Hungary and the Crisis of Europe Unelected elites are bent on transforming Europe, against the clear will of most of the people. By Viktor Orban —

— Viktor Orban is the prime minister of Hungary.

In the annals of European history, 2015 will go down as the inception of a new era. It marked the end of an age when we could take Europe’s secure and sheltered status for granted, assured in the knowledge that it was all up to Europe and no one else. More than a year and a half has passed since I first warned of the danger posed by a potential new wave of mass migration. Today, that mass migration is an accomplished fact, one that no sane person would dispute.

Why were we, Hungarians — or, rather, East Central Europeans — the first to recognize this threat? Several possibly concurrent explanations are conceivable. Perhaps it had to do with the tempestuous times we lived through, the shock waves of historic turmoil, the toil and struggle that followed the democratic turn of history in 1990. Our Western partners experienced the last 50 to 60 years very differently. There, it was all about success, prosperity, a predictable future, well-trodden paths to a better life. To us, all that seems like a fantasy world where ideology mingles with illusion and reality, the boundaries become blurred between nation and nation, culture and culture, man and woman, the sacred and the profane, freedom and responsibility, noble intentions and actual action.

The Danger Is Here, Now
For the West, “what is” has become increasingly difficult to disentangle from “what ought to be.” By contrast, our perception of the real remains as sharp and cold as common sense. We have learned that the real is that which refuses to disappear even if we have stopped believing in it.

That compels us to recognize that the second and third decades of the 21st century will be defined by the mass migration of peoples. Until recently we thought such things could happen only in times gone by and were relegated to history books. We would not face the impending danger of an unprecedented mass of people — greater than the total population of some European countries — setting out for our continent in the coming years. Now that danger is upon us.

Parallel societies have been rearing their heads in several European countries — displacing the world we know as ours, the one we hope to pass to our children and grandchildren. Not all of those who come here intend to accept our ways of life. Some see their own customs and worldview as more valuable, stronger, and more viable. But these are of little use to us as we struggle to replenish the work force that is now abandoning the manufacturing plants of Western Europe — for generations, the unemployment rate among residents not born in Europe has many times higher than that among natives. In most cases, the nations of Europe have failed to integrate even the masses that have gradually poured in from Asia and Africa over the course of several decades. How can we now expect countries to integrate migrants quickly, with large numbers arriving all at once?

Admittedly, Europe is suffering from an aging and dwindling population. But if we try to solve this problem by relying on newly arriving Muslims, we will squander our way of life, our security, our very selves. Unless we make a stand, and do so quickly, the tension between an aging Europe and a young Muslim world — between a Europe unable to provide its own young with work and an undertrained Muslim ghetto — will spiral out of hand in the heart of Europe.

Ordinary Europeans know this well enough. In the past year, the Hungarian government commissioned a public-opinion poll encompassing 28 member states of the European Union. It revealed that more than 60 percent of Europeans have no doubt whatsoever that a direct correlation exists between the escalation of terrorism, higher crime rates, and migration. By the same token, 63 percent believe that migration transforms the culture of the host country. Illegal migration presents a threat, facilitates terrorism, and boosts crime. It repaints Europe’s cultural face, brushing over national cultures on a massive scale.

3 Men Gang-Rape Young Woman in Sweden, Broadcast It Live on Facebook By Michael van der Galien

Welcome to our brave new digital world in which raping women is all fun and games:

Police are reportedly investigating the suspected gang rape of a woman after the attack was live-streamed on Facebook.

An online witness said the victim had her clothes pulled off by armed men and was sexually assaulted before cops arrived and turned off the camera.

According to Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, three people have been arrested after the alleged attack was broadcast in a closed Facebook group last night.

Dutch website De Dagelijkse Standaard (of which I’m editor-in-chief) adds that the three suspects have been identified. It must come as a shock to all those who worship at the altar of political correctness and multiculturalism, but the rapists are, wait for it, all immigrants. In this screenshot of the gang rape, you can see two of the three suspects in action:

screen-shot-2017-01-26-at-17-55-37

The first suspect’s name is Emillem ‘Lemon’ Khodagholi. Khodagholi was on probation for a variety of crimes (theft, assault, drugs crimes, and death threats) when he participated in this horrendous crime. Shortly before he and his friends raped the poor woman at the point of a gun, Khodagholi announced his plans to his followers. “Listen, today I will f*ck. I swear it on my mother,” he said, adding that he would cause “a rampage.”

Not long after, he and the other two suspects entered the young woman’s apartment in the city of Uppsala. They raped her for a full three hours. The entire crime was broadcast live on Facebook. Yesterday, footage was released of Khodagholi bullying his victim when she was calling someone for help. The poor girl was barely conscious, but her rapist couldn’t control himself. “You got raped. There, we have the answers. You’ve been raped,” he shouted gleefully at her. He then laughed like a psychopath and continued to make fun of her.

Donald Trump Confronting Voter Fraud Denial By Karin McQuillan

President Trump is about to destroy the P.C. thought police who say interest in valid elections is racist and that claims of fraud are nuts.

Fox Radio News yesterday joined the liberal media meltdown. Driving home, I heard the afternoon news claiming that Fox knows of no studies supporting Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud. They must be relying on Google searches instead of reading conservative websites. Tell me Fox reporters don’t read the Wall St. Journal or National Review, which have been publishing alarming columns by the voter fraud expert John Fund for years. No surprise – Fox reporters know less than the readers of AT.

Fox News itself reported on voter fraud in California this November:

Jerry Mosna was gardening outside his San Pedro, Calif., home Saturday when he noticed something odd: Two stacks of 2016 ballots on his mailbox. The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

Daily Caller:

[As many as] 2.8 million non-citizens voted in the 2008 elections, according to a study published in Electoral Studies journal in 2014. … participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes[.]

American Thinker:

ACORN and its affiliate Project Vote generated an impressive 1.1 million voter registration packages across America in 2008. The problem was that election officials invalidated 400,000 – that’s 36 percent – of the registrations filed …

As John Fund writes at pages 27-8 of Stealing Elections:

‘incentivizing’ of fraud… the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. … Examiners were under orders not to ask anyone for identification … had to permit mail-in voter registrations, which allowed anyone to register without any personal contact with a registrar . Finally, states were limited in pruning ‘dead wood’ – people who had died, moved or been convicted of crimes … it has fueled an explosion of phantom voters. …

Marxists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were instrumental in the passage of the law by Congress. … Bill Clinton gave a shout-out to Cloward and Piven at the bill-signing ceremony in 1993 that both attended.

“Between 1994 and 1998, nearly 26 million names were added to the voter rolls nationwide, almost a 20 percent increase,” according to Fund. Motor Voter has “been registering illegal aliens, since anyone who receives a government benefit [including welfare] may also register to vote with no questions asked.”

If ten percent of these unvetted voters are illegal, that validates Trump’s claim.

Miami complies with President Trump’s executive order cracking down on ‘sanctuary cities’

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/26/miami-complies-with-president-trumps-executive-order-cracking-d/21701318/ President Trump is making it much riskier to be an undocumented immigrant in Miami. Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez said the county will comply with Trump’s executive order forcing all so-called “sanctuary cities” to turn over undocumented immigrants who are arrested. Sanctuary cities or counties are areas where local officials decline federal requests to […]

Smug libs getting plumb ‘Tuckered’ By Russ Vaughn

The word tuckered is taking on a whole new meaning with the advent of the new FOX News prime-time (9:00pm ET) hit featuring Tucker Carlson as host and interrogator nonpareil. The show should probably carry a viewers’ warning that if you are disturbed by the sight of smug, smarmy liberals getting dissected live on camera, then perhaps you should just buck it up, bucko, for one viewing, and you will soon learn the pure joy of watching an accomplished and prepared professional at work.

Actually, squeamishness isn’t a widely recognized characteristic among those flocking to view the dissections if viewer numbers being reported are accurate. In fact, according to The Hill, among others, Carlson has almost doubled the viewers in the key 25-54 demographic from the slot’s previous occupant, Megyn Kelly, now preparing her debut at NBC.

One of the most frequent criticisms conservatives voice regarding liberals is the dripping condescension with which they deign to engage their opponents in political discourse. It’s like a directional speech defect – liberals don’t talk to, but rather talk down when speaking to conservatives, and if you possibly miss the scornful contempt in their word and tone, it’s usually accompanied by a visible backup cue, a knowing little smile of superiority that’s there to make it perfectly clear, bubba, that you are one dumb, misinformed, knuckle-dragging primitive. That derisive smile is always there when they are listening, usually moving from side-to-side as the head is being shaken slightly to convey the sneering certainty that you’re just simply never going to get this, bumpkin. It’s beyond your flag-worshiping, gun-loving, Bible-thumping flyover yokel comprehension.

…until they get Tuckered, in the new meaning of that word. Armed with the knowledge of what his liberal guests have publicly pronounced most recently, as well as in their pasts, Tucker Carlson proceeds to hold them to task for their words, hitting them with cogent questions, demanding, repeatedly if necessary, that they answer the questions he asks, not the ones they want to answer with their smug liberal talking points. Throughout, Carlson’s like a polite, smiling pit bull with lockjaw, and when he finally says, in that rapid-fire delivery of his, “Thanks for coming on,” you can almost hear an audible sigh of relief from his guests, most of whom seem to have lost their contemptuous smiles for the moment, leaving the viewer wondering if the guest is wondering, “What on Earth made me subject myself to such public humiliation?” A few retain their smug attitude to the bitter end, but the viewers know that those libs are leaving the studio with some deep Tucker tooth marks in their contemptuous backsides

David Martin Jones The Closing of the Common-Law Mind

Illiberal and hypocritical — those few words capture the contortions of British judges who have ruled that the voices and votes of Brexit supporters need parliamentary endorsement. Consider the contradiction: those who would bow to Brussels also insist their own lawmakers are paramount.
The constitutional soap opera that is Brexit took on an interesting new plot line in November when the Queen’s bench division of the High Court for Justice heard the case of R Miller v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The panel of three judges found that the government did “not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union”.

The political and media reaction was predictable. The Independent described the decision as a “momentous defeat” for the May government. The Guardian thought it the most “encouraging day” for Remainers since the vote on June 23. Champagne socialist MP for the super-rich ghetto of Hampstead, Tulip Siddiq, tweeted that the decision was a vindication of “parliament’s sovereignty”, whilst Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg promised that parliament would amend “any legislation” before triggering Article 50. By contrast, the Sun wondered, “Who do EU think you are?” and the Daily Mail disparaged “gloating Europhiles” who hailed Theresa May’s “humiliation”, and condemned the “out of touch judges” as “enemies of the people”.

The decision by the three High Court judges, all of whom have significant ties to the European Court and judicial system, has added a surreal new act to the evolving political drama. It also creates an unanticipated impediment to Theresa May’s announcement, at the Conservative conference in October, of “a quiet revolution” that would make the United Kingdom a “sovereign and independent” country once again. Australians, of course, need no such revolution as they already enjoy the sovereignty and constitutional liberty bequeathed to them by what the nineteenth-century constitutional authority A.V. Dicey termed the “imperial mother of parliaments”.

What was the ground for the judges’ dramatic decision, which they asserted dealt “only with a pure question of law”, and does it make legal or constitutional sense? Interestingly, in rejecting the prerogative power of the Crown, the judges reaffirmed Dicey’s view that only parliament has “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.

In order to establish the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, both Dicey and the High Court judges referred to the history of English common law and the great constitutional debates of the seventeenth century. In particular, alongside Dicey the judges cited the great oracle of the common law, Sir Edward Coke, who in his legal report on The Case of Proclamations (1610), ruled that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”, because “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”. This position was confirmed in the first two parts of section 1 of the Bill of Rights (1688), which stated “that the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall”.

Germany Downplayed Threat of Jihadists Posing as Migrants by Soeren Kern

More than 400 migrants who entered Germany as asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016 are being investigated for links to Islamic terrorism, according to the Federal Criminal Police.

The German experience with jihadists posing as migrants serves as a case study on errors for other countries to avoid. German authorities allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants, many lacking documentation, to enter Germany without a security check. German authorities admitted they lost track of some 130,000 migrants who entered the country in 2015.

German authorities knew in early 2015 that Walid Salihi, an 18-year-old Syrian who applied for asylum in Germany in 2014, was recruiting for the Islamic State at his asylum shelter in Recklinghausen, but they did nothing.

Anis Amri, the Tunisian jihadist who attacked the Christmas market in Berlin, used at least 14 different identities, which he used to obtain social welfare benefits under different names in different municipalities.

“We have probably forgotten to take into account what political opponents such as the Islamic State are capable of doing and how they think.” — Rudolf van Hüllen, political scientist.

German political leaders and national security officials knew that Islamic State jihadists were entering Europe disguised as migrants but repeatedly downplayed the threat, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments, according to an exposé by German public television.

German officials knew as early as March 2015 — some six months before Chancellor Angela Merkel opened German borders to more than a million migrants from the Muslim world — that jihadists were posing as refugees, according to the Munich Report (Report München), an investigative journalism program broadcast by ARD public television on January 17.

More than 400 migrants who entered Germany as asylum seekers in 2015 and 2016 are now being investigated for links to Islamic terrorism, according to the Federal Criminal Police (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA).

The revelations come amid criticism of U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s plans to suspend immigration from select countries until mechanisms are in place to properly vet migrants entering the United States. The German experience with jihadists posing as migrants serves as a case study on errors for other countries to avoid.

Based on leaked documents and interviews with informants, the Munich Report revealed that German authorities knew in early 2015 that Walid Salihi, an 18-year-old Syrian who applied for asylum in Germany in 2014, was recruiting for the Islamic State at his asylum shelter in Recklinghausen, but they did nothing. Some six months later, a search of Salihi’s accommodation produced a shotgun. Salihi was not deported.

Teenager in Germany Sentenced to Jail for Islamic State-Inspired Assault 16-year-old girl was found guilty of attempted murder and other charges in stabbing of police officer by Ruth Bender

BERLIN—A teenage girl who pledged allegiance to Islamic State was sentenced to six years in juvenile detention for stabbing and severely wounding a German police officer last February, ending the country’s first trial of an attacker accused of drawing inspiration from the militant group.

The 16-year-old girl, identified as Safia S., was found guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault and supporting a foreign terrorist organization, the regional court in Celle that heard the case said.

Thursday’s sentence is substantially tougher than those handed down in recent terror-related trials, which have targeted unsuccessful plotters, members of designated terrorist organizations or people who had fought alongside such groups in Syria or Iraq before returning to Germany.

The trial of Safia S., who was 15 when she stabbed a federal policeman in the neck, was seen as a test of Germany’s ability to address the growing number of radicalized children and youth in its large Muslim community.

Juvenile law in Germany emphasizes the reintegration of youth offenders back into society and gives judges wide leeway in sentencing. While the sentence handed down to Safia S. was lengthy, it fell within the judge’s discretion, said Nikolaos Gazeas, a Cologne-based lawyer and expert on counterterrorism law.

Germany is still reeling from an attack in December by a Tunisian asylum seeker who rammed a stolen truck into a Berlin Christmas market, leaving 12 dead and scores wounded. Authorities have been under fire since it was disclosed that the perpetrator was a known extremist who had been on a security services’ watch list for months.

The court said chat logs found on the girl’s cellphone indicated that she carried out the stabbing in support of Islamic State, making it an act of terrorism. The trial, including the announcement of the guilty verdict and the sentence, took place behind closed doors because of the defendant’s young age.

Safia S.’s lawyer, Mutlu Günal, said he would appeal the verdict. He had argued in the girl’s defense that she had no intention of killing the policeman, didn’t have a terrorist motive and wasn’t in a position to measure the gravity of her act at the time she carried it out.

Safia S. was born and raised in Germany to a Moroccan mother and German father and has nationality in both countries.

Prosecutors argued during her trial that she had embraced the jihadist ideology of Islamic State by November 2015. But several security officials said the girl’s strict Muslim upbringing had certainly contributed to her radicalization. Videos disseminated on the internet, confirmed by authorities as authentic, show Safia S. at the age of 7, her head covered in a scarf, reciting the Quran with a well-known fundamentalist German preacher. CONTINUE AT SITE

A GOP Regulatory Game Changer Legal experts say that Congress can overrule Obama regulations going back to 2009. By Kimberley A. Strassel

Todd Gaziano on Wednesday stepped into a meeting of free-market attorneys, think tankers and Republican congressional staff to unveil a big idea. By the time he stepped out, he had reset Washington’s regulatory battle lines.

These days Mr. Gaziano is a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation. But in 1996 he was counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh. He was intimately involved in drafting and passing a bill Mr. McIntosh sponsored: the Congressional Review Act. No one knows the law better.
Everyone right now is talking about the CRA, which gives Congress the ability, with simple majorities, to overrule regulations from the executive branch. Republicans are eager to use the law, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week unveiled the first five Obama rules that his chamber intends to nix. CONTINUE AT SITE

“Pussy” Symbolism and the Masked Hatred of the Women’s March When vulgarity, emasculation and self-hate stands for empowerment. Dawn Perlmutter

“Pussy” was the primary symbolism and message of the January 21st Women’s March. From protest signs to the thousands of pink hats, it was in your face throughout the march.

The hats with the cute little cat ears were called “pussyhats” and were sponsored by the “Pink Pussy Project”. The women behind the ‘Pussyhat Project” decided that inundating the National Mall with a million handmade, cat-eared knitted hats, dubbed “pussyhats,” was the perfect emblem of solidarity and support for women’s rights. Their explanation was that the “pussyhat” was a play on the word “pussycat” but also referenced President Donald Trump’s infamous comments on a hot microphone from an “Access Hollywood” video.

They were successful. Both visually and substantially the Women’s March was characterized by cute cat-eared hats and the word “pussy.” Signs read: “Get Your Politics Out of my Pussy”; “The Pussy is watching” (which included a picture of a vagina); “My Pussy My Choice My Body My Voice”; “My Neck, My Back, My Pussy Will Grab Back”; “Stay Cunty”; “Pussy Trumps Tyranny”; “Not My Pussydent”; “Fear The Pussy”; “My Vagina has a better lineup than Trumps inauguration”; “Viva la Vulva” and much more. Other signs had images of fallopian tubes and vaginas. Several women were dressed as giant vaginas.

On the Pink Pussy Project website under the subtitle “Power of Pussy,” they explained the symbolism of their hats. “We chose this loaded word for our project because we want to reclaim the term as a means of empowerment.”

Perhaps someone should have explained to them that a significant aspect of the original feminist movement was to stop the sexual objectification of women. Equating women’s rights with the theme of “Pussy” is not a revolution — it is a devolution of women’s power. Reducing women to sexual objects was the substance of the criticism of President Trump’s private leaked conversation. If we follow the logic that was employed for the theme of the march, then there should have been women’s marches against Bill Clinton with thousands of women wearing torn pantyhose. They could have all bitten their lips in solidarity with the women President Clinton assaulted. They could have reclaimed the term “rape” as a means of empowerment and held up the exact same signs: “Get Your Politics Out of my Pussy”; “Not My Pussydent.”

The few men that attended the march held signs that read “I’m with her”; “We All Should Be Feminists” and “Men of Quality Do Not Fear Inequality.” The expression “pussy whipped” arguably fit nicely into the Women’s March theme.

These privileged, spoiled, angry women predicated their march on a locker room insult from 12 years ago. They could have had a platform on women who are sexually trafficked, on the millions of Muslim women who have no rights, on female genital mutilation, on prostitution, on honor killing, or on girls being sold into slavery. Instead they were more concerned about how they looked in their “pussyhats” and who held the most creative vulgar sign. They should have tried to march with their placards and outfits in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria and any number of other countries. Then they would have seen what real persecution and injustice look like. Their march was literally a day in the park where they could go home safely afterwards and feel self-righteous — as if they made a difference. However, their primary achievement was to stick their heads back in the sand instead of helping real persecuted women in any significant way. Indeed, they will not face the harsh realities of women being kidnapped and enslaved. And they will not acknowledge that the women who are doing their manicures and pedicures may be victims of human trafficking, or that they are endangering their little girls by dressing them provocatively. From their distorted self-hating worldview, sexual violence perpetrated by adversary cultures and ideologies is a myth.

It is ironic that the “pussy” theme is attributed to the new administration. But that word, if anything, might in fact be the perfect symbolism of the last administration — which did not have the courage to maintain redlines, help 200 Nigerian schoolgirls that were kidnapped or protect Yazidi women, who are being tortured and raped everyday of their lives. It is an administration that had a female Secretary of State who left Americans in Benghazi to die.