina,  the south, whites, and the GOP.

Their policy response consists of attacking the confederate flag, and trying to pass more restrictive gun laws which would only truky apply to disinterested third parties who are in no way connected to the event in South Carolina. And by exacerbating racial divisions. Race-baiting.

All proposing such things can possibly accomplish is coalescing the factions in their machine - and fundraising. As such it is a cynical bit of propaganda - and a harmful one, too: it promotes racial division, a dimunition of rights, and a useless symbolic act.

The members of the church and the citizens of Charleston have responded more appropriately and usefully - by promoting unity and faith.

The perp is a relatively rare bird and not the tip of a white supremacist iceberg; he is a drug-abusing, sociopathic psychotic under medical care that failed him and the community.

The left's response will not improve our nation; it will do the opposite. Unfortunately,  this is par for the course for them.

I pray that in the days ahead, sanity and morality rule, and not collectivism and factionalism.

That will require that most Americans ignore Obama and the mass media - a tough thing to do in a society dominated by mass media and with a mass media dominated by leftists.

BRITISH ELECTION PROVES THEY DESPERATELY NEED ELECTORAL REFORM

UKIP WON 13% OF THE VOTE -2\3rd's MORE THAN THE SNP, BUT ENDED UP WITH 1/56th AS MANY MP'S.

THIS IS BECAUSE THE BRITS DO NOT HAVE RUNOFFS IF THE WINNER HAS LESS THAN 50%, AND MOST OF THE SEATS ARE WON WITH LESS THAN 40%.

UKIP FINISHED THIRD OVERALL IN THE TOTAL VOTE COUNT GAINING MANY MORE VOTES THAN THE SNP AND LIB-DEMS COMBINED, BUT ENDED UP WITH ONLY ONE SEAT.

THIS MEANS UKIP'S 4 MILLION SUPPORTERS HAVE VIRTUALLY NO VOICE IN PARLIAMENT DESPITE BEING EXTREMELY POPULAR AND VOICING SUPPORT FOR POSITIONS NO OTHER PARTY SUPPORTS.

THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO DISENFRANCHISING MILLIONS OF BRITISH VOTERS AND IT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

IT'S SIMPLE TO FIX:

ADJUST ELECTORAL LAW TO REQUIRE AT LEAST 45% FOR THE WINNER, AND IF NO ONE GETS 45%, THEN HAVE A RUNOFF IN 3 WEEKS BETWEEN THE TOP TWO FINISHERS.

UKIP CAME IN SECOND IN MANY DOZENS OF CONTESTS AND SURELY MIGHT HAVE WON MAY OF THEM IF THEY HAD A RUNOFF SYSTEM LIKE THIS - WHICH MANY COUNTRIES AND STATES ALREADY HAVE.

SOME PEOPLE WOULD PREFER A PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM, SUCH AS IN ISRAEL.

EACH PARTY GETS A NUMBER OF SEATS PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR OVERALL TOTAL.

IN THIS SYSTEM UKIP WOULD HAVE WON 80 SEATS - MORE THAN THE LIB-DEMS AND THE SNP COMBINED.

MORE HERE:

http://infographics.economist.com/2015/general_election_proportional/?n=&w=595

EITHER WAY, BRITAIN WOULD HAVE A PARLIAMENT THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

I THINK MOST BRITS FEEL THAT THE TIME HAS COME FOR REFORM.

IF IT DOES, THEN ELECTORAL REFORM WOULD BE ONE OF UKIP'S GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITAIN - ALONG WITH FINALLY GETTING THE BRITISH A REFERENDUM ON EU MEMBERSHIP.

AND ANOTHER THING: FARAGE LOST HIS CONTEST AND RESIGNED AS PARTY LEADER. HE REMAINS AN MEP.

FARAGE LOST BECAUSE HE HAD TO RUN AGAINST THE ENTIRE NATIONAL MEDIA, AND BECAUSE THE TORIES SHREWDLY RAN A FORMER UKIP MEMBER AGAINST HIM.

C'EST LA VIE. FARAGE DESERVES A REST. I HOPE WE HAVE NOT HEARD THE LAST FROM HIM.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

IF THE TORIES RENEG ON THE REFERENDUM PROMISE, THEN AN ANTI-EU PARTY WILL WIN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THE SOONER THEY HOLD IT THE BETTER, BUT I SUSPECT CAMERON WILL WAIT UNTIL GREECE LEAVES THE EU, AND THE ESS HITS THE EFF.

FINAL NOTE:

IF LABOR REFORMS ITSELF INTO AN ANTI-EU AND ANTI-IMMIGRANT PARTY, THEN THEY COULD BECOME THE NEXT MAJORITY PARTY.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY NEED TO BECOME LESS "PROGRESSIVE" AND MORE PRO-WORKING CLASS.

I DOUBT THEY WILL DO THIS; THEIR LEADERSHIP IS MADE UP OF IDEOLOGICAL LEFTISTS, NOT PRAGMATIC BLAIRITES.

BIBI & LIKUD GET 30 SEATS! HERZOG A MERE 24!

THANK G-D!

MORE HERE:

As counting of votes continues in the elections for the 20th Knesset, the Likud party may be headed for an even bigger victory than exit polls originally predicted. As of 4:25 a.m. (Israel time), 99.5% of the ballots have been counted and the Likud is leading the pact with 30 seats. The “Zionist Union” of Labor and Hatnua has 24 seats

GUARDIAN:

 Haaretz reports that with 99.5% of votes counted, 

• Likud leads with 30 Knesset seats. 
• Zionist Union has 24.
• The Joint Arab List comes in third with 13 seats, followed by:
• Yesh Atid 11
• Kulanu 10
• Habayit Hayehudi 8
• Shas 7
• United Torah Judaism 7
• Yisrael Beiteinu 6
• Meretz 4

THE DECEPTION OF A THIRD PARTY

Daniel Greenfield tells how the Israeli left is technically fooling people with the aid of a phony third party:

The left has done well with fake third parties. It’s a testament to its basic unpopularity that it needs to trot out a fake third party.

The fake third party this time is Kulanu, a media manufactured party headed by Moshe Kahlon a hack from Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party who is looking for his 15 minutes of fame and the goodies that come with it. Technically Kulanu is actually a fake fourth party considering that its role was filled last time around by Yesh Atid, which is still in the running.

These fake third parties are typically focused on equality and reform, they play at being non-partisan and consisting of smart people who just want to fix a broken system. And there are idiots who fall for it every time.

Currently the conservative parties are losing seats to Kulanu, because the party (obviously) targets their base. That is its whole purpose. It’s not so much that the left is gaining as that a stalking horse party for the left is gaining.

The majority of Israelis do want Netanyahu by 48 to 34. But the left is really good at gaming a parliamentary system and voters are often unwilling to understand how they play into the hands of the left.

Even if Labor doesn't manage so well, Kulanu is still a valid concern if it takes away votes from the right and gives them to the left. Speaking of which, Kulanu does have some members who qualify as fairly leftist. Similarly, Yesh Atid is also a worry, to the point even Labor is worried about them, and is attacking them in some of their ads now the week before the election. Kulanu is too, but they're still not exactly a party whose potentially bad influence should be taken lightly.

THE OBAMA INTIFADA - part 3

The Garner case is the third part of The Obama Intifada; the first was Trayvon; the second Ferguson.

Each case has been EXPLOITED by the professional race-hustlers of the Left, and quite deftly.

Just as Hamas transformed their aggressive rocket attacks against Israel into a $5billion windfall, the Obama-Jarrett-Sharpton-Holder-Farrakhan Alliance are attempting to transform a few, rare unfortunate deaths into a social revolution.

It's straight out of the Alinsky playbook.

They want riots and race wars because the greater the crisis, and the more they can undermine our law & order institutions and the more power they can seize.

Trayvon and Ferguson were weak cases, but the video of the Garner arrest has made their argument stronger - despite the fact that the arrest was supervised by a black woman: (the supervising sergeant on the scene at the time of the choke-hold is a black woman).

Many of us on the right are upset that no cop was indicted for Garner's death, but NOT because we think racism was involved. We think it was unintentional. And we suspect that the "blue wall" shut down any indictment. We think the cop should have probably been charged with unintentional manslaughter and this would have given Garner and the cop their day in court - out in the open, (unlike the grand jury which is secret).

I'd like to see this case revisited, somehow.
I'd like to see cops get outfitted with video cameras - as many cop cruisers have been for years. The video camera would protect cops and suspects.

And I'd like to see the race-hustlers and leftists - from Obama to the communists of Revcom - STFU.

Three dozens cities in the USA are now getting these communist party sponsored protests - night after night, They are disrupting commerce and civil peace. And make no mistake about it: these protests are not about indicting cops. They're really trying to foment riots as they did in Ferguson, and a revolution here in the USA as the Muslim Brotherhood did for a while in Egypt, as FATAH and HAMAS are currently trying in Israel.

Each day they will ramp up the rhetoric and the threats and the violence. And if the police retaliate, then the cops will be called racists and "pigs", and they can ram up the violence even more.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

Simple: Obama and his comrades got us here. They've been cynically using race from the get-go, with no care about its social implications; they are only concerned abut their hold on power.

Why are they ramping things up, now?

Simple: without the US Senate, it's all Obama and his comrades have got left.

LEICESTER COUNCIL BOYCOTTS ISRAEL

The British city of Leicester is the latest to boycott Israeli products. Manfred Gerstenfeld says it's all part of a tactic to draw attention away from Muslim atrocities:

The city council of Leicester, UK, has decided to boycott all Israeli goods. It is a town in which 19% of the population is Muslim. The Labor party completely dominates the city council.[1]

This new event is opening yet another avenue in boycotting Israel. If one looks back into the history of boycotts, the only precedent which comes to mind concerns an occurrence in Norway.

In 2005, the region of Sør Trøndelag, which includes Norway’s third largest city, Trondheim, decided in favor of boycotting Israel. The Norwegian government subsequently informed them that this decision was illegal.[2]

Yet that's one of the few positive things Norway could've done, and they're not doing any better now. In Britain, this is almost par for the course, and Leicester looks like it's on its way to becoming another sharia zone in the UK.

WHO ARE THE 40%?

I am not referring to Romney's Kinsleyan 47% gaffe.

I'm referring to the fact that Obama consistently gets at least about 40% in the polls.

No matter what the eff up of the day is, Obama get's 40%.

It's really puzzling to me. I mean, when the Obamacare website was doing INEXCUSABLY HORRIBLY, he still got 40%. Two weeks after promising Ebola would never get to our shores, Obama still got his 40%. After his inexcusable somersaults on ISIS/ISIL and conatinthem versus destroy them, Obama still got his 40%. After getting caught in the most bald-faced POTUS lie of all-time, ("If you like your healthcare, then you van keep your healthcare. PERIOD!"), Obama still got his 40%.

And so on.

In France, Francois Hollande is polling at about 13%. And his effort is on par with Obama's - but Obama is getting 3x as many people to stick by him - NO MATTER WHAT.

WHO ARE THEY?

Who are the people who do NOT give a shit how awful Obama is?

Here's my guess:

• 90% of the blacks - about 10% of the general population
• 80% of the gays - about 2% of the general population
• 75% of the people who think man-made CO2 is causing a climate catastrophe - about 5% of the population
• 50% government union workers - about 3% of the general population
• 70% of the hispanics - about 10% of the general population
• 75% of the single-moms - about 5% of the general population
• 75% of the low info liberal voters - about 5% of the general population

These people are not representative of the great diversity in this nation.

These people see themselves as victims - victims who need a big powerful government to punish the people the Left has convinced them are responsible for how the fact that they FEEL like victims

The blacks and gays and hispanics and single-moms who support the Democrat Party see the Democrat Party as a means for REVENGE.

The bleeding-heart liberals feel guilty themselves and see the Democrat Party as a way to expunge their guilt by punishing OTHERS.

The government workers see the Democrat Party as the guarantee they can suck at the teat of government in perpetuity.

(There are more extreme leftists who think Obama is too centrist, and they make up the majority of the blacks, hispanics, gays, climate alarmists, single mothers and low info voters who DON'T support Obama.)

The GOP should NOT write off these voters. (As Romney seemed to be indicating.)

We can peel off a fair number of them. Maybe 1-2% of each group.

75% of these die-hard Obama supporters live in the cities.

To peel them off from the Democrat Party, the GOP needs to come up with an urban agenda and an environmental agenda.

School choice and charter schools is a GREAT urban issue; in NYC the blacks and hispanics LOVE charter schools. 

And clean H2O is a much better environmental cause than no man-made CO2 - and it's especially important in the Third World. By focusing on cleaning humanity's water supply globally the Right can truly make the world a better place environmentally and also deflect the political attacks from the Left that we are heartless.

I think these two policies could get the die-hard Obama-types down to around 30% - a number that makes Democrat voter fraud worthless.

NYTIMES: "END MASS INCARCERATION NOW!" - a fisking

The New York Times published what the editorial board must consider a hard-hitting editorial today, calling for the end of "mass incarceration."  It's going to be widely discussed, but let's take an initial look at what the Times editorial board is saying.  Here we go . . . .

"End Mass Incarceration Now"

First of all, the very title is misleading.  As far as I know, there is no “mass incarceration” in the United States.  There are about 2 million individuals in prisons and jails – less than 1% of the population, and they all got there individually, following trials in which they had more of a chance to defend themselves than they would have in any European country. They are not in prison as part of any “mass” group.  There is no "mass" that has been incarcerated as a "mass." 

For more than a decade, researchers across multiple disciplines have been issuing reports on the widespread societal and economic damage caused by America’s now-40-year experiment in locking up vast numbers of its citizens. If there is any remaining disagreement about the destructiveness of this experiment, it mirrors the so-called debate over climate change.

Actually  it doesn't mirror the debate over climate change, it's exactly like the debate over climate change: a lot of politically driven noise promoted by the mass media, on the one hand, and a much quieter but more thoroughgoing analysis on the other side.

In both cases, overwhelming evidence shows a crisis that threatens society as a whole. In both cases, those who study the problem have called for immediate correction.

Actually, in both cases, those who have an immediate personal and political interest in their preferred solutions are using the threat of catastrophe to bully an increasingly skeptical and incomplaisant public.  What immediately threatens the American public is the prospect that the Obama administration would put in place an Executive Order to release from the prisons where they belong a million violent criminals whose careers have been at least temporarily placed on hold.

Several recent reports provide some of the most comprehensive and compelling proof yet that the United States “has gone past the point where the numbers of people in prison can be justified by social benefits,” and that mass incarceration itself is “a source of injustice.”

Locking up criminals has purposes other than providing “social benefits.”  In the past, the purpose of providing "justice" was provided by flogging and hanging; prisons were proposed as a more humane alternative, since they would give the criminal a chance to reform himself.  That's why they are called "penitentiaries" - they were intended for the penitent.

Since there is no “mass incarceration” in the United States, as discussed, above, non-existent "mass incarceration" cannot be a “source of injustice.”  However, I think that liberal editorial writers tend to underestimate the social benefit provided by taking violent criminals off the streets, since they tend to live, work, and shop in neighborhoods other than the usual hunting grounds of those violent criminals. People who live in neighborhoods where they are the prey of violent sociopaths are more appreciative of the benefits that accrue from keeping criminals behind bars.

That is the central conclusion of a two-year, 444-page study prepared by the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Justice Department and others. The report highlights many well-known statistics: Since the early 1970s, the nation’s prison population has quadrupled to 2.2 million, making it the world’s biggest. That is five to 10 times the incarceration rate in other democracies.

The fact that incarceration has increased since the 1970s should not be surprising, since it was during the 1970s that incarceration rates in the United States dropped to historical low levels, with the emptying of State mental hospitals and liberal control of the courts.  And the comparison to "other democracies" is irrelevant and meaningless. Without knowing the crime rates that incarceration is intended to ameliorate in any given "democracy," you can't determine if the rate of incarceration is sensible or not

On closer inspection the numbers only get worse. More than half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes, and one of every nine, or about 159,000 people, are serving life sentences — nearly a third of them without the possibility of parole.

As the Giuliani/Brock experience in New York City showed, however, the criminals who are committing the non-violent nuisance crimes are the same criminals committing the violent felonies – you need to catch them for whatever you can, and lock them up for as long as possible.  In the long run, that reduces the crime rate enormously.  Career criminals commit many, many crimes in the course of their activities.  Removing a small number of habitual criminals from the streets goes a long way towards making those streets habitable. 

While politicians were responding initially to higher crime rates in the late 1960s, this “historically unprecedented” growth is primarily the result of harsher sentencing that continued long after crime began to fall. These include lengthy mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses that became popular in the 1980s, and “three strikes” laws that have put people away for life for stealing a pair of socks.

This is the Times’ Fox Butterfield’s eternal paradox: they just can’t understand why prison populations are high “despite” a drop in the crime rate.  The fact is, that at least one reason the crime rate is lower, is that a larger proportion of the criminals are locked up. 

And even though the political climate has shifted in recent years, many politicians continue to fear appearing to be “soft on crime,” even when there is no evidence that imprisoning more people has reduced crime by more than a small amount.

What? I thought that the problem was “harsher sentencing that continued long after crime began to fall”? Which is it?  Are crime rates falling or not? And it should not surprise anyone that voters expect criminals to be kept off the streets.

Meanwhile, much of the world watches in disbelief. A report by Human Rights Watch notes that while prison should generally be a last resort, in the United States “it has been treated as the medicine that cures all ills,” and that “in its embrace of incarceration, the country seems to have forgotten just how severe a punishment it is.”

That’s just exaggerated name-calling. Prison is certainly not considered a medicine that cures all ills.  But it is considered a way to keep the general population out of harm’s way. 

The severity is evident in the devastation wrought on America’s poorest and least educated, destroying neighborhoods and families. From 1980 to 2000, the number of children with fathers in prison rose from 350,000 to 2.1 million. Since race and poverty overlap so significantly, the weight of our criminal justice experiment continues to fall overwhelmingly on communities of color, and particularly on young black men.

I think that race is a red herring.  Heather Mac Donald, among others, has shown that the proportions of different ethnic groups in the number of malefactors described to police by victims, in the number of people arrested, in the number who are brought to trial, and in the number who are imprisoned - are all the same.  The racial proportions are the same. Which is in fact evidence that there is in fact no racial bias in the administration of criminal justice in the United States. And although the rates at which young black men commit any measured violent crime are at least several times higher than the rates at which young men of other defined ethnicities commit them, I think that a careful sociological analysis would show, that the crime rates are similar for young men of any race brought up outside nuclear families headed by their fathers. Race is not the issue, the breakdown of traditional families is the issue.

After prison, people are sent back to the impoverished places they came from, but are blocked from re-entering society. Often they cannot vote, get jobs, or receive public benefits like subsidized housing — all of which would improve their odds of staying out of trouble. This web of collateral consequences has created what the National Academy of Sciences report calls “a highly distinct political and legal universe for a large segment of the U.S. population.”

There are consequences to all of our actions. I don’t think it is really fair to say that prisoners are "sent back to the impoverished places they came from", they are just going back home, as anybody would.  And the fact that they have to regain the trust of neighbors and employers is a normal consequence of their previous behavior.

All of this has come at an astounding economic cost, as tallied by a report from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project — $80 billion a year in direct corrections expenses alone, and more than a quarter-trillion dollars when factoring in police, judicial and legal services.

Crime is what causes these costs to be necessary.  The criminals are responsible for the costs of dealing with them. The fact that it costs so much to have police departments, prosecutor's offices, courts, public defenders, jails, and prisons is due to the fact that there are criminals among us.  With fewer criminals, the costs would be lower.

Many of the solutions to this crisis are clear, even if the political path to them often is not: Reduce sentence lengths substantially. Provide more opportunities for rehabilitation inside prison. Remove the barriers that keep people from rejoining society after they are released from prison. Use alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders, drug addicts and the mentally ill. Release elderly or ill prisoners, who are the least likely to re-offend. And since more than 95 percent of inmates are eventually released, rate prisons on their success in keeping former inmates from returning — which as many as two-thirds currently do. Some states have already taken smart and effective steps in these directions, but there is a long way to go.

These are the preferred remedies that Democrat Party politicians will be pushing:

1) Let all convicts vote – they will all be reliable Democrat voters, right?

2) Let all prisoners out of prison – the Obama Administration has released over 30,000 illegal alien felons, why not release the rest?

3) Shorter sentences.

4) Forbid employers from making criminal background checks of employees – being pushed already.

5) Abolish local zoning and force Section 8 housing projects on relatively low-crime communities.  Then they too will experience the joys of urban culture.

But note that these are "solutions" to the "problem" of "mass incarceration."  But "mass incarceration" is not the root problem.  The real problem is crime.  The real problem is that there are evil, sociopathic people in this world, who do not have a conscience, and who prey upon their neighbors without remorse.  We need a solution to that problem! When you can show me "alternatives to imprisonment" that make a difference, when you can show me that rehabilitation can transform a sociopathic hoodlum into a decent citizen, then we will have something to talk about.  In the meantime, locking these predators up for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets will have to do.

The insanity of the situation is plain to people across the political spectrum, from Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who agree on the urgent need for change. The research is in, and it is uncontestable. The American experiment in mass incarceration has been a moral, legal, social, and economic disaster. It cannot end soon enough.

The insanity of this editorial is plain to me.  Whenever someone tells you that the research is uncontestable, you know that you are in the presence of a "true believer" and not someone whose views are based in reality.