Hamas and Its Lethal Games

This is a snip from the most recent essay of Colonel Richard Kemp (ret.), taken from his website. The note says it appeared today in The Daily Telegraph but this excerpt is from his own website.

Thanks to reader and contributor, Mark H., for mentioning the colonel’s name in our comments. I quickly went looking; quite a fellow is Richard Kemp, and a rara avis: an English Catholic. [He was taken to task for referring to Catholics in Northern Ireland as “taigs”. He said since it was a term he’d often heard used to refer to him, he didn’t realize it was problematic.]

HAMAS ARE USING THEIR OWN PEOPLE AS EXPENDABLE TOOLS. DON’T FALL FOR THEIR GAMES

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 16 May 2018. © Richard Kemp

On Monday the Iran-backed terrorist organisation Hamas achieved its baleful objective when more than 50 people were killed. This is what it had hoped for when it dispatched thousands of Gazans, including women and children, to the border with Israel under orders to break through the fence. This carefully planned operation – which continued on Tuesday – had nothing to do with protest or the so-called right of return of Palestinians to Israel. It was only about grabbing headlines and creating a situation that the Israel Defence Force had to deal with by lethal force.

Knowing they cannot defeat the IDF by military means, this has been Hamas’s long-term strategy: to cause international outrage aimed at isolating Israel. Previously it has fired rockets and dug attack tunnels, both intended to murder Israeli civilians, leaving the IDF with no option other than to defend its people with force. Hamas’s use of human shields in each of these situations guaranteed civilian deaths.

Hamas has brought these tactics to a new and sickening low in recent weeks, making its human shields the actual weapons of war, with inevitably bloody consequences. This is the first government in history that has deliberately sought to compel its enemy to kill its own people…

[…]

Read the rest at his site. I also recommend his sidebar, particularly for his analysis of the nerve gas attack in April. Given his background in intelligence, his view seems cogent.

There are a number of videos featuring Richard Kemp on YouTube. I may feature more in the future, but here is a short one from a talk he gave in 2016. Plus ça change…

By the way, when the Palestinian representative began to speak at the UN today, the American ambassador to the U.N. walked out. She gave that stormy move some feminine flounce as she made her way to the door.

And here’s an American point of view on the situation in Jerusalem from a retired foreign service officer – Jerusalem: Reality as a Foreign Policy.

Yay, team!

P.S. It seems that Richard Kemp likes Trump. Oh, the horror!

Rain, Rain…

It’s been beastly hot here for the last few days and now we’re facing several days of severe thunderstorms…this current system starts in Washington D.C. and goes all the way down to south central Virginia. Lots of warnings about trees and wind and flooding.

Which means we may lose our power more permanently (it’s been flickering off and on) when the brunt of it hits here…

…so y’all know the drill: if it looks as if the lights are on and no one is home, the situation will be exactly opposite: we’ll be home sans electricity.

So leave your comments, they will see the light as soon as we do.

Tommy Robinson’s Free Speech Day

It looks as though the weather was perfect…and can’t remember when I last heard the national anthem sung.

In the remarks below the video, Tommy says:

Please share and like people. The mainstream media and government did a blackout on reporting trying to hope this all goes away. They are irrelevant now people get their news online so please share on social media and wake some more people up.



A Special Request

For those of you who enjoyed El Inglés’ recent essays, I have a special request: that you make a contribution to him for his work.

The easiest way would be PayPal but many of you don’t use PP. Thus, I propose a work-around for those donors, also.

 

For any who can’t (or won’t) use PayPal, we’ll take on the challenge of making sure your donations sent via snail mail reach him. This will be roundabout, since you’ll have to contact us for our address and we, in turn, will have to forward any donations that come in this way. That means we’ll be collecting them, letting you know your gift arrived and then making a PayPal donation directly to El Ingles in a lump sum… or several lumpish amounts.

Given the level of comments on his posts, I am sure many of you are willing to contribute a modest sum to permit him to continue his modest mode of living.

From the man himself:

I would like to express my thanks to all those who have participated in the discussion prompted by the threepart essay I recently posted. I have read most of the many comments, spread across various threads, that people have been kind enough to contribute. The discussion they constitute is too long and complex for me to respond to coherently here and now. Nonetheless, I would like to express my gratitude to those who have engaged intellectually with what I wrote.

If you feel that the essay in question, or, indeed, any of my other essays, has been of value to you, I would ask you again to consider making a small donation to my social welfare fund via the PayPal link on this page. All donations are appreciated and will make it more likely that El Inglés will produce further writings in the future. Again, my thanks to those who contributed to the discussion of my essay, whether they agreed with it, disagreed with it, or, as is more probable, were somewhere in the middle…

Alfie Evans and the Lethal Sympathy of Bioethics

This is a mirror of an essay from the website Studio Matters. Her questions concern the so-called “vegetative state” and at what point we may deem that any human being’s life is “unworthy of life”.

Maureen Mullarkey interweaves her writing with works of art which strikingly embellish and underline her points. Except for the first piece, the art she chose has been omitted to encourage readers to visit her page. As with all her essays, her choices of illustration reveal a thoroughgoing knowledge of art and its power to illuminate moral questions.

Alfie Evans is dead. Deemed unfit, the child was sentenced to death by dehydration and suffocation. We shun the term life unworthy of life but embrace its content. We mask the odor of it with smiling phrases like “end of life care,” cruel details dismissed in the “best interest” of the patient sacrificed to force of law. The act of killing is rephrased in the argot of compassion.

Language loosens constraint from the annihilation of life judged undeserving of the means to sustain it. With that language comes a sea-change in moral discernment. Our experts — lawyers, policy makers, opinion shapers, hospital administrators, doctors as well — have learned their phrases from the relatively new discipline of bioethics. It is the mental and moral vocabulary of bioethicists that provided the rationalizations at work in the sorrowful odyssey of Alfie Evans.

The lethal sympathy of bioethical theorizing has insinuated itself even into the conscience of clergy. British bishops, as a body, assented to those rationalizations. They wrung their hands but did not question the law’s refusal to permit Alfie’s parents to take their son out of the country. Not a single bishop demurred. While the child defied his sentence by breathing without life support, the bishops stayed safe and silent in their cathedrals. Worse, they challenged Bambino Gesu hospital to justify its offer to care for Alfie on medical grounds — as if clinical opinion trumped the morality their priesthood was pledged to protect:

It is for that hospital to present to the British Courts, where crucial decisions in conflicts of opinion have to be taken, the medical reasons for an exception to made in this case.

Required reading on the steady diminution of the ancient ideals embedded in the Hippocratic oath is “Annihilating Terri Schiavo,” a 2006 essay in Commentary by Paul McHugh, M.D., former director of psychiatry at John Hopkins. His early warning has gone unheeded:

“Contemporary bioethics has become a natural ally of the culture of death, but the culture of death itself is a perennial human temptation; for onlookers in particular, it offers a reassuring answer… to otherwise excruciating dilemmas, and it can be rationalized every which way till Sunday… The more this culture continues to influence our thinking, the deeper are likely to become the divisions within our society and within our families, the more hardened our hatreds, and the more manifold our fears.”

Looking ahead, he concluded: “More of us will die prematurely; some of us will even be persuaded that we want to.”

[McHugh’s essay is one of others on the limits of psychiatry collected in The Mind Has Mountains. The book is as pertinent today as when it was written.]

Simon Lancaster, writing in The Spectator, UK, spotlighted the term vegetative state. This was the wording at the core of Alfie Evans’ state-mandated extinction:

Continue reading

JB on The JQ

In the U.S., “race” can sometimes be difficult to define precisely, perhaps because we are less inhibited than any other country about marrying outside our tent. And we’ve been like that since John Smith was courtin’ Hiawatha — though, in reality, it was more often Jacques or Pierre than it was the English who were likely to marry among the Indians. Pardonnez – “native Americans”. See Louisiana for the embodiment of that cultural difference.

Whatev. Jordan Peterson is always worth listening to no matter what the subject, even if he often says the Nazis were far-right. I do wish some Canadian could apprise him of his mistake. Socialism is socialism is tyranny, and it’s always a Leftist scheme. The far right prefers tyrants of a different flag.

Just remember the rules about commenting, y’all. They still hold.

“Wild-Eyed, Angry and Middle Eastern”: Eight Dead in Toronto

Vlad Tepes is reporting on a rented van in Toronto, which swerved onto the sidewalk, mowing down pedestrians at a fast clip:

BREAKING: Possible truck of peace in Toronto

Vlad posted a tweet from someone else, who said:

Witness to truck ramming into pedestrians tells local Toronto TV station that the driver looked wide-eyed, angry and Middle Eastern.

Here’s a video:

And Vlad editorializes:

“It may well be the first day of jihad season now in Canada.”

Sadly, I think he’s right. Spring arrives and people are out enjoying the nice weather. A perfect opportunity for killers.

An Oldie, An Everlasting

Thanks to our commenter, Max, for giving me an excuse to put up a Dire Straits video.

For those of you who remember Leonard Cohen’s “The Partisan”, here you go

(I didn’t know Cohen’s sone was written during WWII. Here are the liner notes:

“La Complainte du Partisan” (“The Partisan”) is a song about the French Resistance in World War II. The song was written in 1943 in London by Emmanuel d’Astier de la Vigerie and the music by Anna Marly. Originally written in French, it has been adapted in English with lyrics by Hy Zaret.)

Meanwhile, lyrics for the Dire Straits song are below the fold.

Continue reading

Weather or Not We Go Down

Just to the southwest of us are tornado warnings…and the weather is moving to the northeast.

My title comes from being in the middle of a book on the sinking of the Titanic…on April 14-15 1912, depending on where you were standing. As the author says, it was the first major catastrophe in a century that was to hold so very many.

I wonder if it ended the Edwardian Age?

The Other Side of the Night: The Carpathia, the Californian and the Night the Titanic was Lost

The author’s bio – from the Titanic to the first jihad:

Daniel Allen Butler, a maritime and military historian, is [also] the bestselling author of

“Unsinkable”: The Full Story of RMS Titanic,

Distant Victory: The Battle of Jutland and the Allied Triumph in the First World War,

and The First Jihad: The Battle for Khartoum and the Dawn of Militant Islam.

He is an internationally recognized authority on maritime subjects and a popular guest-speaker for several cruise lines.

Butler lives and works in Los Angeles, California. Daniel Allen Butler was educated at Hope College, Grand Valley State University, and the University of Erlangen.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

If it looks like nobody’s home, it’s because the lights here are out.

Political Correctness IS Cultural Marxism in Action

Pat Condell explains how progressive liberalism was infiltrated and destroyed by Marxism. There we were celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR, but those events simply allowed the virus to spread more rapidly.

Ol’ Karl was dead wrong, but that hasn’t stopped the Culture Vultures; having devoured the marrow of the West, they continue to pick over the remains…

Taxed to Death in America

Good news: you have two extra days until you have to write that check to the U.S. Treasury. Sell your campaign button collection, that ought to do it.

Here’s her book:

How Do I Tax Thee?: A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off

An excerpt from the editorial:

We all know the government taxes our pay: federal, state, and local taxes are withheld by employers, as are social security payments. But what about the many other ways the government drains money from our wallets? Have you studied your cell phone bill? Customers in New York State pay an average of 24.36% in federal, state and local taxes on their wireless bills. They’re also charged for obscure services they didn’t ask for and don’t understand like a universal service fund fee, an FCC compliance fee, a line service fee, and an emergency services fee. These aren’t taxes, strictly speaking. The government imposes these administrative and regulatory costs, and your wireless provider passes them along to you. But the effect is exactly the same.

What about your cable bill? Your power bill? Your water bill? The cost of a gallon of gas, a cab ride, a hotel stay and a movie ticket are all inflated by hidden fees. How much of what you pay at the pump, the box office, or the airport is really an indirect tax?

Good to see a libertarian from her generation. There’s hope.

By the way, look at New York City’s tax on a pack of smokes (in 2014. No doubt it’s gone up since then):

Thanks to New York’s laughably high cigarette taxes ($4.35 state plus another $1.60 in the city) and higher prices generally, a pack of smokes in New York City costs $14 or more.

That creates a powerful incentive to smuggle smokes in from states such as Virginia, where you can buy a pack for a third of that price. Fill a Ford Econoline van with a few hundred cartons and you can make a nice five-figure profit in a weekend. Some people do.

[“Some people” had better be careful they don’t run afoul of the crime syndicates who run tractor-trailer loads of un-taxed cigarettes up interstate 95 all the time. And the tobacco traffic increases mightily each time New York gets desperate for another tax hit. — D]

The robust cigarette smuggling irritates officials in New York, because they miss out on a lot of tax revenue. The trade irritates officials in Virginia for the same reason, because smugglers buy wholesale to avoid the retail sales tax.

There’s an easy fix for all of this: Cut New York’s cigarette taxes. (Virginia could hike its own tax, but then Virginia didn’t create this problem—New York did.) Yet cutting the cigarette tax would deprive New York of revenue, and we mustn’t have that, oh no. Besides, it would send the wrong signal. New York wishes to make people stop smoking, and punitive taxes are the way to do that without outright banning tobacco, which would be too obviously narrow-minded.

That whole post is interesting since it describes the garbage wars between New York and Virginia.

Yep, we take Yankee trash all the time. The future Baron visited The City a few years ago and one of the amazing sights (to him) was the huge numbers of green garbage bags piled everywhere – I think it was in The Village. His uncle used to say that we could take care of all the nuclear waste in the country by simply leaving it in green trash bags in random places around New York City. I thought this was funny until I found out those bags would end up here.

Are You a “Subject” or a “Target”?

The second half of this post has been sitting in my drafts folder since the recent fundraiser began. I was finally moved to post it because of yesterday’s news about the FBI raid on President Trump’s lawyer’s office and home. It’s so bad even his lawyer has had to hire a lawyer to protect himself from the vengeful horde who refuse to accept the American voters’ choice.

How do they do manage these incursions? Simple: blue states’ U.S. attorneys and judges are part and parcel of The Swamp. The former can always find a sympathetic latter to sign off on a search warrant… if it’s in aid of destroying the Republicans.

And how does this particular victim, Trump & Assoc., begin making its way through the python? Simple: here’s a former federal prosecutor spilling the beans:

Special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly advised Donald Trump’s lawyers that the president is a “subject” but not a “target” of Mueller’s investigation. This has resulted in a great deal of triumphal celebration among the president’s supporters. After all, they reason, if Mueller hasn’t by now dredged up enough evidence to designate Trump a “target,” then the president must be in the clear.

Unfortunately, whether someone is a “target” as opposed to a “subject” of an investigation is a distinction without a difference. It’s all a matter of timing, and the “subject” of an investigation can become a “target” in the blink of a prosecutor’s eye. It happens every day…

The manual provides that, before they testify in the grand jury, “targets” and “subjects” are to be given the exact same warnings against self-incrimination, save that a “target” should also be given “a supplemental warning that the witness’s conduct is being investigated for possible violation of federal criminal law.” These designations apply with equal force to interrogations outside the grand jury.

So, what effect do these carefully worded official policy distinctions between “targets” and “subjects” have on actual federal investigations in and out of the grand jury? Absolutely none. Here’s what really happens.

A prosecutor will always want to lure a “target” into giving a statement either to investigators or in the grand jury to pin down his version of events. This foreknowledge will help the prosecutor structure the government’s case to be presented at trial and counter any potential defense.

Moreover, if other evidence can contradict the target’s version, it can be presented at trial as a false exculpatory declaration by the defendant. This would be proof supporting the substantive crimes alleged, on the legal theory that an innocent person wouldn’t try to lie his way out of the charges and that the lies prove consciousness of guilt.

Also, depending on whether the statement was made in an interrogation or under oath before a grand jury, the “target” can be charged either with lying to investigators or with perjury or false swearing.

So, how does the prosecutor get the “target” to voluntarily submit to interrogation or testify before the grand jury? He tells defense counsel that the “target” is merely a “subject” of the investigation. Believe it or not, this frequently causes defense counsel and their clients to think they may have a chance of talking their way out of trouble.

But frequently, after the so-called “subject” has given his version of events, the prosecutor changes the witness’s designation from a mere “subject” to a “target.” This usually takes place about a nanosecond before the “target” is indicted.

Mueller’s reported designation of the president as a mere “subject” of the investigation is not only meaningless, it is a reprise of one of the oldest prosecutorial tricks in the book. He is setting a trap in the hope that the president and his legal team will think he is almost in the clear and, accordingly, should voluntarily submit to interrogation in order to clear up any misconceptions

This move is all the more alarming given that it appears to have been prompted by reports that the president’s lawyers are actually considering whether their client should voluntarily submit to an interrogation by Team Mueller.

So, based on my 20 years of conducting federal and state grand jury and street-level investigations and another 25 representing “subjects” and “targets,” permit me to offer this advice to the president’s legal team. Don’t be encouraged or misled by Mueller’s designation of your client as a mere “subject.” He’s simply baiting the trap and crossing his fingers that you and your client will be dumb enough to grab for the cheese.

Also, be aware that you are not involved in some kind of gentlemanly legal contest with reasonable, high-minded adversaries. These people are thugs with law degrees. If they can get a crack at your client in an interrogation, it won’t end well for him…

So wake up and quit playing footsie with Mueller and his feral band of Hillary Clinton sycophants. While you’re at it, you may also want to buy some brass knuckles.

Yes on the brass knuckles for the remaining Trumpsters in Washington. All the Obama shenanigans were always swept under the rug, particularly his racist, envious fecklessness. When the history of this period comes to be written, Obama will go down as our most divisive, destructive “Commander in Chief”.

Is all this really legal? I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Last week, Byron York explained how the Trump-Russia investigation fails to align with the rule of law and why we should care about what they’re doing. He also gives us the name for their major weapon (aside from weaponized bureaucracies).

Continue reading

The Dogs Bark But the Caravan Moves On

An excellent post from the Diplomad in which he outlines a robust approach to the problem approaching our southern border. If our readers have other suggestions (mayhem not being one), please share:

A couple of days ago I posted a piece on Trump’s foreign policy with a reference to the ancient Arabic saying, “The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”

News reports tell us there is another sort of caravan on the move. Some 1000-1200 Central Americans, aided it seems by progressive groups and the Mexican government, are “marching,” driving, hiking, riding a train, whatever, on their way to the USA. It is some self-proclaimed “freedom caravan” that intends to arrive on our border, stream across, and then claim asylum in the USA from the violence in Honduras.

This seems to be a new take on the Moroccan “Green March” of 1975 used against Spain in the Western Sahara. The idea is to defy the superior armed Western power to use force against a “popular” march which seeks only some altruistic goal. Very touching. You will notice these sorts of tactics are not used against certain countries known to shoot without compunction.

Anyhow, this little stunt is outrageous as it is being, as noted, aided by a nominally “friendly” country, Mexico (see my take on Mexico’s friendliness here and here). Not only that but legally the marchers have no case. If they are fleeing Honduras, they can seek asylum in Mexico, the first stop in their “escape.” Mexico has the responsibility to grant them asylum, turn them over to the UN, or return them to their country of origin.

It is the political season in Mexico, and the presidential candidates are trying to outdo each other in “standing up to the gringos.” If this stunt succeeds, there will be a flood of similar “marches” very quickly. We either have a border or we don’t. We either have a regime of laws or we don’t. We either have a country or we don’t. This is an existential threat as much if not more so than any actions by Russia, China, or the jihadi crazies.

We cannot just have the dogs bark. They have to bite.

One of the articles I link above noted that Mexico has over fifty diplomatic and consular missions in the United States; Honduras has about dozen missions here. All of these, the Mexican ones especially, are centers of political and immigration activism. The Mexicans, as I have noted before, have been quite open in their meddling in our internal affairs, including in the last elections.

We need to tell these governments in no uncertain terms that we intend to shut down half of their missions immediately, and will shut down others in accordance with their behavior. We, furthermore, need to tell them that we will cease issuing visas, and even shut the border to normal trade and tourism if these sorts of officially tolerated and sponsored events occur.

This is no joke. Serious as a heart attack.

It’s worth going over there to follow the links in his post.

Thanks to Bill Keezer for the tip.