Saturday, July 30, 2016

Will Democrats Welcome Less Educated White Working-Class Voters?

Cross-posted from American Power.



Democrats hate the white working-class, especially white working-class men in flyover country. That demographic is literally a despised enemy fit to be shot.

I didn't blog it at the time, for some reason, but this description of leftist hatred of the white working-class is perfect, at the New Yorker, "How Donald Trump is Winning Over the White Working Class":
Identity politics, of a different brand from Trump’s, is also gaining strength among progressives. In some cases, it comes with an aversion toward, even contempt for, their fellow-Americans who are white and sinking. Abstract sympathy with the working class as an economic entity is easy, but the feeling can vanish on contact with actual members of the group, who often arrive with disturbing beliefs and powerful resentments—who might not sound or look like people urban progressives want to know. White male privilege remains alive in America, but the phrase would seem odd, if not infuriating, to a sixty-year-old man working as a Walmart greeter in southern Ohio. The growing strain of identity politics on the left is pushing working-class whites, chastised for various types of bigotry (and sometimes justifiably), all the more decisively toward Trump.
See that? Chastised for bigotry, sometimes justifiably!

So, no. Democrats aren't going to win over bedrock white working-class voters. They're not even winning over white women with no college education, according to recent polls.

The question remains whether building a winning presidential coalition around this demographic will be enough to win in November. And even if Trump wins, with the coming tsunami of brown-power demographic change, to say nothing of the rising youth vote of transformation, it's doubtful Republicans would be able to hold on to power. In the back of my mind I feel we're on the verge of a long-lasting party realignment toward the Democrats, which would see far-left politics and ideology entrenched at the national level for decades. A Trump victory in November might simply postpone that inevitability. If change is too rapid, regardless of inevitability, we'll continue to have intense ideological and demographic divisions in the years ahead.

In any case, here's Ronald Brownstein, at the Atlantic, "Does the Diverse Democratic Party Have Room for the White Working-Class?":
The evocative sound of barriers falling was the signal note during the Democratic National Convention’s first two nights.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s riveting Monday-night speech condensed the centuries of racial pain and progress bound up in her husband’s two victories into a single indelible phrase: “I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.” One night later, Hillary Clinton shattered another ceiling when she became the first major-party female presidential nominee.

The delegates have displayed understandable pride in these twin social milestones. But there is also an undercurrent of concern that something old is being lost in this celebration of the new. The fear among some is that this polychromatic Democratic Party, open to all races, both genders, all sexual orientations, welcoming to immigrants, and championing diversity, may not have preserved enough room for the working-class white voters who anchored the party from Andrew Jackson through Lyndon Johnson.

Those voters haven’t been the party’s center for years: except for Bill Clinton in 1996, no Democrat has won more than 40 percent of white voters without a college education since 1980, according to media exit polls. On a national basis, Democrats have largely replaced them with increased support from Millennials, minorities, and college-educated whites—while running just enough above their national numbers among working-class whites in the key Midwestern battlegrounds to retain the advantage in those pivotal states.

Even so, many in the party are incredulous that so many blue-collar whites are flocking to Donald Trump, a candidate Democrats view as uniquely divisive and unqualified. The post-Republican National Convention polls released on Monday poked directly at that anxiety. Trump held big leads among non-college whites in the surveys released by both CBS (23 percentage points) and CNN/ORC (fully 39 percentage points). The CNN poll had Trump attracting not only 69 percent of non-college white men but 64 percent of white women without college degrees—and recording most of his convention gains among the latter.

Both surveys showed Clinton holding preponderant leads among minority voters and running much better than Democrats usually do among college-educated whites. Those strengths could allow her to survive a Trump majority among working-class whites. But not any majority: If Trump’s advantage among blue-collar whites grows too large, Clinton would still struggle to overcome it with other voters.

Many Democrats are also uncomfortable with the thought of becoming a party that largely concedes the white working-class to rely on white voters mostly above the median income, and non-white voters mostly below it. (If nothing else, that’s not a plausible strategy for controlling Congress, even if it works at the presidential level.) Reduced reliance on working-class whites since the 1990s has freed Democrats to pursue a more consistently liberal cultural agenda. But anyone watching this convention’s first nights might easily view social inclusion, not economic opportunity, as the party’s core priority. “One of the challenges for Democrats is talking about diversity, talking about gender in a way that doesn’t put people on the defensive, [and] make them feel like they are being … accused of being bigoted,” says Democratic pollster Margie Omero.

The convention has exposed the inconvenient truth that Democrats no longer have many voices that intrinsically resonate in white working-class communities. Monday night’s opening speeches were often eloquent and compelling. But at one point, Cory Booker (Stanford, Yale Law School) gave way to Michelle Obama (Princeton, Harvard Law School), who was followed by former Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren. Each overcame significant barriers and showed great tenacity to scale those heights; but all were winners in the information-age meritocracy...

As note above a the New Yorker piece, it's clear leftists don't care about white working-class voters, and I expect the bedrock white turnout for Trump to be even stronger than the current consensus suggests. Indeed, if that CNN poll Brownstein cites is a reliable indicator, I'd argue Trump will be the prohibitive favorite in November.

Still, some of the polls are all over the place, and it's especially important to take a look at the survey methodology. There's been way too much variability in the numbers, with Trump up by high-single digits in one poll to the exact reverse in another (see Reuters' terrible new poll, for example).

I'll have more on this, as always.

Previously, "Two Party Conventions Showcase America's Stark Political Polarization."

Friday, July 29, 2016


Some new data reveals that Yasser Arafat, the loathsome dictator of the PLO, paid a lot of money to a leader of the anti-Israel Neturei Karta movement:
PLO arch-terrorist leader Yasser Arafat paid Moshe Hirsch, the leader of the anti-Israel Neturei Karta sect, at least $55,000. Correspondent Haggai Huberman reports that Hirsch received the sum - in two payments in early 2002 - in return for his support of the Palestinian Authority. So is revealed in documents found in Arafat's Mukata compound in Ramallah during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002. Asked why this news has been revealed only now, Huberman explained that the job of translating all the documents found in the Mukata is a very long and tedious one.

Hirsch serves as the Minister of Jewish Affairs in Arafat's PLO government. The papers signed by Arafat and authorizing the payments to him indicated that the money was not a "salary," but rather an unofficial payment. "Other papers found in the same 'pile' were instructions to pay various individuals various amounts of money," Huberman said.

Hirsch and Neturei Karta have a long history of anti-Zionist activities. Though the payments now color their actions in a new hue, they claim to object to the State of Israel because it does not jibe with their vision of Divine Redemption. According to their view, man's actions are limited to prayer and religious works, and certainly not the actual building of a not-completely religious state in the Holy Land.
For a clan that supposedly believes in "divine redemption", they aren't exactly trying to redeem themselves in the eyes of the Divine. Especially not when they collaborate with murderers and take blood money. This proves they don't place a high value on the 10 Commandments, and additionally explains where they get some of their own funding from.

Hirsch and his cronies belong in prison for treason. But if he's outside of Israel, then it won't be easy arresting him and bringing him to trial.


A most disgusting revelation about some Democrat staff members has just been reported by the Weekly Standard:
The deputy director of the Democratic National Committee opposed issuing a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day earlier this year—because then the DNC might have to issue statements commemorating the mass murder in Darfur and Rwanda, too. Gosh, genocide can be such a bother sometimes!

This disturbing episode, which has been exposed in the Wikileaks emails, began when then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz asked her staff to prepare a public statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day this past May. Senior communications director Ryan Banfill forwarded Schulz's request to DNC Deputy Director Kate Houghton.

Houghton was plainly annoyed at the prospect of having to, as she put it, "do statements for every Jewish holiday." Banfill attempted to clarify for Houghton that the day in question is not simply one of many "Jewish holidays" but rather an occasion to commemorate genocide. He wrote back: "This is about remembering the Holocaust. Never forget."

But Houghton dug in her heels. "Yup… or Darfur or Armenia or Rwanda or Bosnia (which PS is where my husband served)," she replied. "Does she want us to do one for each other those remembrance days as well?"
It's stunning how rock bottom some liberals can be today. Wasserman-Schultz may be a bad lot and trashed her reputation just recently, but this makes her look tame compared to Houghton. Most utterly disgusting, and exactly why no sane person should vote for them.


It turns out the teen ISIS activist who murdered the Rouen priest in front of his congregation was released by a judge despite the filth's making clear he would pose a threat. From the NY Daily News (via Accuracy in Media):
The teenage terrorist who killed a French priest in front of his congregation was twice detained for trying to join ISIS in Syria — but he was released from jail despite repeatedly promising to attack a church.

Adel Kermiche, 19, and a second ISIS-inspired attacker were fatally shot by cops Tuesday after they stormed a Normandy church during a 10 a.m. mass and slit the throat of 85-year-old Father Jacques Hamel, police said. [...]

“There’s a very strong chance he will do the same thing if he is released,” a prosecutor said.

A judge ordered the freed Kermiche to wear a tracking bracelet at all times and largely forbid him from leaving his home. The teenager could go outside for four hours a day, between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. On Tuesday, he used the four-hour window to attack the church.
With or without the bracelet, it's clear the justice officials made it easy for the teen to plot an attack, and now tragedy has struck. It's clear the judge has some blame to shoulder and should be disbarred from practicing law.

What Ideological Role Reversal of the Parties?

Cross-posted from American Power.


Look, I'm not as hard on mainstream media flacks as a lot of conservatives, but this idea that the parties have switched places is just bizarre. The party in power is naturally going to argue everything's okey dokey, and the party out of power's going to argue the country's going to hell in a hand-basket.

And ideologically, David Horowitz argued that Hillary's agenda "neo-communist" on Twitter last night. Frankly, I was rolling my eyes at the big government laundry list she rolled out. And the argument for "change"? What a pathetic joke. It's more of the same. Big government and more "rights" for everyone, as if we never had the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

But see Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa, at WaPo, "We are witnessing a visceral shift in the way the parties speak to the country":

The visceral shift in the parties’ political narratives represents a profound break from the way they have often spoken about the country and themselves.

Going at least as far back as Reagan, Republicans have prided themselves as being the party of optimism and confidence, leading an exceptional country whose greatness was coded into its DNA.

Going back further, to Franklin D. Roosevelt, it has been the Democrats who have made common cause with the aggrieved and the left behind, who have been criticized for dwelling too much on the nation’s flaws and being squeamish about asserting power internationally.

For some Republicans, it is an unsettling juxtaposition.

“The Democrats used to be the party that said people are being taken advantage of and it’s time to settle the score. Now that’s the Republicans’ message,” said Stuart Stevens, who in 2012 was GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s chief strategist. “To let them become the optimistic party that wants to lift us up and unify America, it’s a disaster for Republicans.”

Or maybe it is smart positioning, given that parts of the country are in a prolonged funk, as evidenced by the fact that polls since 2009 have consistently shown more people believe it to be headed in the wrong direction than the right one.

That creates a challenge for those who have been running the country during that time to make a stay-the-course argument. It is compounded by voters’ historic reluctance to leave the White House in any party’s hands for more than two consecutive terms.

“You really can’t afford to paint an unrelentingly dark picture of the country. To do that is to say, in effect, that your predecessor has failed,” said William A. Galston, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was a top adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

So the themes being sounded by each party reflect the natural cycle of being in and out of power.

But there are other factors at play this year that amplify what would have been happening anyway.

The Republican Party’s once-omnipotent establishment has ceded control to a vocal faction fixated on issues such as illegal immigration and their angst over the reweaving of the social fabric.

“There have been so many changes in the culture that to many Americans, it’s an unrecognizable country,” said William J. Bennett, a prominent conservative voice going back to his time in Reagan’s Cabinet...
That's not an ideological shift. There may be a difference in how the parties communicate their messages, but the Republican message is deeply conservative, concerned with destabilizing and damaging changes that the Democrats have wrought on our country. Combine that with the realism of Trump's appeals to law and order and national security, in contrast to the rainbows and unicorns of Obama's speech Wednesday night, and the differences could hardly be sharper. But again, it's not ideological. It's existential.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Depraved Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby Goes on Warpath After Charges Dropped in Freddie Gray Case (VIDEO)

Cross-posted from American Power.


Following-up, "Charges Dropped Against Remaining Officers in Freddie Gray Case (VIDEO)."

This is one angry bitch. One depraved angry black bitch.

It's enough never to want to visit Baltimore. Sheesh.

A political prosecution, in the name of social justice and "Black Lives Matter."

It's no wonder it all went out the window, going splat on the pavement like an exploding watermelon.

At the Baltimore Sun, "State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby assails police, pledges to pursue reforms":

Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby came out swinging Wednesday after she dropped the charges against the remaining police officers accused in the death of Freddie Gray, slamming the criminal justice system and saying police were too biased to investigate themselves.

In a fiery news conference at the Gilmor Homes housing project, the prosecutor said that without sweeping reform to police and the court system, "we could try this case 100 times, and cases just like it, and we would still end up with the same result."

Mosby told The Baltimore Sun that she planned to pursue such reforms — including the ability of prosecutors to use independent investigators.

Mosby charged six officers in Gray's arrest and death last year. Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams acquitted three of them, saying prosecutors lacked the evidence to prove their cases. Mosby dropped charges Wednesday against the other three.

"I wanted to be able to expose the systemic issues," she said. "And I think that's one of the reasons why we said we should probably [drop the remaining cases]: so we can try to work toward a solution."

The Baltimore police union called Mosby's comments "outrageous, uncalled for and simply not true." Former Police Commissioner Anthony Batts called Mosby "immature, incompetent and vindictive." Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said the prosecutions were "disgraceful" and Mosby "ought to prosecute herself."

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said she supported Mosby but questioned whether she had gone too far in her criticisms of the criminal justice system...
Well, she's obviously not building a winning coalition for the future.

But keep reading, FWIW.


Breitbart's Big Hollywood section showed how SJW anti-semites and anti-Israelists are voicing their hatred for Israeli actress Gal Gadot, star of the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, because of her pro-Israel and pro-IDF standings. The paragraph at the end is something I'd like to follow up on:
The anti-Gadot tweets are somewhat ironic considering a majority of the same people would frequently advocate for such a large movie portraying a strong female lead, however Gadot’s political views distance herself from the crowd, and she now appears to just be another target in the crosshairs of social justice.
In this case, they presumably don't want to support the WW movie just because they despise Gadot for her positions. There might also be some irony here because, as I'd found before, the movie might be saddled with a PC direction, and not simply because it's set during World War One rather than Two.

And even more ironic is that the leftards would even be Wonder Woman fans at all, since there were Jews involved in the development of the Amazonian princess back in 1941, including Max Gaines. Creator William Marston may have had some moral flaws and a few questionable ideas, but as evidenced by the premise in WW, Marston was anti-fascist, and that he worked with several Jewish editors and publishers is enough to verify that he was pro-Jewish, and surely also pro-Israel. He may not have been Jewish himself, but, what if he was? Why would any of these phony feminists want to cherish his creation at all? I'd suggest they not even buy any DC products at all if that's what they're like...except I've got a hunch they never have anyway. If so, then they're just aimless ranters with no idea what they want in life.

Here's more on the subject at The Algemeiner.


Since we were on the topic of Islamic propaganda being pushed by Marvel, here's also some news about what DC's been pushing. Arcamax was publishing some sugary articles about what's come up with Rebirth, and it's in the second of these where it's confirmed the propaganda Geoff Johns concocted still has a presence:
We've only got half of this reboot: "Green Lanterns," starring the two new Emerald Gladiators of Earth. The second title, "Hal Jordan and the Green Lantern Corps," in which the best-known GL takes on the Sinestro Corps in space, doesn't debut until July 27.

Meanwhile, we've had three issues to look at our new Green Lanterns, misunderstood Muslim Simon Baz, and agoraphobic Latina Jessica Cruz. They are, essentially, rookie cosmic cops with Earth as their beat.

Both have serious problems. Baz isn't trusted by the public, as some mistakes in his youth have placed him on a terrorist watch list. He has trust issues himself; he doesn't even rely on his power ring, being the only GL to carry a gun. Cruz, meanwhile, got her start being possessed by an alien from a parallel dimension, aggravating a mental illness. Her battle to overcome agoraphobia displays a different kind of heroism than we normally see.

Simon is all impulse, so is less interesting to this reader than Jessica, who is all anxiety. But I'll root for both of them while they take on the Red Lantern Corps in their first storyline, "Red Dawn."
Why don't I buy that claim the writer has less interest in the character called Baz? After all, he says he's rooting for him as much as the other character he noted (did I mention how ludicrous the premise with agoraphobia sounds?). Most fascinating how Baz, besides being rendered with such a tasteless background, is also depicted with an otherwise unimaginative approach, using a gun more than a power ring. Say, is the gun in the story unregistered and lacking a carry permit? If so, then he'd be guilty of illegal possession of a firearm. Did I mention how disturbing it is that the character was given a mask that looks like the ones worn by Hamas terrorists?

It won't be shocking if the Islamic background will remain, and that's reason enough for anybody who finds such propaganda distasteful to avoid buying the GL books.

Since we're still on the topic of Rebirth, there's also some insulting comment here about Wonder Woman's current costume design:
[...] Or perhaps I'm just dazzled by WW's new uniform, leather armor based on ancient Greco-Roman design. It's so much better than the old star-spangled swimsuit or her recent fashion mistakes, that I'm happy just looking at the art.
Wow, here's one phony who's certainly joined the bandwagon putting down WW's original design. If he'd said it's just as good as the older one, that would be okay, but the way he puts it across makes it sound like the older one was worthless. At least they're not as SJW-catering at the moment as they'd been over a year ago. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do it again, and it's clear this was written with some SJW mentality in mind.

I'm sure plenty of other people realize that, even if DC supposedly moved away from using the idea behind Identity Crisis to set the tone of their universe, that doesn't guarantee their storytelling will improve, as the part about Green Lantern hints. That's why, so long as Dan DiDio is still in charge, nobody need put their money into DC's pockets.


I'd once heard the claim Marvel's movie/TV division was supposedly independent of what goes on in the comics company. But this news suggests that's a rather farfetched claim, as now, some of the PC diversity tactics already seen in Marvel's recent output is now being forced into their cartoon productions to boot:
Announced at San Diego Comic-Con today, the fourth season of Avengers will focus on a new team of heroes, in the wake of the disappearance of the usual team: Ms. Marvel, Captain Marvel, Jane Foster’s Thor, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Wasp, and Vision. [...]
And this page has a picture confirming it's the Kamala Khan character who's taking the Ms. Marvel role, while Carol Danvers is in the Captain role. I wonder who's in the role of Ant-Man? It won't be shocking if that too has been drastically altered so it's not even Scott Lang.

The live action movie screenplays may not have been seriously affected by this contrived propaganda so far. But that doesn't mean it'll stay that way for long. Even they might fall victim to it sooner or later. In fact, as the Verge has just noted, the planned movie starring Carol Danvers is going to be named Captain Marvel, not Ms. Marvel, suggesting the history involving Mar-Vell of the Kree is going to be conveniently obscured, perhaps because the anti-communist metaphors in the original 1967 premise are considered unsuitable by today's leftists who're also prevalent in Marvel's movie production.

In any case, the news about the Avengers cartoon explains why I'm starting to feel uneasy about supporting their movies, because some of the same people working on the comics are involved in some form or other on the films too. Why must we support them even in Hollywood? That may be just what's encouraging them to keep this up.

Europe's Jihad Summer

Cross-posted from American Power.


Following-up, "An Abomination Against Islam and Christianity?"

From the excellent Douglas Murray, at the Spectator U.K., "Europe’s terror summer: will politicians now accept the reality of Islamic terrorism?":

How is your Merkelsommer going? For now, Britain seems to be missing the worst. True, a couple of men of Middle Eastern appearance tried to abduct a soldier near his base in Norfolk for what was unlikely to have been an interfaith dialogue session. But Britain’s geographical good fortune, relative success in limiting weapons and our justified scepticism of the undiscriminating ‘open borders’ brigade mean that we have so far been spared the delights of what Angela Merkel’s growing army of critics refer to as her summer of terror.

It is now a fortnight since Mohammed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ploughed a truck along the Nice seafront, killing 84 people. The following Monday Mohammed Riyad, who said he was from Afghanistan but almost certainly came from Pakistan, screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ while hacking with an axe at his fellow passengers on a Bavarian train. The next day another Mohammed, this time Mohamed Boufarkouch, shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and stabbed a Frenchwoman and her three daughters (aged eight, 12 and 14) near Montpelier. Mixing things up a little, that Friday’s shooter in Munich was a child of Iranians called Ali David Sonboly. Skip forward a couple of days and a ‘-Syrian asylum seeker’ with a machete was hacking a pregnant woman to death in Stuttgart. The next day another ‘Syrian asylum seeker’, Mohammad Daleel, carried out a suicide bombing outside a bar in Ansbach, Bavaria. And a little over 24 hours later two men shouting the name of Isis entered a church in Rouen during Mass, took the nuns and congregation hostage and slaughtered the priest with a knife.

Although the public know what is going on, the media seems loath to find any connection between these events. Indeed, the same papers that blame an exaggerated spike in ‘hate crime’ on everyone who voted for Brexit seem unwilling to put the blame for these real and violent attacks on the individuals carrying them out. ‘Syrian man denied asylum killed in German blast’ was the Reuters headline on the Ansbach story, neatly turning the suicide bomber into the victim and the German asylum system into the perpetrator. As Reuters went on: ‘A 27-year-old Syrian man who had been denied asylum in Germany a year ago died on Sunday when a bomb he was carrying exploded outside a music festival.’ How terrible for him to lose his bomb in such a way.

The more complex story of the Munich shooter allowed everyone to double-down on their favourite explanations for violence. Inadequate welfare provisions, unsuitable town-planning and bullying were all wheeled out to explain why Ali David Sonboly started shooting in a McDonalds. Others were a little too keen to claim him as an Isis warrior, when it seems he wasn’t. The BBC got around the problem by excising the ‘Ali’ and all reports of his religion. Instead, speculation about the shooting happening on the fifth anniversary of Anders Breivik’s terrorist assault in Norway meant that every-one could ignore the Muslim eyewitness who heard Sonboly shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ and headline on Breivik instead. Meaning that in Europe in 2016 a child of Iranian parents can be portrayed as a white supremacist, while no amount of Mohameds shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ can be said to have any connection to Islam.

Sections of the media and political class seem determined to stop the public coming to any conclusions. But most of us probably did that a long time ago, and these conclusions are being reinforced on a daily basis.

For the time being, the acceptable thing is to blame Isis. There is sense in that. The German train attacker had an Isis flag at his home, the Ansbach bomber left a video pledging allegiance to the group, and at least one of the Rouen church attackers had tried to travel to Syria to join them. The extent to which the group is involved varies, and they undoubtedly talk up their capabilities, but their ability to inspire as well as direct will be a problem as long as they exist.

However, opinion polls show that the European public know that the problem is bigger than that. Before Isis there was al-Qaeda. After Isis there will be something else. A poll carried out two years before the Charlie Hebdo attacks showed that 74 per cent of the French public believe Islam to be an intolerant religion incompatible with the values of the French state. The reaction of most politicians to findings such as this is that the public don’t know enough about Islam or haven’t experienced enough Islam. On the contrary many French people — like the Christians of the Middle East — have experienced quite enough, and do not like it. Mainstream politicians cannot agree with this, not least because they (and Merkel in particular) are responsible for the massive upsurge of Muslim migration into Europe that is fundamentally changing its future. But this is a gap which they must at some point bridge...
Still more.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016


A jihad attack took place at a church in Rouen, in the French province of Normandy, and cost the life of a priest, who may have been graphically murdered. The two jihadists who committed the crime were shot dead, but the tragic loss of innocent life remains.

The UKIP's condemned the attack, and said:
Party defence spokesman Mike Hookem MEP has said in a statement to press that leaders, including Britain’s new Prime Minister Theresa May need to up their game to defeat radical Islam. The former Royal Marine said: “This latest appalling murder in France shows that militant Islam is at war with the people of Europe and with peaceful religions.

“Every day now we have a new story of bloodshed and European leaders need to face facts rather than spend their time trying to convince people this isn’t a problem. Juncker, Merkel and other EU leaders who oversaw the mass migration without any security checks have blood on their hands.

“May needs to up her game.

“Normandy, the home of the D-Day landings where thousands lost their lives to free Europe from fascist tyranny has today witnessed a different form of fascism.

“But we defeated the Nazis so we can defeat these murderers if our leaders admit to what we are facing.”
The guy's correct. Any and all political leaders who vehemently refuse to do anything about the horror that's now engulfing Europe and elsewhere only ensure it'll continue to leave more dead innocents in its wake. They're going to have to start closing off all those enclaves and exile the barbarians dominating within them. For now, it's impossible to tell what'll be in the future, but we cannot let evil triumph by doing nothing.

Sunday, July 24, 2016


He went on a rampage with a machete before being stopped:
A Syrian asylum-seeker killed a pregnant woman with a machete and wounded two others Sunday outside a bus station in the southwestern German city of Reutlingen, as the country remained on high alert after last week’s massacre in Munich that left nine dead.

German authorities said the 21-year-old man behind the fatal slashing was known to them and had an argument with his victim, a kebab-stand worker, before attacking her around 4:30 p.m.

The unidentified victim was pregnant, the German magazine Bild reported.

The suspect wounded another woman and a man as he fled. He was quickly captured nearby. Police said they do not suspect any terror links.
Here they go again. It's not whether a single culprit has links to a terrorist gang that matters, it's what their ideology is that's driving them to commit graphic murders. And authorities are still blind to the challenging answers.