POLITICS Comments turned off

‘Make America Great Again’ Is (Wait for It) Racist Democrats will stop at nothing to slime the Republican nominee. By Deroy Murdock

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

Donald J. Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is racist. What seemed like an inclusive, inspiring call to national renewal really is a cry for Caucasian power.

How do we know this? Bill Clinton said so.

“If you’re a white Southerner, you know exactly what it means, don’t you?” Clinton told voters in Orlando, Fla., on Wednesday. “What it means is, ‘I’ll give you the economy you had 50 years ago, and I’ll move you back up on the social totem pole, and other people down.”

But wait.

On Friday morning, Fox & Friends excavated several examples of when this divisive, cruel, ugly motto was deployed to whip up white hate by none other than . . . William Jefferson Clinton.

“I believe that, together, we can make America great again,” Bill Clinton said in Little Rock, Ark., in 1991.

Standing before a flapping American flag, with his appropriately white shirt sleeves rolled up, Bill Clinton addressed voters in 1992. He promised “to secure a better future for your children and your grandchildren and to make America great again.”

Clinton also looked straight into a camera that year and said, “I want to attack these problems and make America great again.”

“It’s time for another comeback,” Bill Clinton said in a radio ad for his wife’s 2008 U.S. Senate campaign. “Time to make America great again.”

Now that my Fox News Channel colleagues have hog-tied Bill Clinton with archived video and audio tape, perhaps he will dump his utterly absurd and disgusting charge that there is anything even microscopically racist, biased, or even snooty about the words “Make America Great Again.” This phrase is perfectly innocuous, and Trump is just the latest of many candidates to use it.

While Clinton, his wife, and their Democratic surrogates may drop this one foolish argument, they most assuredly will not stop trying to split the country with grotesque ethnic appeals and ludicrous “updates” on how Trump and the GOP are itching to advance white supremacy, if not reinstate segregation.

The Democrats play the race card, again and again, since it’s the last one left in their deck.

The Democrats cannot run on the Obama-Clinton economy, which is growing at an annual rate of 0.95 percent. The Democratic recovery is the weakest in 67 years. That is, since 1949.

The Democrats cannot run on Obamacare, which Hillary Clinton calls “one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic party, and of our country.” Premiums have soared 26.4 percent, on average, in the 14 states that have approved next year’s prices. Among 23 state-level Obamacare co-ops, 16 have collapsed, from Oregon to South Carolina. Health insurers are stampeding out of Obama’s vaunted exchanges, leaving Obamacare consumers with a choice of exactly one carrier in 31 percent of U.S. counties. (The map below notwithstanding, Pinal County, Ariz. had zero Obamacare plans lined up for 2017, until Blue Cross Blue Shield changed its mind and decided to stick around, lest that jurisdiction’s residents face no Obamacare coverage.) Miles from its stated destination, the Obamacare jalopy is careening into a ravine.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Would Hillary’s ‘Not Marked CONFIDENTIAL’ Story Work for You? Saying ‘I don’t understand the most basic things about my job’ should not keep you out of prison. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

John Lester, the Air Force vet who buzzed Hillary Clinton at this week’s candidate forum with a tough question on her mishandling of classified information, is a smart guy. And that’s not the only reason he’s got me jealous. I have been trying since the e-mail scandal broke 18 months ago to think of a good example to convey the fatuousness of Mrs. Clinton’s “I never sent or received anything ‘marked classified’” talking point (which, as I explain here, she has now morphed into “I never sent or received anything with a ‘header’ labeling it ‘classified’”). While I’ve been spinning my wheels, Lieutenant Lester has come up with a great example.

He posited it Thursday in an interview on Fox with Neil Cavuto (aside: How great to have Neil Cavuto back, and looking so fit). Since I have a bit more time and space to develop Lieutenant Lester’s example, I’ll be more expansive.

Let’s say you are the chief executive officer (CEO) of a publicly traded company. You’re sitting at your desk when an e-mail from the chief financial officer (CFO) comes in. It says: “The company had a great quarter! Huge — way, way better than projected! Plan is to announce the results at presser next Tuesday.”

After a fist pump or three, you then e-mail your son, explaining, “Sorry, I need to cancel that lunch we were going to have next Tuesday. It’s quarterly-report time and my company’s got unbelievably great news to break. We’ve got a press conference that day to announce it. Gonna be a bombshell!”

Your son reads the e-mail. He picks up the phone and calls a broker with instructions to buy 20,000 shares of stock in your company. The broker buys the stock. Then, on Tuesday, shortly after your company holds its big press conference announcing far-better-than-expected quarterly earnings, the stock price zooms through the roof. Your son promptly sells the stock at a mega profit. He’s so thrilled, he even buys you that BMW you’ve been eyeing.

On these facts, which are hardly unheard of, is there any chance that the FBI, the SEC, and the Justice Department would not come a-hounding? Any chance you and your son would not be hit with a felony-laden indictment for trading stock based on confidential insider information?

Well, let’s think about this.

What if the FBI asks to interview you before deciding whether to recommend felony charges. You tell the Feebs, “Gee, I had no idea the information in the CFO’s e-mail was confidential. Have a look at the e-mail: it isn’t marked ‘confidential’ anyplace. In fact, there isn’t even a ‘(C)’ in the margin, and there certainly isn’t a big, bold ‘confidential’ header on top. How could I possibly have known it was confidential information that I wasn’t allowed to transmit in casual e-mail exchanges with my son? And how could I have known he’d use the information to make a killing in the stock market?”

BOOKS Comments turned off

A Sloppy Hit on Israel Review: Milton Viorst, ‘Zionism: The Birth and Transformation of an Ideal’ David Isaac

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

FROM SEPTEMBER MIDEAST OUTPOSThttp://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/a-sloppy-hit-on-israel-review-milton-viorst-zionism-the-birth-and-transformation-of-an-ideal-david-isaac.html

Go to a library and toss a coin at the Israel shelf. You’re almost certain to bounce it off a title critical of the Jewish state. The latest contribution to this death by a thousand books is by journalist Milton Viorst. At the heart of this book is the assumption that Israel is wholly to blame for the conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Though himself a Jew, Viorst veers into racist-sounding rhetoric when he asks whether “the Jewish DNA contains an immunity to peace.” Given Israel’s many attempts to achieve peace, the question isn’t whether Jews are immune to peace but whether they are immune to reality. Viorst clearly is. Otherwise he could not declare that Israel adheres to the “Begin doctrine,” a “diplomatic principle” that purportedly maintains that if a small state “offers concessions at a time of pressure, it only invites more pressure upon itself.”

The manifold problems with this theory begin with Menachem Begin himself, who gave up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1978 in return for a peace treaty, few provisions of which Egypt honored. In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin handed over large swaths of the West Bank to Yasser Arafat, the man known as the “founder of modern terror,” who showed his gratitude by launching a wave of suicide attacks. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak didn’t even bother getting an agreement before pulling Israeli troops out of southern Lebanon, paving the way for Hezbollah to turn it into a launching pad for rockets into northern Israel. Similarly, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon uprooted over 8,000 Israelis from their homes in the Gaza Strip, declaring “I am convinced in the depths of my soul and with my entire intellect that this disengagement … will win the support and appreciation of countries near and far… and will advance us on the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors.” It did neither, as “the world community” became ever more hostile and Gaza became another launching pad for rockets.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made Israel’s most far-reaching proposal, offering even to forgo sovereignty over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site. Olmert proposed that Israel keep 6.3 percent of the West Bank (areas close to the pre-1967 armistice borders now densely occupied by Jews) but compensate by giving the Palestinians an equal amount of land that had been within the borders of pre-1967 Israel. Mahmoud Abbas was not interested.

Viorst examines the lives of eight Zionist leaders, from Herzl to Netanyahu, to answer his own question: “How did Zionism, over the course of a century, evolve from the idealism of providing refuge for beleaguered Jews to a rationalization for the army’s occupation of powerless Palestinians?” This question is based on a false premise. Israel’s purpose was and remains what Herzl set forth in The Jewish State: “We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own homes.” Zionism has not a glimmer of oppression in it, which explains the Jews’ many efforts to find a solution to the conflict. Those whom Viorst calls “powerless Palestinians” enjoy the support of all Muslim countries, as well as Europe, the U.N., and the world media. Many of them are determined to annihilate Israel, indoctrinating violence in their young people, who then go out and slaughter children in their sleep, gun down families on the road, and ax rabbis at prayer. Those who commit these crimes are hailed as martyrs, and their families are given stipends. When Palestinians hear of a successful attack against Israelis—or Americans for that matter, as on 9/11—they hand out candy to children. A far better question Viorst might have asked is: How is it that the Jews have managed to keep their humanity in the face of such inhumanity?

BOOKS Comments turned off

The ‘New Middle East’ That Never Was By P. David Hornik

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

Matti Friedman, a journalist and writer who moved from Canada to Israel in his late teens in the late 1990s, has written a powerful little book, Pumpkin Flowers, that takes you deep into Israeli and Middle Eastern reality.

The Pumpkin was a hill in the southern-Lebanon security zone, which Israel set up in 1985 and withdrew from in 2000. “Flowers” was military code for casualties. In those years Hizballah was able to inflict a steady toll of “flowers” at the Pumpkin and other security-zone outposts. It was that—along with the 1997 helicopter disaster (a horrendous accident)—that swayed Israel into finally leaving the zone. As well as a hope—soon shattered—that doing so would lead to peace.

Pumpkin Flowers deals with the Pumpkin in three stages. The middle one is Friedman’s own service there. But first comes his account of Avi Ofner, a young Israeli who served at the Pumpkin before Friedman did. Friedman intensively “researched” Avi and succeeds to evoke him unforgettably.

Unconventional, deep-thinking, authority-mistrusting, and literarily talented, Avi—despite a veneer of disdain—served his full, difficult stint at the Pumpkin with devotion, even passing up possibilities of easier, safer jobs within Israel. As Friedman acutely observes, he and other young soldiers “wouldn’t have said it themselves because of a social code mandating self-deprecation and sarcasm and forbidding any credulous expression of ideals, so it needs to be said on their behalf: they believed they were doing the right thing.” On his last return to the Pumpkin, already planning his impending civilian life, Avi boarded an army helicopter—one of two involved in the midair collision that killed him and 72 others.

By the time Friedman, a raw Canadian-Israeli recruit, found himself at the Pumpkin, it had a legacy of bloody battles, including the 1996 Falcon Incident that killed five soldiers and wounded eight in one night. But as Friedman notes, it was most of all the helicopter disaster—caused by human error, not Hizballah—that fostered a growing, intense, bitter debate in Israel about leaving the security zone altogether. Today Israelis do not miss the security zone, but know that Hizballah’s real target—like its patron Iran’s—was and remains Israel itself.

And it was not only Israel that would be learning about Islamist terror:

Within a few years elements of the security zone war would, in turn, appear elsewhere and become familiar to everyone in the West: Muslim guerrillas operating in a failed and chaotic state; small clashes in which the key actor is not the general but the lieutenant or private; the use of a democracy’s sensitivities, public opinion, and free press as weapons against it.

But in those days, Friedman and his comrades—gazing through thermal sights at the surrounding landscape, including the mainly-Shiite, Hizballah-ruled town of Nabatieh where they could make out a gas station, a hospital, a monastery, and even a woman with dyed blond hair who left her house for work every morning—still talked jokingly, half-jokingly, of being able to visit these places once peace set in. They were—beyond the defensive irony—expressing deep Israeli wishes of the 1990s. CONTINUE AT SITE

BOOKS Comments turned off

What a burka! Police chief says he could let officers wear full-length veils to attract more ‘ethnic minority officers’… but even Muslims think it’s a mad idea

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

One of the largest police force’s in the UK was today mocked after saying it would consider letting Muslim officers wear burkas in an attempt to boost diversity.

West Midlands Police said it will discuss allowing the traditional Islamic dress – which covers the entirety of a woman’s face and body – to become part of Muslim female officers’ uniform.

At a recent meeting, Chief Constable David Thompson, said he would consider employing staff who wear a burka as he looks to increase black and minority ethnic (BME) officers in the region to 30 per cent.

But today, even the Muslim Council of Britain said they would be against female officers wearing full-face burkas or niqabs.

The organisation said they would find it ‘very surprising’ if the force allowed full-face coverings to be used.

A spokesman said: ‘In the media the term burka is used to describe the full face covering but the veil with the slit for the eyes is actually the niqab.

‘The burka is actually the full gown which goes from shoulder to ankle with the face remaining clear.

‘It would be very surprising if West Midlands Police were in favour of full-face coverings.

‘The actual percentage of women wearing a niqab is very, very small and the women who do would probably not want to be in the police.’

And a source at West Midlands Police even criticised the idea of female officers wearing full-face veils, adding it would be ‘mad’.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

September: Islamist Awareness Month By William A. Levinso

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

Islam Awareness Week is a project of the Muslim Student Association, a frequent source of disruption and anti-Semitism on college campuses. The organization also helps shill for Palestinian terrorists through Palestine Awareness Week (PAW). This article will respond by designating September as militant “Islam” (or Islamism) Awareness Month, a reminder of this depraved ideology’s 1,400-year assault on civilized humanity.

September 2, 1898: Battle of Omdurman

On January 25, 1885, Muhammad Ahmad, the self-proclaimed mahdi, or messiah, overran Khartoum in Sudan and massacred the garrison and inhabitants, including General Charles Gordon. The Mahdi died of natural causes shortly afterward, but his followers continued to wage violent jihad throughout the region. They were met on September 2, 1898, by an Anglo-Egyptian army under the command of Herbert Kitchener. The collision between Islamist fanaticism and European military science, including the new machine guns – “Whatever happens, we have got / the Maxim gun, and they have not” – was essentially a one-sided massacre of the former. The only significant Anglo-Egyptian losses were suffered by the Twenty-First Lancers, who paid roughly a quarter of their strength dead and wounded for three Victoria Crosses. Winston Churchill rode with the Twenty-First during the attack, and he used a Mauser “broomhandle” pistol because a shoulder injury made it difficult for him to wield a saber.

September 5, 1972: The Munich Massacre

The Munich Massacre began on September 5, 1972, when Palestinian terrorists took Israeli Olympic athletes hostage and subsequently tortured and massacred them. They also murdered a German police officer. Hillary Clinton later kissed the wife of terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, who is believed to have been complicit in the Munich Massacre.

September 11, 2001

Americans are most familiar with September 11, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Nineteen deranged terrorists hijacked four airplanes full of innocent people, brayed “Allah akbar,” and crashed three of the planes into buildings filled with more innocent people including law-abiding Muslim citizens and guests of the United States. The passengers on the fourth aircraft attacked the terrorists, who decided to crash the plane into a field rather than risk letting the passengers regain control. Here is a video of militant “Islam’s” contribution to world history on September 11, 2001, which by itself makes September the ideal month for Islamist awareness.

Colonel Ardant du Picq explained more than a century ago why the passengers did not fight back sooner even though the able-bodied ones outnumbered the hijackers. “Four brave men who do not know each other will not dare attack a lion. Four less brave, but knowing each other well, sure of their reliability and consequently of mutual aid, will attack resolutely.” The passengers did not know whom among their neighbors they could rely on for support, so none dared to make the first move.

POLITICS Comments turned off

What Happens When Trump Departs? By Robert Weissberg

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

Donald Trump’s so far successful presidential run has raised a heretofore unnoticed irony. On the one hand, the GOP establishment has long called for a “Big Tent” strategy to attract African Americans, Hispanics, even gays plus other “minorities” currently in the Democratic camp. Ironically, Trump has indeed embraced the outreach strategy but his target has never been on the “official” GOP outreach list, namely lower-class whites, typically with only a high school degree or, to be a bit crude, Hillbillies, trailer court trash, rednecks, yahoos, hicks, and others who Trump correctly calls the “forgotten men” of American politics (perhaps the least offensive name would be Appalachians).

Now the politically critical question: if and when Trump holds his farewell election — in 2020 for his second term — will the GOP establishment continue to mine, courtesy of Trump, this newly energized voting bloc? Or, with the iconoclastic Trump gone, revert to the more familiar outreach directed at blacks, Hispanics, gays, and women. Will all those animated white folk filling up auditoriums to hear Donald return home when Trump finally departs the stage?

Let me suggest that even if Donald wins in a landslide, the GOP movers and shakers (including it’s affiliated “donor community’) will shun those who recently waited hours to attend a Trump rally. The doormen at the heralded GOP Big Tent will find a way to send his enthusiasts to the end of the line.

There are two reasons for this upcoming divorce. First is social compatibility: the well-educated, sophisticated folk who comprise the Republican Establishment barely acknowledge the existence of these “rustic” white folk, let alone have any intuitive feel how to appeal to them politically. A visit to the RNC website displays multiple outreach programs but nothing for poor, white high school graduates (the closest targets “America’s faith-based community”). This neglect is no accident.

Actually, though blacks reliably vote nearly 100% Democratic, I’d guess that the GOP elite believes it has a better finger on their pulse than on the Weltanschauung of poor whites. Given a choice of hustling votes at a black Baltimore church, surely a low-yield operation, versus pressing the flesh at a weekend gun and knife show, the choice is no contest. Upscale Republicans have the black church script down pat — reiterate historical injustices, celebrate the strength of black congregations, quote The Reverend Martin Luther King, and propose a Marshall Plan of federal assistance to re-build inner cities. Indeed, the RNC probably has that generic, often borrowed speech on file.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Is It Time to Turn the Tables on Iran? By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

On April 24, 2004 the USS Firebolt, a Cyclone-class coastal patrol boat in the Persian Gulf, launched a rigid-hulled inflatable boat (RIB) when its crew observed a dhow — a traditional boat, in this case likely owned by Iran — fast approaching the Al Amaya oil terminal in Iraq. Suspecting an attempt to destroy the terminal, the RIB’s seven-man crew pulled alongside the Dhow in order to board it. The dhow blew up in a blast intended for the terminal. Two sailors, Navy Petty Officers Michael Pernaselli and Christopher Watts, were killed instantly. Coast Guard Petty Officer Nathan Brukenthal died when the RIB turned over in the water. Brukenthal was the first Coast Guardsman killed in action since the Vietnam War.

Last week, the USS Firebolt was back in the news.

On September 4th a swarm of seven Iranian fast boats, armed with guns and missiles and belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval force, harassed the Firebolt and forced it to divert from its heading to avoid a collision. In an incident that lasted some eight minutes, three of the Iranian boats maneuvered within about 500 yards of the Firebolt and then pulled away. Another Iranian boat sped in front of the Firebolt and blocked its path. From what can be ascertained, the Firebolt sent radio warnings that were not answered and then -– closing in at about 100 yards -– the Firebolt turned away to avoid the “parked” Iranian attack craft. The Firebolt did not fire warning shots or blast its foghorn.

The Iranians were once again clearly testing swarm boat techniques and seeking to provoke the United States. It was the fourth time in less than a month. American official said there have been 31 similar events this year, almost double the same period last year. This incident follows other recent harassment of vessels including the guided missile destroyer Nitze, the patrol ships Tempest and Squall and the destroyer, the USS Stout.

General Joseph Votel, commander, U.S. Central Command, said the Iranians are conducting “unsafe maneuvers” to exert their influence in the Gulf. He is correct.

There are major political, psychological, and military gains for the Iranians from these provocations.

On the military level the Iranians are learning a lot about the speed of the U.S. Command Structure –- how long it takes for a warning to be made and what happens when the first radio broadcast, foghorn, or gun is fired. One can imagine the Iranians with stopwatches. A successful swarm attack that can do real damage to major U.S. naval assets needs to be correctly sequenced, as the Iranians surely know. Even though U.S. warships are poorly equipped to deal with swarming fast attack boats, they are not without resources. And air power can be called in to augment U.S. ships under attack. If Iran’s objective in such a situation involving a real attack is to cause serious damage to a U.S. aircraft carrier or a guided missile cruiser, by now they know pretty much what they have to do and what price they will pay.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Dangers Rise as America Retreats Fifteen years after 9/11, the next president will face greater risks and a weaker military to combat them. By Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

Fifteen years ago this Sunday, nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the deadliest attack on the U.S. homeland in our history. A decade and a half later, we remain at war with Islamic terrorists. Winning this war will require an effort of greater scale and commitment than anything we have seen since World War II, calling on every element of our national power.

Defeating our enemies has been made significantly more difficult by the policies of Barack Obama. No American president has done more to weaken the U.S., hobble our defenses or aid our adversaries.

President Obama has been more dedicated to reducing America’s power than to defeating our enemies. He has enhanced the abilities, reach and finances of our adversaries, including the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, at the expense of our allies and our own national security. He has overseen a decline of our own military capabilities as our adversaries’ strength has grown.

Our Air Force today is the oldest and smallest it has ever been. In January 2015, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified that the Army was as unready as it had been at any other time in its history. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert testified similarly that, “Navy readiness is at its lowest point in many years.”

Nearly half of the Marine Corps’ non-deployed units—the ones that respond to unforeseen contingencies—are suffering shortfalls, according to the commandant of the Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. For the first time in decades, American supremacy in key areas can no longer be assured.

The president who came into office promising to end wars has made war more likely by diminishing America’s strength and deterrence ability. He doesn’t seem to understand that the credible threat of military force gives substance and meaning to our diplomacy. By reducing the size and strength of our forces, he has ensured that future wars will be longer, and put more American lives at risk.

Meanwhile, the threat from global terrorist organizations has grown. Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the House Homeland Security Committee in July that, “As we approach 15 years since 9/11, the array of terrorist actors around the globe is broader, wider and deeper than it has been at any time since that day.” Despite Mr. Obama’s claim that ISIS has been diminished, John Brennan, Mr. Obama’s CIA director, told the Senate Intelligence Committee in June that, “Our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability or global reach.”

The president’s policies have contributed to our enemies’ advance. In his first days in office, Mr. Obama moved to take the nation off a war footing and return to the failed policies of the 1990s when terrorism was treated as a law-enforcement matter. It didn’t matter that the Enhanced Interrogation Program produced information that prevented attacks, saved American lives and, we now know, contributed to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. Mr. Obama ended the program, publicly revealed its techniques, and failed to put any effective terrorist-interrogation program in its place.

We are no longer interrogating terrorists in part because we are no longer capturing terrorists. Since taking office, the president has recklessly pursued his objective of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo by releasing current detainees—regardless of the likelihood they will return to the field of battle against us. Until recently, the head of recruitment for ISIS in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a former Guantanamo detainee, as is one of al Qaeda’s most senior leaders in the Arabian Peninsula.

As he released terrorists to return to the field of battle, Mr. Obama was simultaneously withdrawing American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He calls this policy “ending wars.” Most reasonable people recognize this approach as losing wars.

When Mr. Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, Iraq was stable. Following the surge ordered by President Bush, al Qaeda in Iraq had largely been defeated, as had the Shiite militias. The situation was so good that Vice President Joe Biden predicted, “Iraq will be one of the great achievements of this administration.” CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Islamic State Guided Women in Paris Terrorist Plan, Prosecutor Says Three suspects held after car with gas canisters found near Notre Dame By Matthew Dalton and Noemie Bisserbe

Posted By on September 10th, 2016

PARIS—Islamic State militants in Syria directed a group of women who gathered materials for a car bomb left near Notre Dame Cathedral, French prosecutors said Friday, highlighting the group’s apparent ability to command homegrown terror cells from afar.

One of the women, identified as 23-year old Sarah H., had ties to French nationals who killed three people in recent terror attacks on French soil, Paris Prosecutor François Molins told a news conference.

Sarah H. had promised to marry Larossi Abballa, 25, who died in a raid in a Paris suburb after killing two police employees and taking their infant hostage in June, Mr. Molins said. She then pledged to marry Adel Kermiche, a 19-year-old who would die in a hail of police bullets in July after slaying a priest as he celebrated Mass in a small town in northern France, he said.

Those alleged ties suggest Islamic State managed to cultivate a homegrown network of radicals capable of hiding from French intelligence for months as its members carried out attacks.

Mr. Molins said Sarah H. was one of three radicalized women—including two women identified as Amel S., 38, and Inès M., 19—who were detained Thursday night after a violent clash with police, in which two officers were stabbed. The three met over the internet, Mr. Molins added.

Inès M. was taken into custody carrying a note in which she swore allegiance to Islamic State, he said.

“The young women were remotely controlled by individuals located in Syria within the ranks of the terrorist organization Daesh,” Mr. Molins said, referring to Islamic State by another name.

None of the three women has been charged, and their lawyers’ identities weren’t known. CONTINUE AT SITE