Australia Police Charge Man With Terrorist Act After Sydney Stabbing After an attack allegedly inspired by Islamic State, police said they charged a man with committing a terrorist act and attempted murder By Rhiannon Hoyle

SYDNEY—Australian police have charged a man with committing a terrorist act and attempted murder after he allegedly stabbed a man multiple times in Sydney on Saturday.

Australia’s New South Wales state police on Sunday said the 22-year-old man was arrested following the stabbing of a 59-year-old man in the Sydney suburb of Minto.

The attack was allegedly inspired by Middle East-based militant group Islamic State, but the man isn’t known to be connected to any terror outfit, said New South Wales state police Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn.

Police said the 22-year-old man and the victim were not known to each other. The victim is in the hospital in serious condition, said Ms. Burn.

The incident on Saturday came days after Islamic State urged followers to stab, shoot, poison and run over Australians at iconic locations, including the Sydney Opera House, according to the Associated Press.

Iran’s British Hostage The mullahs use a five-year prison sentence as leverage for ransom.

President Obama says the $400 million he paid Iran in January for the release of four hostages was leverage, not ransom. If so, the mullahs have apparently developed a taste for it. Witness the five-year prison sentence handed to their latest Western hostage, which came to light Friday.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian dual citizen, had traveled to the Islamic Republic to visit relatives. She and her 2-year-old daughter, Gabriella, were detained in April at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport as they were about to fly home to London.

The exact charges haven’t been disclosed, but Iran’s Revolutionary Guards accuse her of plotting revolution. Ms. Zaghari-Ratcliffe works at the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of the company that owns the Reuters news agency. She wasn’t involved in coverage of Iran.

One purpose of the harsh sentence is to remind Iranians in the diaspora tempted to return home in the wake of the nuclear deal that the regime sees them as traitors. It’s also no accident that the sentence came shortly after the U.K. upgraded its diplomatic relations back to ambassador level.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson cheered the new opening to Tehran last Monday, only to receive a rude awakening days later. Now the regime has a new political and financial bargaining chip, and Mr. Obama has created a cash-for-hostages incentive system with his earlier ransom. Let’s hope the British government is wiser than to stuff briefcases with unmarked bills.

Clinton and the ‘Deplorables’ Her comments about Trump voters—her fellow Americans—show why she could lose.

………Consider the reaction over the weekend to Mrs. Clinton’s comments Friday night that “just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.”

The remarks echo Mitt Romney’s comment in 2012 about the 47% on the government dole. The media played up the Romney comments as emblematic of an out-of-touch rich guy, and they probably contributed to his defeat. Mrs. Clinton’s comments were arguably worse, attributing hateful motives to tens of millions of Americans, but the media reaction has treated it like a mere foot fault.
Mrs. Clinton apologized, sort of, on Saturday by saying in a statement that, “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’—that was wrong.” But she went on to say she was otherwise right because some of Mr. Trump’s supporters are the likes of David Duke.

Yet the rest of what she said was almost as insulting. She said Mr. Trump’s other supporters are “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

So she thinks half of Mr. Trump’s voters are loathsome bigots and the other half are losers and dupes who deserve Democratic pity. It’s no accident that Mrs. Clinton said this at a fundraiser headlined by Barbra Streisand, the friendliest of crowds, because this really is what today’s elite progressives believe about America’s great unwashed.

Mr. Trump has certainly made appalling comments, but Republicans and media conservatives have criticized him for it. They denounced his praise of Vladimir Putin. They assailed his attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his insensitivity to the Khan family. Some have said they can’t support the GOP nominee.

But where are the Democrats raising doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s behavior? Mrs. Clinton reneged on her confirmation promise to the Senate not to mix her State Department duties with the Clinton Foundation by doing favors for donors. She maintained a private email server to hide her official emails and lied about it to the public. Yet no prominent Democrat we know has denounced this deception, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says there’s “too much ado” about it.

The great liberal media watchdogs aren’t challenging Mrs. Clinton either. They’re beating up NBC’s Matt Lauer because he spent too much time asking Mrs. Clinton about the emails during last week’s military forum. This is best understood as a collective warning to the moderators of the coming debates not to jeopardize their standing in polite progressive company by doing the same.
CONTINUE AT SITE***

Palestinians: Bad News for Israel-Haters by Khaled Abu Toameh

Sheikh Abdullah Tamimi and his colleagues do not believe in boycotts and divestment. They are convinced that real peace can be achieved through dialogue between Palestinians and all Israelis — not just those who are affiliated with the left-wing. The Israeli left-wing, they contend, does not have a monopoly over peace-making.

For Tamimi, real peace begins between the people and through economic cooperation and improving the living conditions of the Palestinians. This, he explains, is more important than the talk about the establishment of a Palestinian state, which he believes, under the current circumstances, is not a realistic option. This notion goes against the ideas of the advocates of “anti-normalization” and others in the West obviously acting against the true interests of the Palestinians by promoting boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

Venal leadership has always been the main tragedy of the Palestinians. But it has created a vacuum that provides an opportunity for Palestinians such as Tamimi to search for other alternatives. This, of course, comes as bad news for those who hate Israel and keep hoping to destroy it. Now the question is, who will triumph: Palestinians and their Jewish neighbors in the West Bank who wish to live in peace, or the anti-Palestinian, anti-Israel, “anti-normalization” activists who seek to derail a true peace at any cost?

By all accounts, Sheikh Abdullah Tamimi, who hails from an influential clan in Hebron, is an extraordinarily courageous and unique Palestinian. His bravery lies not in rescuing a child from a burning house, and his singularity lies not in donating his salary to an orphanage.

Tamimi’s courage and exceptionality showed up in a different sphere: he recently spoke at a seminar organized by Jewish residents of the settlement of Efrat, in Gush Etzion (south of Jerusalem). The seminar was held under the title, “Relations between Jews and Arabs in Gush Etzion.” The event was attended by another courageous Palestinian, Khaled Abu Awwad, General Manager of the Israeli-Palestinian Bereaved Families Forum, a grassroots organization that promotes reconciliation as an alternative to hatred and revenge.

There Goes Turkish Secularism by Robert Jones

“They hold such events to establish hegemony over society, to scare and terrorize people — mainly Alevis, secularists, Christians, and even Muslims who do not agree with their policies. They aim to silence, repress, and standardize the people.” — Kemal Bulbul, Alevi author and community leader.

“Laïcité [secularism] should not be in the new constitution in Turkey.” — Ismail Kahraman, the speaker of Turkey’s parliament, and an MP of the ruling AKP.

Countless churches in Anatolia have been destroyed, left to decay or, used for sacrilegious purposes, such as stables and storehouses.

Islamic supremacists do not aim to establish a system where different communities can meaningfully and peacefully coexist. Instead, they aim for political and social domination in which non-Muslims will be second class citizens — or dhimmis — who will always remain under threat.

At least a thousand Muslims worshipped in the mosque of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s presidential palace in Ankara on August 6. They performed a ceremony known as dhikr (“remembrance” in Arabic).

This event was heavily criticized by the country’s many secularists on the social media.

OUR 15-YEAR-TRAUMA AFTER 9/11 — A NONIE DARWISH MOMENT

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Nonie Darwish Moment with Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.

Nonie discusses Our 15-Year-Trauma After 9/11, unveiling why we are more divided than ever over the Islamic threat.http://jamieglazov.com/2016/09/11/our-15-year-trauma-after-911-a-nonie-darwish-moment/

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch former Senior INS Special Agent Michael Cutler discuss 15 Years After 9/11: Lessons Not Learned, revealing how and why we must immediately change direction:

DIANA WEST: HILLARY’S CHAPPAQUADICK

I could not have prepared better for Lou Dobb’s question last night regarding Trump’s weaker polling with the weaker sex than having watched this video — “I Thought You Should Know.”

The video introduces a brutal rape of a 12-year-old girl that took place in 1975 in Arkansas. A 41-year-old man named Thomas Alfred Taylor stood trial. His defense counsel was a freshly minted lawyer named Hillary Rodham. She got him off.

Once you start reading more deeply into this case, thanks to the crack research of Alana Goodman for the Washington Free Beacon, which broke the story open in 2014, it becomes clear: This case is Hillary Clinton’s Chappaquiddick — the original moral stain, which, as with Ted Kennedy, once exposed, becomes her ultimate undoing.

Clinton’s involvement in this Arkansas child-rape trial was not a matter of providing counsel to a defendant, as our system requires. It was jumping through legal hoops to win a dirty victory — a dirty victory for a child-rapist by the woman who presents herself as lifelong champion of women and children.

Some key points.

Clinton demanded that this grievously injured 12-year-old undergo a psychiatric exam, later depicting her to the court as “seeking out older men.” This is already monstrous; however, listening to the audio unearthed by Goodman at the University of Arkansas library intensifies the horrors. “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” we hear Hillary Rodham Clinton herself say, laughing. It is chilling. It is also sickening.

MY SAY: REFLECTIONS FIFTEEN YEARS LATER

In the aftermath of 9/11, on September 20th, President Bush delivered the most inspiring speech of his entire career. My anger and grief gave way to some hope.

I was confident in our determination to defeat global jihad. I was certain that all victim nations would unite in a common front, setting politics and grudges aside. I predicted that all “root cause” cant would be dismissed. I was virtually certain that Israel, located in the belly of the Jihadist beast would gain understanding in its responses to brutal attacks.

And yet, only six months later in April 2002, President Bush- he of the inspiring address of September 20- invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia – the locus of seventeen 9/11 terrorists to a down home barbecue at his ranch in Crawford and the robed tyrant put forth his “initiative” for Mideast peace.” The President gushed to the assemble press:” Good afternoon. I was honored to welcome Crown Prince Abdallah to my ranch, a place that is very special for me, and a place where I welcome special guests to our country.” Special indeed.

For the rest of his term the President did not use terms other than “the religion of peace” which was “hijacked” by meanies who are the “enemies of peace.”

His generals applied rules of engagement that respected the mores of barbarians above the security needs of our troops.

That was the beginning of the appeasement of Radical Islam and Jihad that was followed by more threats and brutal attacks throughout the West and within our borders. And Israel, the only nation that has battled and confronted terrorist carnage with war and deterrence is routinely castigated for “disproportionate” responses.

Now President Obama has elevated that appeasement to an art form.

So, fifteen years later, have things really changed? Are we more cautious or far more concerned with political correctness and concerns for the sensibilities of potential enemies rather than our security? I fear it is the latter.

The Unmentionable Origins of Terrorism To counter ‘violent extremism,’ you have to be honest about its roots. By Robin Simcox — June 9, 2016

For some years now, the Obama administration has worked on developing a “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) strategy. Its goals: to be proactive in stopping terrorists from radicalizing and recruiting followers, and to address the factors that allow such actions to occur in the first place. Last week the result of some of these deliberations — a twelve-page strategy fronted by the State Department and USAID — was published.

In its foreword, Secretary of State John Kerry lists some of those countries affected by “violent extremism” (“from Afghanistan to Nigeria”) as well as the identity of violent extremist groups (“Da’esh . . . al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram”). The focus then, seems clear: countries with a significant Muslim population and Islamist terrorist groups. Yet here is where the strategy takes a turn for the surreal, because from the content of the actual strategy, you would not realize any such thing — the document is just that opaque, obfuscatory, and, ultimately, unhelpful.

Regarding why violent extremism takes root, the reader is treated to a variety of possibilities. They include “individual psychological factors . . . community and sectarian divisions and conflicts.” Other explanations are corruption, insufficiently robust courts, and a lack of tolerance among different ethnicities.

Apparently not even worthy of discussion is Islam or Islamism, words that are not mentioned once. This is no accident. There has been a concerted attempt to scrub any religious aspect from the actions of ISIS and al-Qaeda: That is why phrases like “violent extremism” even exist. (First mainstreamed by the British government, “violent extremism” was dreamed up as a way to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Islamist” extremism in the months after the July 2005 suicide bombings in London. The phrase swiftly traveled across the Atlantic and into the U.S. government’s vocabulary.)

The strategy states that “to be effective, CVE efforts must be guided by ongoing research and analysis of the context, drivers, and most effective interventions against violent extremism.” One can only wonder what would happen if this ongoing research and analysis concluded that the biggest context and driver to violent extremism was an ideologically driven reading of religion.

This is a dishonest approach in multiple ways. Consider a White House Fact Sheet on CVE from February 2015, which states that “CVE efforts address the root causes of extremism through community engagement” and that “violent extremist threats can come from a range of groups and individuals, including domestic terrorists and homegrown violent extremists in the United States.”

Fifteen Years After 9/11, Blindness to the Islamist Threat Is Official Policy Prohibiting mention of Islam in connection with jihadist violence won’t prevent future atrocities. By Andrew C. McCarthy

If there is a theme to this 15th annual observance — the word “anniversary” just seems so wrong — of the most lethal enemy attack ever carried out on American soil, it is erasure.

At least that’s what they’re being told in Owego, N.Y. There, a Muslim activist group is demanding that the town’s 9/11 memorial be erased. Not all of it; just the word “Islamic.”

Carved into the memorial — the point of which is to signify that which we must never forget — is the factual assertion that, on September 11, 2001, “nineteen Islamic terrorists” carried out coordinated suicide-hijacking attacks against the United States.

The Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier has decided that the monument is dangerous because it “could encourage hatred toward Muslims.” Fifteen years on, we are supposed to believe that the danger we face is not an enduring global threat fueled by an ideology drawn directly from Islamic scripture; the danger lies in speaking honestly about the threat.

It has taken less than two years to go from Je suis Charlie — the fleeting show of solidarity in support of Western free-speech principles after Islamic terrorists mass-murdered cartoonists at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo — to Je suis Kerry. That’s a show of solidarity in support of our ineffable secretary of state who, when not steering aid, comfort, and goo-gobs of cash to the jihadist regime in Tehran, is telling the international media that maybe terrorism would go away if they’d just stop talking about it.

Erasure: It is Willful Blindness 2.0, specially fit for the age of Obama.

When I wrote my “Memoir of the Jihad,” willful blindness was an ingrained conscious avoidance of the abundant evidence of the threat posed by Islamic supremacism — the ideological commitment to coerce acceptance of sharia law, by force if necessary. It was a head-in-the-sand approach to easily accessible proof that the threat is rooted in Muslim scripture and a mainstream interpretation of Islam that stretches back over a millennium.

We’re way beyond that. Now, it is compelled blindness, a tireless campaign to erase the abundant evidence, to make it inaccessible. Alas, apologists of the See No Islam school cannot seem to make the jihadist carnage go away. But they work feverishly to make sure you can’t see what causes it. Or, if you do get a glimpse — because the carnage and its animating ideology are inextricably linked, and because jihadists are actually quite anxious to tell us why they do what they do — the apologists warn that you’ll keep your mouth shut if you know what’s good for you.

Or, as then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it while working to create an unconstitutional legal restriction against criticism of Islam, she and her Islamist government partners will “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor.”

She wasn’t kidding. Mentions of “Islam” in connection with terrorism? Erased — in favor of “workplace violence,” “man-caused disasters,” and “overseas contingencies.”

Investigations of prominent Islamist organizations proved in a terrorism-financing prosecution to affiliate with the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian jihadist branch, Hamas? Erased.