Massacre of Cops in Baton Rouge If you didn’t believe Obama wanted a race war before, you better believe it now. Matthew Vadum

CLEVELAND — In what is becoming a depressingly regular occurrence in the Obama era, police officers were murdered by a black militant in a shootout in Baton Rouge on Sunday, apparently in revenge for the recent police-involved death of black career criminal Alton Sterling outside a Baton Rouge food store.

At time of writing, three police officers had succumbed to the injuries they suffered in Louisiana’s capital city. Another three were wounded.

Of course, murdering police officers has long been encouraged by activists with the Marxist, anti-American, revolutionary Black Lives Matter cult, with the support of the activist Left and financing from speculator George Soros. A year ago Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who openly advocates the mass murder of whites, called for “10,000 fearless men” to “rise up and kill those who kill us.” Like many radicals, Farrakhan mischaracterizes Black Lives Matter as a rising civil rights movement.

President Barack Hussein Obama, who a decade ago promoted inter-racial warfare in Kenya, has long tried to provoke civil unrest here in the U.S. with his hateful anti-cop rhetoric and his relentless demonization of opponents. His goal is fundamental transformation of the United States. A Red diaper baby who identifies violence-espousing communist Frantz Fanon as an intellectual influence, he has also steadfastly refused to condemn Black Lives Matter. In fact Obama has lavished attention on the movement’s leaders and invited them to the White House over and over again.

The Baton Rouge attack came 10 days after a black militant murdered five Dallas area police officers, the deadliest attack on U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

A few days later Obama flew to Dallas and attended a memorial service at which he lectured the dead officers’ relatives about how racist and brutal police officers are. The very next day Obama hosted leaders of Black Lives Matter, whose members urge the murder of cops, at the White House.

Media Goes Full Circle On Police Shootings by Gregory Lee

Remember when the Main Stream Media (MSM) used to just focus on police shootings of black men who were unarmed? It seems like that was just a couple of years ago. Now, even when the police shoot black men who are armed with handguns, the cops are still portrayed as cold blooded murders that, according to former congressional black caucus member Angela Rye, “shoot black people for sport.”

MSM reported that Rev. Curtis Gatewood, field director for the NAACP’s North Carolina branch, wrote on his Facebook page that Micah X. Johnson, the Dallas shooter who murdered five police officers and attempted to murder seven others, was “defenseless” and “lynched.”

As an undisputed expert in police procedures, Gatewood wrote, “Yes, I’m coming to the defense of the defenseless. That includes [Micah] X. Johnson who has been accused of shooting about 12 police officers.” The reverend refuses to believe that Johnson committed the offense. He continued, “Even if [Micah] was carrying a gun or [rifle], that in of itself does not prove he murdered the police officers.” Of course it doesn’t because Gatewood, like all the other race baiters would be out of a job if they didn’t keep playing the race card.

No matter what the outcome of the investigations of the two latest police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota turns out to be, the MSM has discounted the fact both men were armed with pistols. Doesn’t that matter the slightest bit? Doesn’t that dispel the notion that these two men were “shot for sport?” Not in the minds of the media and other Black Lives Matter supporters. Another expert in police tactics, presumptive Democrat nominee for president, Hillary Clinton said, “We need national guidelines about the use of force, particularly lethal force.”

Thought of the Day “Race in America”- Sydney Williams

Racism, prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, along with sexism, chauvinism and xenophobia remain part of the American scene 52 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed and 153 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. In a nation of 320 million, it should come as no surprise that a small minority harbor such feelings. Nevertheless, we have come a long way since the days of Jim Crow laws that effectively mandated segregation for almost 100 years following the Civil War, and from groups like the Ku Klux Clan that murdered and terrorized African-Americans and their communities.

In the 1950s things began to change. In 1954, the last black U.S. army unit was deactivated. That same year the Supreme Court decided, in Brown versus Board of Education, that the concept of “separate but equal” schools was unconstitutional. The following year Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Two years later the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was established in Atlanta, Georgia. That gave birth to the Civil Rights movement and the many bloody marches that ensued. Success finally came in 1964 with the signing of the Civil Rights Act. However, cultural habits are hard to change and, as a society, we will never be fully rid of latent biases. My grandmother, who was born in 1875, once said to me, in the late 1950s, that racial prejudices would likely persist until we were all of one color.

And, in fact, we are becoming (gradually) a mixed-race society. According to a Pew Survey last year, 7% of Americans view themselves as multiracial. I suspect the real number is much higher. In my own family, a two-greats grandfather fathered an African-American child around 1830. That child’s descendants, who are cousins of mine, have multiplied and added to the melting pot. I suspect most African-Americans are of mixed heritage, something on which we should all reflect. Most of us are related, perhaps distantly, but related. Real assimilation demands mutual respect, irrespective of one’s race, color or sex, and an understanding that civil society can only function when its laws are obeyed.

Obama: Avoid ‘Careless Accusations’ After Baton Rouge Shootings to ‘Advance an Agenda’ By Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — President Obama emerged in the White House briefing room today to note that he said five days ago at the Dallas police officers’ memorial service that the shooter there “would not be the last person who tries to make us turn on each other.”

“Nor will today’s killer,” he said. “It remains up to us to make sure that they fail.”

“As of right now, we don’t know the motive of the killer. We don’t know whether the killer set out to target police officers, or whether he gunned them down as they responded to a call,” Obama said. “Regardless of motive, the death of these three brave officers underscores the danger that police across the country confront every single day. And we as a nation have to be loud and clear that nothing justifies violence against law enforcement.”

“Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible.”

“This has happened far too often. And I’ve spent a lot of time with law enforcement this past week. I’m surrounded by the best of the best every single day. And I know whenever this happens, wherever this happens, you feel it. Your families feel it. But what I want you to know today is the respect and the gratitude of the American people for everything that you do for us,” Obama said.

“…We have our divisions, and they are not new. Around-the-clock news cycles and social media sometimes amplify these divisions, and I know we’re about to enter a couple of weeks of conventions where our political rhetoric tends to be more overheated than usual.”

The president called on everyone, “regardless of race or political party or profession,” to “right now focus on words and actions that can unite this country rather than divide it further.”

“We don’t need inflammatory rhetoric. We don’t need careless accusations thrown around to score political points or to advance an agenda. We need to temper our words and open our hearts — all of us,” Obama said. “…My fellow Americans, only we can prove, through words and through deeds, that we will not be divided.”

“Only we can prove that we have the grace and the character and the common humanity to end this kind of senseless violence, to reduce fear and mistrust within the American family, to set an example for our children,” he continued. “That’s who we are, and that’s who we always have the capacity to be. And that’s the best way for us to honor the sacrifice of the brave police officers who were taken from us this morning.”

Obama did not take questions from the media. READ MORE AT SITE

What EU Wants Israelis Not to Know : Evelyn Gordon

In the three days since Israel passed a law mandating new reporting requirements for NGOs that are primarily funded by foreign governments, there’s one question I have yet to hear any of its critics answer. If, as they stridently claim, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with NGOs getting most of their funding from a foreign government, then why would simply being required to state this fact in all their publications exercise a “chilling effect” (the U.S. State Department) or “stigmatize” them (the New Israel Fund) or result in “constraining their activities” (the European Union)?

The obvious answer is that the critics know perfectly well it isn’t alright: An organization that gets most of its funding from a foreign government isn’t a “nongovernmental” organization at all, but an instrument of that government’s foreign policy. In fact, with regard to the EU, that’s explicit in itsfunding guidelines: For an Israeli organization that conducts activities in the territories to be eligible for EU funding, it must comply with EU foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This, incidentally, also explains why 25 of the 27 organizations affected by the law are left-wing: The far-left is the only part of Israel’s political spectrum that shares Europe’s opinions on the conflict, and hence, that Europe is willing to fund.

Yet if an organization is an instrument of a foreign country’s foreign policy, it’s very hard to argue that it’s an objective “human rights organization,” as the organizations in question bill themselves. Rather, it’s an overtly political organization that seeks to pressure Israel into adopting the foreign government’s preferred policies. And making this known definitely could be “stigmatizing,” in the sense that Israelis might be less willing to trust an organization’s assertions once they realize it has a not-so-hidden policy agenda that could be influencing its reports.

That, however, is precisely why Israelis have a need and a right to know where these organizations’ funding is coming from–especially given this funding’s sheer scale. And it’s also why there’s nothing remotely undemocratic about the law, as explained in depth by legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich here.

Bono and Love in a Time of Terror By Claudia Rosett

There’s much to be said for love, but watch out when it’s a moralizing rock star doing the talking — and the subject is not romance, but matters of life and death in a time of accelerating jihadi slaughter.

In the aftermath of the terrorist atrocity in Nice — which ISIS has claimed for its own — the headlines now include reports that Bono, lead singer of the U2 rock band, was dining on the terrace of La Petite Maison restaurant, about half a mile from the Nice seafront Promenade des Anglais, when Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drove a truck for more than a mile through the festive Bastille Day crowd, wounding more than 200 people and killing 84, including 10 children.

Armed counter-terrorism police “rescued” Bono, along with a number of other celebrities, including Elton John and a former mayor of Nice, who were also dining at the restaurant.

The next day, U2 put out a tweet, signed by all four members of the band, including Bono:

Love is bigger than anything in its way.

No doubt they meant well. But it ought to be clear by now that “love,” for all its virtues, is not enough to stop a terrorist driving a 21-ton truck. That was done by the heroic French police, who risked their lives to approach the truck and used their guns to fire a volley of bullets into the the cab, killing Bouhlel.

Nor, as far as Bono and his celebrity companions needed rescuing, were they rescued by love. They were rescued and escorted from the area near the killing zone by counter-terrorism police armed with guns.

One might cavil that the police who stopped Bouhlel acted out of love — love of country, love of decency, love of honor, love of their fellow man. Surely that figured in their actions. It took a lot more than love, however, to end Bouhlel’s killing spree. CONTINUE AT SITE

Palestinians: The Power Struggle between Young Guard and Old Guard by Khaled Abu Toameh

Who is supplying Mohamed Dahlan with money? The United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is their cash that has enabled Palestinians in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to purchase weapons and buy loyalty for Dahlan in preparation for the post-Abbas era — especially disgruntled young Fatah activists in the West Bank who feel that Abbas and the PA leadership have turned their backs on them.

This power struggle will not end with the departure of Mahmoud Abbas. The next Palestinian president will surely be one of Abbas’s current loyalists. This in itself will drive Dahlan and his ilk to continue railing against the old guard.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas faces a real threat; its name is Mohamed Dahlan.

Abbas has become obsessed with Dahlan, according to insiders. The PA president, they report, spends hours each day discussing ways to deal with the man and his supporters. And, it is rumored, Abbas’s nights are not much better.

Backed by at least three Arab countries, Dahlan, a former Palestinian security commander from the Gaza Strip, seems to have unofficially joined the battle for succession in the PA.

The 54-year-old Dahlan, young enough to be Abbas’s son, continues to deny any ambition to succeed Mahmoud Abbas as president of the PA. Yet Dahlan’s continued efforts to establish bases of power in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip belie his claims.

Middle East Strategic Outlook – July 2016 by Shmuel Bar

It may be expected that in the coming months, the Syrian efforts to implement “ethnic cleansing” of Sunnis in the north will continue and even escalate, resulting in a growing stream of refugees into Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. This will continue to destabilize these countries and to pose a challenge to a weakened Europe.

The overt American support for the Iranian involvement in Iraq will also serve to rally Sunnis to an anti-American position, while actually exacerbating the main problem — the sectarian divide. Therefore, the American involvement in the Fallujah campaign will not buy it Sunni gratitude.

Iran is entering a new stage of war in Syria which evokes the situation that the Soviet Union found itself in in Afghanistan in 1985. Like the Soviet Union in that stage of the Afghan war, Iran has achieved no decisive victory, but has incurred significant domestic opposition to the war and has no additional resources that could tip the scales.

The explanation put forward by the American administration that the attacks reflect the Islamic State’s “despair” in the face of its defeats in Syria and Iraq over the last months is specious. International terrorism “to strike fear in the hearts of Allah’s enemies” has been a hallmark of the Islamic State since its beginning and it does not need the excuse of military defeat in Syria and Iraq to continue to carry out such attacks.

Saudi Arabia

Approval of the National Transformation Plan

The Saudi Cabinet approved (June 6) the National Transformation Program (NTP), part of Saudi Vision 2030, led by Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. The NTP is supposed to be the basis for laying out targets to be met by government ministries and departments. The NTP was well received not only be the Saudi mainstream media (to be expected) but by the Saudi social media that represents to a great degree the public opinion of the younger Saudi generation. It may be expected that Prince Mohammad bin Salman will continue to take steps in the framework of his initiative that will, at least, preserve the sense of momentum and the public support he is enjoying.

David Martin Jones The Illiberal Left and the Rise of Political Islam

“Literature always anticipates life,” Oscar Wilde opined in his essay “The Decay of Lying”; “It does not copy it but moulds it to its purpose.” Recent developments in British politics seem to confirm Oscar’s aphorism. In 2015, Michel Houellebecq published his political fiction Submission, anticipating the democratic rise to power in Europe of the Muslim Brotherhood. Widely dismissed as “Islamophobic”, his dystopian novel, set in France in 2022, identifies how Europe’s political elites abandoned the Enlightenment project, alienated the masses and created the conditions for the emergence of a new extremist politics on both the Left and the Right.

The novel’s protagonist, François, an alienated Sorbonne professor, observes that mainstream political parties had created “a chasm between the people and those who claimed to speak for them, the politicians and journalists”. The latter, “who had lived and prospered under a given social system”, could not “imagine the point of view of those who feel it offers them nothing, and who can contemplate its destruction without any particular dismay”. In this context, the political system “might suddenly explode”.

In France the explosion takes the form of a run-off in the second round of voting for the French Presidency, between Marine Le Pen of the right-wing National Front and the recently emerged Muslim Brotherhood Party’s representative, the charismatic, but fictional, Ben Abbes. To avoid a far-Right victory, both mainstream socialist and conservative parties, eliminated in the first round of the French election process, give their support to Ben Abbes, who becomes the first democratically elected Muslim President of the Republic.

From the outset, the new President distances himself from jihadi fanaticism. Instead, Abbes, a disciple of Machiavelli as well as Mohammed, sees Europe “ripe for absorption into the Dar al Islam”. Subsequently, the Republic runs along sharia-approved but moderate Islamic lines. The University of Paris becomes an Islamic university, polygamy is approved and generous family payments allow women to give up work. Unemployment falls, education is privatised and Islamised through charitable donations, and small business is encouraged. The old elites convert to the faith and France rediscovers the joys of patriarchy and a sense of political purpose.

Although France now has a small Democratic Muslim Party, the least convincing aspect of Houellebecq’s fiction concerns the Muslim Brotherhood Party’s rapid rise to power. It is here that political life, taking its cue from art, has intervened, and not in France, but in the UK, where the electoral system has proved far more accommodating to the rise of a non-violent form of political Islam. Transposing Houellebecq to London and fiction into political reality, recent local elections saw Labour Party candidate Sadiq Khan succeed Boris Johnson as the first elected Muslim Mayor of London. Predictably the British, American and Australian media applauded the result as a victory for tolerance and multiculturalism. Nikki Gemmell, writing in the Australian, positively contrasted London’s election, emblematic of the city’s dynamic “open, and embracing energy”, with Australia’s parochial and “paranoid defensiveness”. In the media’s enthusiastic embrace of Khan, no commentator paused to reflect whether the result in fact demonstrates a new and significant stage in the slow-motion Islamisation of the British political process.

One Year On, Flawed Iran Deal Sees Human Rights, Regional Security Deteriorate

New HJS publication examines key areas where the Iran Deal has failed to live up to its objectives

On the anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the so-called ‘nuclear deal’ with Iran, a new publication – The Iran Deal a Year On: Assessing Iranian Ambitions by The Henry Jackson Society and the Friends of Israel Initiative called into life by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Lord Trimble, among others, lays bare the failure of the P5+1 strategy to normalise Iran’s international relations.

Despite the lofty promises and high hopes on the part of the deal’s supporters, a year after the nuclear deal, far from being better, the resulting situation is worse. Worse for international security, worse for nuclear non-proliferation, worse for regional stability, and above all worse for the people of Iran themselves. Iran has not become a regular nation-state in the international community, has breached the JCPOA and associated agreements, and has neither changed its course in the region nor made any significant steps towards easing repression domestically.

The new paper released today – The Iran Deal a Year On: Assessing Iranian Ambitions – is a compendium of essays by key experts that examines these angles through the lens of the implementation of the agreement, Iran’s regional ambitions and its human rights record over the last year in detail.