Darryl Glenn Wins Republican Primary for U.S. Senate in Colorado Winner in general election could determine which party controls Senate next year By Dan Frosch

A conservative county commissioner won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Colorado on Tuesday, setting up a critical swing-state race with Democratic incumbent Michael Bennet.

Darryl Glenn led the five-way, crowded contest with 37.5% of the votes, according to the Associated Press, with 84% of the precincts reporting.

Once considered a long shot, Mr. Glenn impressed Colorado Republicans—particularly conservatives—with his speech at the state GOP convention earlier this year. And in recent days, he seemed to gain momentum after picking up the endorsement of Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other national conservative figures.

Republicans had initially been hopeful that the race would produce a heavyweight challenger to Mr. Bennet in a state that is virtually evenly carved up between Democrats, Republicans and voters who don’t identify with either party.

But after more popular GOP politicians including U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers, and George Brauchler, the prosecutor in the Aurora theater shooting trial, declined to jump in, those hopes dimmed as lesser known figures joined the fray instead.

The race will be one of several closely watched contests that will determine which party controls the Senate next January. Democrats must win a net of five seats, or four if they win the White House and secure the vice president’s tiebreaking vote, to regain control of the chamber.

Attack at Istanbul Airport Kills at Least 36 Bombers hit Turkey’s busiest airport leaving more than 100 wounded By Emre Peker and Ayla Albayrak

ISTANBUL—Suicide bombers struck Turkey’s busiest airport Tuesday, killing at least 36 people and injuring scores more on the eve of a major holiday, the deadliest in a string of attacks in Istanbul this year.
Three bomb blasts shook the arrivals area of the international terminal at Istanbul Atatürk Airport around 9:22 p.m., Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin said. At least 147 people were wounded.

One assailant set off a bomb after being shot by police near a checkpoint just inside the terminal, a Turkish official said. Two other attackers blew themselves up outside—one near the entrance and one in a parking lot across the street, the official said.

No group had claimed responsibility hours after the attack. However, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said initial findings of an investigation suggested Islamic State carried out the assault. U.S. and other Western officials said the attack bore the hallmarks of the extremist organization, but added it was too early to assign blame.

Since last summer, Turkey has faced threats from Islamic State and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, an outlawed militia that has attacked Turkish security forces and civilian targets, including Istanbul’s second busiest airport, Sabiha Gokcen.

‘Defective to its Core’ Another judge enjoins another Obama rule, this one from Labor.

That’s how a federal judge in Texas on Monday summed up the Labor Department’s new “persuader” rule as he imposed a preliminary injunction, and he could have been describing the Obama Administration’s entire regulatory apparatus.

The National Federation of Independent Business and 10 states sued to block the rule, which was set to take effect on July 1. Judge Samuel Cummings said the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on all five of their claims including lack of statutory authority, abuse of discretion, and violation of First Amendment rights, due process and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The rule putatively updates the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which requires “persuaders” hired by employers to communicate directly with workers to disclose their clients, services and compensation. The real goal is to muzzle employers and help union organizers.

Labor in effect eliminates the law’s “Advice Exemption” that shields privileged attorney-client communications by mandating disclosures from employers and anyone engaged in “actions, conduct, or communications that are undertaken with an object, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, to affect an employee’s decisions regarding his or her representation or collective bargaining rights.”

As the judge notes, the “use of words like ‘implicit’ and ‘affect’ are too broad,” leaving employers and consultants to “guess” what activities are covered. Merely drafting employment policies could be a persuader activity. CONTINUE AT SITE

Clinton’s Benghazi Cover Story She wonders why she’s so distrusted. Here’s the reason.

Democrats have succeeded in persuading the Washington press corps that what happened when four Americans died at Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012 isn’t a story. But the House report released Monday about that night and its aftermath contains details that ought to concern Americans who care about political accountability.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in that attack that is dissected in 800-plus pages released by Republicans on a House Select Committee chaired by South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy. The report’s most disturbing facts concern the way the Obama Administration and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spun an alternative narrative that is contradicted by their private statements and the intelligence from the scene.

We learn from the report that the day after Mr. Stevens became the first American ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979, President Obama decided to skip his daily intelligence briefing.

We also learn that on the day of the attack, in a 5 p.m. meeting that included Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Mr. Obama said the U.S. should use all available resources. After that meeting, Mr. Panetta returned to the Pentagon to discuss what military resources were available. The Defense Secretary then issued an order to deploy military assets to Libya.

But nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was even in route when the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began. The holdup seems to have been caused in part by something else we learn from this report: a 7:30 p.m. teleconference of Defense and State officials, including Mrs. Clinton.

Ostensibly they were sharing intelligence and coordinating responses. But they debated whether they needed Libya’s permission to deploy American troops to defend endangered Americans, whether Marines should wear uniforms or civilian clothes, and so on.

Even more telling: Though there was no evidence linking the Benghazi attacks to a YouTube video mocking Islam, of the 10 “action items” from the notes of that meeting, five referred to the video.

Mrs. Clinton referred to the video more than once in her public statements. At 10:08 p.m. on the night of the attack, she issued a public statement on Benghazi: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” She repeated the point the next day at the State Department. CONTINUE AT SITE

Multiple Immigration System Failures Undermine National Security Michael Cutler

CIA Director Brennan warns that ISIS is likely to exploit refugee flows, smuggling routes and legitimate methods of travel to attack the West

On June 16, John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before a hearing conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee on the various threats and challenges that confront our nation, including threats posed by ISIS to the United States, our allies and countries around the world. C-SPAN posted a video of the hearing.

Fox News put immigration front and center.

Here is an important excerpt from Brennan’s prepared testimony:

“Since at least 2014, ISIL has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against its foreign enemies, resulting in hundreds of casualties. The most prominent examples are the attacks in Paris and Brussels, which we assess were directed by ISIL’s leadership.

“We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks. ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”

Focused on Disaster Narrative, Media Ignores Obvious Benefits of Brexit By Roger Kimball

In almost every situation, Horace’s advice was as pragmatic as it was wise. Item: “Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem.” Remember, when faced with difficult things, to preserve a calm mind.

I thought about that sage advice when I was at a drinks party last night in London. The mood was grim. The wine, chatter, and conviviality flowed (another bit of Horatian advice, nunc est bibendum, was liberally followed), but behind, and not very far behind, the bonhomie loomed an ominous-looking shadow, as if war had just been declared but the troops had yet to mobilize.

There was near-unanimous agreement among the revelers that last week’s referendum on Britain leaving the European Union represented an economic catastrophe of incalculable proportions.

There was also a more-or-less unspoken assumption that it represented a gigantic act of political stupidity and, finally, a sort of moral stain. It was assumed the EU, whatever its faults, was “for” human rights, the environment, fairness to Muslims, etc., in ways that the angry, nativist population who voted for Brexit couldn’t possibly understand.

There was, in short, a current of near panic coruscating about the room, though the intelligent and well-spoken party-goers were too polite to indulge in anything like histrionics. Somewhat muted vituperation, especially against the Brexiteer-in-chief Boris Johnson, there was aplenty. But mostly the assembled multitude was like those doctors Hilaire Belloc described in his poem about little Henry King, whose chief defect was chewing little bits of string:

Physicians of the utmost fame were called at once, but when they came they said (as they took their fees), “There is no cure of this disease. Henry will very soon be dead.”

I think the doom-and-gloom is vastly overstated. As the Remainders’ Bête Blond, Boris Johnson himself observed:

At home and abroad, the negative consequences [of the Brexit vote] are being wildly overdone, and the upside is being ignored.

Indeed. As I have stressed in this column over the last few days, the referendum to leave the EU was not a vote to leave Europe. The UK is part of Europe, by spirit and history as well as by geography. The vote was partly a vote against the officious, interfering EU bureaucrats and their vast thicket of prosperity-sapping regulation.

Mostly, however, it was an affirmative vote — a vote for British sovereignty, British freedom.

A balanced alternative view of the consequences of Brexit was set forth more than two years ago by the great James Bennett, the man who popularized the term Anglosphere and who has done as much as anyone to outline its political, economic, and existential advantages.

In an essay called “After the Brexit,” which appeared in The New Criterion in January 2014, Bennett compared America’s cooperation with Canada on the manufacture of cars — where vehicles are shipped back and forth across the border several times in the process of assembly — to one possible post-Brexit arrangement between the UK and Europe:

[M]uch of the cross-border trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union could continue with relatively simple arrangements comparable to North American arrangements.

As negotiations proceed towards the invocation of Article 50, the formal request to withdraw from the EU, a series of such arrangements could be agreed upon:

Britain’s trade with the Continent could continue at something near its current levels.

One Week After Orlando, Democrats Feature Anti-Gay Imam at Banquet Shafayat Mohamed decries gay Muslims and claims gay sex causes natural disasters. Joe Kaufman

The Democratic Party used to embrace homosexuals. Now, its Florida leaders are inviting enemies of the gay community to speak at their functions, and only one week following one of the worst episodes of violence against gays in American history. That was the case earlier this month, when anti-gay imam Maulana Shafayat Mohamed was allowed to speak at the Leadership Blue Gala, the annual banquet of the Florida Democratic Party.

On June 19th, the Florida Democratic Party held its annual Leadership Blue Gala event. US Senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker, was the keynote speaker. However, one of the other speakers, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, who partook in opening prayers, should have been the main concern.

Shafayat Mohamed is the imam of the Darul Uloom mosque, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. The mosque has been a haven for terror-related individuals, many of whom have been imprisoned – or, in one case, killed in an overseas anti-insurgent raid – due to their jihadist activities.

“Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla was a student of Shafayat Mohamed’s at Darul Uloom. Now-deceased al-Qaeda Global Operations Chief, Adnan el-Shukrijumah, was a prayer leader at Darul Uloom. And Darul Uloom Arabic teacher Imran Mandhai, along with mosque goers Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan, hatched a plot at the mosque to blow up different South Florida structures, including area power stations, Jewish businesses, and a National Guard armory.

Shafayat Mohamed has his own sordid history. In February 2005, an article written by him was published on the Darul Uloom website, entitled ‘Tsunami: Wrath of God.’ In it, he claims that gay sex caused the 2004 Indonesian tsunami and that most Jews and Christians, whom he refers to as “People of the Book,” are “perverted transgressors.”

It is statements such as these that have gotten Shafayat Mohamed thrown off of a number of Broward County boards. Yet, the imam is unrepentant.

Abbas’s Satisfied Customers Why European leaders cheer accusations of Jews poisoning Palestinian wells.Caroline Glick

“Our only prospect for impacting this diseased, racist environment is to appeal to the conscience of those Europeans who still have one. Beyond that, the time has come to write them off.”

One of the more remarkable aspects of the blood libel sounded by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in his address before the European Parliament in Brussels last week is the claim that he ad-libbed the part about rabbis poisoning Palestinian wells.

After refusing to meet President Reuven Rivlin who was also in Brussels last week, Abbas ascended the podium in Brussels and began his custom of demonizing Jewish and Israel. Clearing his throat, the man whose incitement is most responsible for the fact that the Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people in the world, began his speech by saying, “We are against incitement.”

Then, as is his wont, Abbas proceeded to incite mass murder of Jews by accusing rabbis of ordering the poisoning of Palestinian wells.

In his words, “Just a week ago, a week, a group of rabbis in Israel announced, in a clear announcement, demanding their government, to poison, to poison, the water of the Palestinians.”

“Is this not incitement? Is this not clear incitement, to the mass murder of the Palestinian people?” It’s not quite clear what it was that he was ad-libbing but a reasonable bet is that he was embellishing what was already in his planned speech. In the days preceding his speech, the Abbas-controlled PLO media put out stories claiming that a non-existent rabbi, who heads a non-existent rabbinical council issued an opinion that Jews in Judea and Samaria should poison Palestinian wells.

As the IsraellyCool website pointed out, by Abbas’s telling, it wasn’t just one non-existent rabbi, who heads a non-existent rabbinical council that told Jews in general to poison wells. In Abbas’s ad-libbed version, the entire non-existent council, led by the non-existent rabbi ordered the government to poison Palestinian water.

At any rate, whether Abbas winged the blood libel or just embellished a less powerful one, far from being a mitigating factor for judging the significance of his statement, the claim that he was speaking on the fly makes it all the worse.

Abbas simply couldn’t help himself.

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy The truth would destroy them. Daniel Greenfield

After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.

And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to “fundamentalist” Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism.

Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.

It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be “no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity” and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.

Loretta Lynch Lobs Love Bomb at Radical Islamic Terrorists Are compassion, unity, and love really America’s ‘most effective response to terror’? By Deroy Murdock

After meeting in Orlando, Fla., with law-enforcement officials investigating ISIS terrorist Omar Saddique Mateen’s June 12 massacre, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told journalists, “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”

After an interval of astonishment, Representative Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.) expressed his dismay at Lynch’s words.

“‘All you need is love’ may be a great Beatles song, but it’s a terrible foreign policy,” Duncan declared. “She further proves that this Administration has no idea what it takes to fight Islamic terrorism. She should resign immediately.”

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) also denounced Lynch’s olive branch.

“No, the most effective weapon against Islamic Extremism is not ‘love,’” Blackburn said. “It is a clear strategy to destroy ISIS.”

Duncan, Blackburn, and Lynch’s other critics really are being too harsh.

Like other brave leaders before her, Lynch merely was offering love as the most powerful weapon that ever can be wielded in the faces of tyrants and evil-doers. Lynch echoed the loving words of equally courageous and inspiring figures throughout history.

Who could forget the example of American Revolutionary Captain Nathan Hale of the Continental Army? Moments before British soldiers hanged him on Manhattan Island as a spy for General George Washington, Hale said on September 22, 1776, “I only regret that I have but one love to give for my country.”

Well, it worked! The British swam home in 1783, and America got busy becoming a country.

Two centuries later, and across the Atlantic, the existential threat from Adolf Hitler seemed almost insurmountable. Undeterred, Winston Churchill rallied the British people in June 1940 by urging them to lead with their hearts.