RUTHFULLY YOURS

The National Front party has accused Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo of putting the concerns of migrants ahead of those of French citizens. In a statement, the party said that the number of homeless people in Paris had increased by 84% between 2002 and 2012, but that Hidalgo has shown little interest in alleviating the problem.

Although the EU-Turkey migrant deal has temporarily stemmed the flow of illegal migration to Greece through Turkey, hundreds of thousands of migrants are still making their way into Europe.

According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 204,000 migrants arrived in Europe (mostly Greece and Italy) during the first five months of 2016, more than twice as many as arrived during the same period in 2015.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has announced plans to build a “humanitarian camp” next to one of the busiest train stations in the city, so that thousands of illegal migrants bound for Britain can “live with dignity.”

Hidalgo, who has often sparred with French President François Hollande for his refusal to accept more migrants, says her plan to help illegal migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East is a “duty of humanism.”

Critics counter that Hidalgo’s plan is a cynical ploy aimed at positioning herself to the left of the current president, as part of a political strategy to wrest leadership of the Socialist Party from Hollande, whose approval ratings are at record lows.

At a press conference on May 31, Hidalgo said the camp would be built in northern Paris “near the arrival points for migrants.” She was referring to Gare du Nord — one of the busiest railway stations in Europe — from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London.

In 2014, one Yeni Akit columnist wrote that a “Gaza fund contribution tax” should apply to Turkish Jews, as well as foreign Jews doing business in Turkey, Turkish nationals with commercial ties to Israel, and any business that maintains a partnership with a Turkish Jew. The penalty for failing to pay the tax should be the revocation of the Jew’s business license and the seizure of his property.

It was not even considered shocking when the Turkish man who shot at the journalist Can Dundar outside a courthouse said in his testimony, “I was deeply annoyed by his news reporting … I knew he had been to Britain for a while… I thought he was a British spy…”

The Western euphemism for Turkey’s supposedly mild, “post-modern” Islamists, who came to power in 2002, was problematic from the beginning. The past five years has seen the Turkish “post-modern” Islamist’s sad funeral — sad because they, in reality, never lived in this universe. They were the brainchild of the optimists sipping their coffee at a Washington café, or a London pub or a Berlin beer house. Now there is just the official funeral service with an empty coffin: there was, in fact, no such a thing as “post-modern” Islamism.

Political Islam, when it wins popular support, tends to adopt direction of the majority rather than the pluralistic route [see Turkey and Egypt]; and when mixed with cultural and religious nationalism in the Orient, it often adopts not just the direction of the majority but also a few militant turns [see Hamas].

It was not even considered shocking when the Turkish man who shot at the journalist Can Dundar outside a courthouse said in his testimony, “I was deeply annoyed by his [Dundar’s] news reporting … I knew he had been to Britain for a while… I thought he was a British spy… I planned this [shooting] in order to teach him a lesson.”

Why did the man think that a Turkish journalist, declared an undesirable by the country’s president, was a British spy? Was it actually because Dundar had been to Britain, like thousands of other Turks do every year? Hardly. It was because the president of the country had loudly labelled him a spy, a traitor, a terrorist — even without a court verdict. Dundar was eventually acquitted of the charges.

Terror tyrant Abu Muhammad al Adnani last month told the West to get ready for a “month of calamity everywhere for the non-believers”.

And this week US terror brainboxes say lone-wolf extremists could respond to the “call to martyrdom” during and after the holy period.

“Sacrifice during Ramadan can be considered more valuable than that made at other times, so a call to martyrdom during the month may hold a special allure,” said the report, by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC).

“Calls for Ramadan attacks by ISIS may inspire unaffiliated lone wolves who generally require less time for planning.

“While Ramadan could be an added impetus for terrorists to carry out attacks against perceived enemies in Europe, the threats are unlikely to stop when the month comes to a close.”

An audio recording released on May 21 heard Daesh doughnut Adnani saying: “Ramadan, the month of conquest and jihad.”

He urged jihadists to conduct lone-wolf attacks for a “great reward of martyrdom” and said ISIS wanted to “punish the crusaders day and night”.

England Euro 2016 fans dressed as crusaders have been warned they could be ISIS targets and a Whitehall insider said ISIS are planning a chemical weapons blitz on English footie supporters.

The OSAC report said the recent threat could be credible because ISIS carried out the “Black Friday” catastrophes three days after Adnani’s Ramadan call to arms last year.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/somalia-forces-end-extremist-siege-hotel-15-killed-39549381
Somalia Forces End Extremist Siege of Hotel; 15 Killed
2016.06.05 (Afghanistan)
Islamic hardliners with suicide vests storm a courthouse and murder seven workers. 2016.06.05 (Kazakhstan)
Islamic radicals murder six people in two separate attacks. 2016.06.03 (Yemen)
Ten women and a girl are among seventeen shredded by Shiite shrapnel at a market. 2016.06.03 (Niger)
Thirty-two defenders are slain during a massive Boko Haram assault on a small town. 2016.06.01 (Afghanistan)
Fundamentalists storm a court building in a suicide attack that leaves five civilians and one police officer dead. 2016.06.01 (Somalia)
Islamists stage a suicide assault on a hotel, killing at least sixteen guests.

What to expect when the ABC teams four climateers with a talk-show hostess who believes that 11.7% of the population represents a majority? Why, The Drum Weekly, whose latest edition should prompt new Managing Director Michelle Guthrie to implement reforms. Not that it will, of course.
Under new Managing Director Michelle Guthrie, balance remains a rare commodity at Their ABC. For example, take Sunday’s episode of The Drum Weekly, which looked at climate change. In the introduction we were promised a panel of four experts. You’d think there might be room for one sceptic in any quartet of talking heads, wouldn’t you? Or at the very least, one global warming believer who does not subscribe to the view that throwing good money after bad in order to support rent-seeking peddlers of “renewable” technology is the best and only way forward. Someone like Bjorn Lomberg, perhaps?

Alas, no. What we got was Adjunct Professor Nick Rowley, former climate adviser to Tony Blair; Professor Lesley Hughes, ex-climate commissioner; science reporter and ABC in-house catastropharian Robyn Williams and, last but not least, economist Professor Ross Garnaut. If you have a spare moment, check the links attached to the names above. What do they have in common, apart from an eager willingness to proclaim that the end is nigh? Can’t guess? Let me put it this way: in terms of work, public prominence and job opportunities, the climate-change scare has bestowed handsome bounties on each and every one.

Right at the start, presenter Julia Baird made reference to a May 26 Reachtel poll that listed voters’ primary concerns as follows:

reachtel pollThe take-home message from our host on all this was that climate change ranked fourth!!! among the concerns of voters, conveniently ignoring the fact that other concerns for the environment — the spread of feral weeds in the bush, for example — does not necessarily mean subscribing to Robyn Williams’ assertion that sea levels might soon rise 100 metres. And even if every single respondent represented in that 11.7% fervently believes mankind’s influence is ruining the planet, the fact remains that it is a small segment of the population — roughly the same percentage that votes for The Greens. What a surprise!