The Mayor of London’s “My Side” by Janet Tavakoli

The number one reason British “Leave” voters backed Brexit was for self-determination. — Mega-poll by Lord Ashcroft.

Every time a social problem arises, one can randomly assign blame to a host country for not providing enough social support to newcomers. That benchmark, however, creates a shifting goalpost: how much is “enough”?

Mayor Sadiq Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.

Mayor Khan’s presentation seemed designed to pacify Westerners and enable the spread of the rule of Islam.

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, addressed the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) on September 15. Although his topic was “The Breakdown of Social Integration – The Challenge of Our Age,” some crucial components of that challenge were notably absent from his presentation.

Even though Mayor Khan said he believes that, “London is the powerhouse” for his country and is “proud that London was the only region in England to vote to remain in the European Union” (some boroughs voted 80% “Remain”), when it came to the United Kingdom as a whole, he said that “my side” lost the referendum.

That strikes one as an odd way for the mayor of any city to talk. Isn’t he the Mayor of all of London? Aren’t the Londoners who voted for Brexit included on his “side”?
Brexit Voters Want Self-Determination

Mayor Khan claimed that for “Leave” voters, “immigration was the number one issue.” However, Lord Ashcroft’s mega-poll says otherwise. According to it, the number one issue for “Leave” (pro-Brexit) voters across Britain was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK.”

Iran Takes More Hostages: What Did the US Expect? by Majid Rafizadeh

Another question raised is that while the State Department has long warned American citizens against traveling to Iran, why do some dual nationals, primarily Iranian-Americans, continue to travel to Iran for business or other reasons?

The Iranian government has learned that arresting dual nationals and Iranian-Americans not only can lead to the flow of billions of dollars to Iran, but also can ratchet up Iran’s political leverage against the US and Western allies.

President Obama is dangerously encouraging the Iranian leaders’ detaining and arresting dual nationals to extort money and play hardball.

Iran is not only detaining and arresting more Iranian-Americans, but also boasting about it and publicly asking for more money to release them.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) pointed out recently: “We should wait and see, the U.S. will offer … many billions of dollars to release” two particular Iranian-American businessman, Siamak Namazi and his father Baquer Namazi.

According to Alex Shirazi’s nuanced profile, Siamak Namazi was one of the intellectual architects of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has been accused of lobbying for the Iranian regime and pursuing policies that benefit themselves and the Iranian regime. Accordingly, the organization was founded “as a way to continuously lobby for the removal of sanctions against Iran and to promote Iran’s foreign policy, while combating the pro-Israel sentiment in America, according to documents from a Cyprus convention that featured the two men.”

Mr. Namazi worked for Iran’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning from 1994 to 1996. He also joined a company in Tehran called Atieh Bahar Consulting (AB), which was founded by Pari Namazi and her husband, Bijan Khajehpour.

The Tehran-based Atieh Bahar Consulting “offered a range of legal and industrial services to foreign enterprises, most importantly the access it provided to the [Iranian] regime, and the advice it dispensed on how best to navigate the vagaries of the regime’s entrenched factions and competitive interests.”

Palestinians: Jihadi-Style Child Abuse Where are the “Human Rights” Groups? by Khaled Abu Toameh

Children in this world do not dream about becoming doctors, pilots or engineers; an entire generation of Palestinians, particularly those in the Gaza Strip, has been raised on the glorification of suicide bombers and anyone who kills a Jew.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups see children as future “soldiers” in the war to eliminate Israel. They raise children to regard to suicide bombers and jihadis as role models.

This form of child abuse does not seem to bother human rights organizations or UNICEF, whose declared goal is to “work for a world in which every child has a fair chance in life and a right to survive, thrive and fulfill their potential…” UNICEF apparently does not believe its mandate extends to Palestinian children, who are exploited to serve the interests of Islamist groups.

In the view of human rights organizations, recruiting Palestinian children to the ranks of Islamist terror groups does not constitute child abuse.

What is the world prepared to do in order to combat this child abuse? UNICEF and other international bodies may not have time to deal with such issues at present, because they are too busy thinking about the next resolution to condemn Israel.

Children have long become an integral part of “military” parades held in the Gaza Strip by various Palestinian groups. But this form of child abuse does not seem to bother human rights organizations or the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), whose declared goal is to “work for a world in which every child has a fair chance in life and a right to survive, thrive and fulfill their potential — to the benefit of a better world.” It seems that UNICEF does not believe that its mandate extends to Palestinian children, who are exploited to serve the interests of Islamist groups.

In the Gaza Strip, children are taught not only to hate Israel, but also to prepare themselves for jihad (holy war) against the “Zionist enemy.” Hamas, the Islamic Jihad Movement, and other radical groups see children as future “soldiers” in the war to eliminate Israel. They raise children to regard suicide bombers and jihadis as role models.

Children in this world do not dream about becoming doctors, pilots or engineers. Rather, they dream of destroying Israel and “liberating Palestine.” In fact, an entire generation of Palestinians, particularly those in the Gaza Strip, has been raised on the glorification of suicide bombers and anyone who kills a Jew. With enough sacrifices, they are taught, the destruction of Israel is not a far-fetched dream. They alone embody the future hope of the Palestinians to see Israel removed from the face of the earth. Forget becoming a physician: their job is to continue what their fathers failed to achieve.

All the while, both local and international human rights organizations look the other way. In their view, recruiting Palestinian children to the ranks of Islamist terror groups does not constitute child abuse.

Yet not only human rights groups turn a blind eye to this child abuse. The Palestinian Authority (PA), which relies heavily on Western donors for its survival, has also chosen to bury its head in the sand regarding this disturbing practice, which has become widespread in the Gaza Strip in recent years.

Americans Are Not a ‘Folk’ and Bob Dylan Is Not Our Poet By David P. Goldman

Phony identities are a commonplace in cultural history. In musical history, the most remarkable example remains so-called Gregorian chant, as “rediscovered” through “source-critical” research by the Benedictine monks of Solesmes in the early 19th century. Reeling from the French Revolution which had nearly annihilated their order, the Benedictines sought an authentic medieval Catholic culture, the musical expression of a mythical Age of Faith, and thought they founded it by reconstructing an Ur-chant from the welter of different styles that infested ecclesiastical practice. It was all a scam, a hoax, a goof, as later scholars were to demonstrate, for example Katherine Bergeron in her 1998 study Decadent Enchantments, which I discussed here. Gregorian chant in the Solesmes theme-park version has such a strong association with Catholic worship, though, that many Catholics refuse to believe that they were scammed.

And so it is with Bob Dylan, parodist, satirist, scammer and snake-oil salesman par excellence. He never hid from us what he had in mind: he’s been playing with our heads since high school, finding the lever that loosened our tears, and our wallets. He caught a wave in the early 1960s with the folk revival movement, itself a hoax. We Americans are not a “folk,” not in the sense that Johann Gottfried Herder used the term. We do not have the deep memory of autochthonous roots that characterizes European cultures, the hand-me-downs of long-lost pagan experience. We are a people self-created by religious and political impulse. We have a distinct culture, but it is a self-created culture, a riff on Pilgrim’s Progress that became Poor Wayfaring Strangers, pilgrims pursuing freedom on a raft down the Mississippi, avenging Western gunmen, hard-boiled private eyes, and–yes–a young man in work shirt and jeans carrying a guitar. I tried to define what uniquely formed American culture earlier this year in a lecture at the Heritage Foundation, published by Tablet magazine here.

We are not a folk but a church, and our native music is church music–the Battle Hymn with its quotation of Isaiah 63, for example, or “The Year of Jubilo,” whose hymnal roots I analyzed here. Our popular poetic language is that of our national epic, the King James Bible. We sang the go-to-meeting songs of the Methodists and other Protestant denominations. This informed the spirituals of black slaves who gave us our first original art form. American folk music? Gospel is as close as we get to such a concept.

Term Limits for the Media? They’re not “hacks.” They’re “flacks.” By Roger L Simon

Now that Donald Trump has reopened the subject of term limits for Congress in his Gettysburg speech, it’s time to turn to the subject of term limits for a group that may need them even more — the media.

The moment couldn’t be more auspicious since WikiLeaks has just exposed 65 “journalists”–coming from such august names in the field as The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC– who were at some level in cahoots with the Hilary Clinton presidential campaign.

Does anyone doubt this number will grow? Of course not, although it already encompasses almost all the prominent brands in the mainstream media.

But, you might ask, just because many of the reporters, broadcasters and pundits involved have worked, in many instances, for the same organizations for decades, far longer than most politicians have been in office and certainly longer than even two-term presidents, how can we “term limit” them? They are not, after all, government workers employed by the taxpayer and this is a capitalist country, at least for the moment.

Well, it’s quite simple, really. We simply call them what they are. They are not journalists in any real sense. They are public relations people — sometimes known, pejoratively, as flacks.

Now having spent a fair number of years writing books and movies, I am quite familiar with how PR people work, having had more than a few of them, some quite good and some not.

Thus reading through the WikiLeaks emails, the behavior of these PR folks (formerly known as journalists) was quite familiar to me. For example, when Glenn Thrush of Politico sent his article about Clinton to her campaign manager John Podesta in advance of publication, he was acting in the grand tradition of the public relations man, submitting his copy to his client for approval. In one of his emails to Podesta, Thrush goes so far as to call himself “a hack.” But he is not. He is a flack.

Megyn Kelly Deserved Newt Gingrich’s Smackdown By Daniel John Sobieski

Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, among the many victims of sexual predator William Jefferson Clinton and his serial enabler, Hillary Rodham Clinton, welcomed Newt Gingrich’s smackdown of the star of Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday night. As Gingrich pointed out, Kelly, along with other mainstream media talking heads, was beating the Trump “Access Hollywood” tape into the ground while reciting the Clinton mantra that Bill’s sexual assaults while holding public office were “old news” and no longer relevant.

Gingrich rightly felt Bill’s escapades were relevant, as well as Hillary’s handling of his “bimbo eruptions” as she looked the other way and rode his coattails to power. Hillary, along with Kelly, has attacked Trump’s attitudes toward women, even as Hillary, apart from being Bill’s serial enabler, once laughed about getting the accused rapist of a 12-year-old girl off, and as the Clinton Foundation accepted money from governments and private donors that support Sharia law and its serial abuse of women. As far as we know, Trump has accepted not a single drachma from those who endorse marital rape, the stoning of women for adultery, and other barbarities. Trump versus Bill Clinton? Close, but no cigar.

The exchange, as reported by the New York Times, went as follows, with Kelly arguing that Trump’s dirty talk in a trailer was worse than Bill Clinton’s turning of the Arkansas governor’s mansion and the Oval Office into a personal Playboy penthouse:

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” he told Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Kelly: “Me? Really?”

Mr. Gingrich: “That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.”

Ms. Kelly: “You know what Mr. Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office and I think the American voters would like to know …”

Mr. Gingrich then began to talk about how Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, would return to the White House “because you, after all, are worried about sexual predators,” an apparent allusion to Mr. Clinton’s affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

“Listen, it’s not about me. It’s about the women and men of America,” Ms. Kelly replied. She said polls showed that voters were concerned about the allegations against Mr. Trump and believed they were an issue.

As the interview progressed, Mr. Gingrich turned to baiting Ms. Kelly.

“Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?” Mr. Gingrich said, adding: “I just want to hear you use the words, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’”

Why Trump Will Win By Michael Finch

Donald Trump is going to win on November 8th and the moment when this election turned from seeming defeat to certain victory will be the least expected and one of the most derisively attacked moments of his campaign. During the third debate when Trump said on being asked if he would accept the election results, “I will look at it at the time” the election was his. The uproar on both sides of the political spectrum has been an avalanche of criticism; this was Trump at his worst, the dooming moment of a quixotic and egomaniacal campaign. Or was it?

Decisiveness and boldness don’t always result in a victory on the field of battle but indecisiveness and hesitation, in the moment of crisis, most assuredly will result in inglorious defeat. Trump has been called a lot of things, probably the most flattering among, even his allies, is that he is a good “entertainer.” For political acumen, he might be given a 2, and that would be the score given by his friends. But too many have all missed something that Trump as seen since the beginning.

Trump is reading something different, a mood and frustration in this country that is not just confined to some 32%. The country is heading in the wrong direction, we on the right know that, but in fact, almost 70% of Americans overall sense that. And that is not just an indictment of the Obama years; it is an indictment of the entire bipartisan political class.

This election is not being run for the pundits, the media, the conservative gadflies and hangers on, the consultants and wise thinkers who tut-tut continually on television about how Trump, “just can’t do it this way,” he must pivot and be “presidential” and discuss nothing but the issues.

One radio pundit said that Trump obscured his otherwise solid speech on Obamacare by mentioning the “rigged” election. She went on to say that the national media only cover the segment on the rigged election and not the “substantive” part of the speech on Obamacare. For being smart pundits, they sure have one hell of a huge blindside. First of all, the main stream media would never exclusively cover a part of a speech that rips into Obamacare, it would never happen. The speech would be completely ignored, so therefore Trump gets zero coverage. His base gets a policy speech; the rest of the country gets darkness. Instead, CNN and the rest report on the rigged part and give Trump prime coverage. They think this makes Trump look and sounds like a fool and loon. But they aren’t the audience and Trump is not looking for approval from the D.C. to New York elites.

The middle of the country, already restive and suspicions of anything and everything that has to do with Washington D.C., hears Trump railing against the corrupt system and how we need to “clean house.” What is so arrogantly dismissed by the chattering elite class as bar room “unsophisticated” rhetoric, is hitting the voters across the country like a breath of fresh air and a lot of “you’re damn right, Trump!” exhortations.

The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama By Richard Baehr

Every year, there is some report of the blissful ignorance of American history demonstrated by the supposedly best and brightest at elite American universities. Suffice it to say the collected writings of David Horowitz on the American Left, which constitute part of a solid foundation for understanding the last half century of American politics, are nowhere to be found on any college or high school reading list.

Horowitz’s latest book, The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama, is the seventh volume in his nine-volume collection, . This new volume provides a collection of his writings over the last quarter century, focusing primarily on the Left’s control in our government and culture. As Horowitz reveals, even during the Bush years, conservatives were on the defense and leftists controlled the narrative as they attempted to destroy Bush and his chances for re-election in 2004. Their primary mode of attack was to undermine America’s efforts in Iraq almost from the start of the conflict, when just months earlier a majority of Senate Democrats and near half of House Democrats had supported the President. The Left then destroyed Bush’s second term with bogus charges of racist neglect in the handling of Hurricane Katrina. There was plenty of incompetence in the response to Katrina, but local and state officials — all Democrats, of course, and many of them African American — were the principal operators on the ground during the crisis.

The immediate abandonment of support for the Iraq war effort was a signal event in American history, sending a message that a large part of the Democratic Party was not remotely concerned about the morale of our men and women fighting overseas. The weak effort by some Democrats to hold onto an ounce of patriotic resolve — “end the war, support the troops” — was designed more for campaign speeches than any meaningful attempt to convey national unity for the effort underway by our armed forces. So too, the obsession with Abu Ghraib gave the lie to the Democrats’ “support our troops” message, as a broad brush was used to paint the incident as somehow what you would expect from our military on a routine basis.

Horowitz outlines this narrative, faulting the Bush administration for failing to fight harder to present its story of why we went into Iraq and the risks if we had done nothing. Regrettably, the Bush administration never had a chance to get a better defense of the Iraq war out to the media. Most in the media considered the Bush administration illegitimate due to its narrow victory in the 2000 presidential contest, a lie to be sure. Unfortunately, it is almost certainly true that the media today are far more in the bag for the left than ten or twenty years ago and work harder at pushing the left’s agenda. The soft liberalism of Walter Cronkite has been replaced by cable and national network anchors who routinely bury stories embarrassing to their side and focus on those that can do damage to the other side. During the current Presidential election cycle, we have seen the most prestigious media organs explain why it is necessary and appropriate for them to be biased this year. It is a special time, they argue, because Trump is, in their view, a unique threat to the Republic.


Megyn Kelly Seeks Salary North of $20 Million in Contract Talks With Fox News ‘The Kelly File’ host is in active negotiations; keeping her at the network is a priority for management, including Rupert Murdoch. ‘It’s up to her’ and others ‘would give their right arm for her spot,’ he says. Joe Flint

Fox News star Megyn Kelly has changed agents and publicity teams since last year. Now the question is if she will change TV networks.

Host of “The Kelly File,” one of the cable-news channel’s most popular shows, Ms. Kelly is in active talks over her contract, which expires next July. Her profile has been rising during the presidential election cycle, in part thanks to a dust-up with Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Keeping Ms. Kelly is a priority for senior management, including Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of Fox News and co-executive chairman of its parent company, 21st Century Fox.

Asked if Ms. Kelly would stay at the channel, Mr. Murdoch said in an interview that she is important to the network and he hopes to get a contract signed “very soon,” but noted, “it’s up to her.”

Mr. Murdoch said he is kept abreast of the talks “every minute of the day.” While he doesn’t want to lose her, he said, “we have a deep bench of talent, many of whom would give their right arm for her spot.”

Thank You, Blue A new Gallup survey finds a surge in support for local police.

The Black Lives Matter movement has fascinated the media for more than two years by pretending that violence against blacks is principally the work of racist cops. But most Americans, regardless of color, know better. Support for police is now at its highest level in decades.

A new Gallup survey out this week finds that a full 76% of Americans say they have “a great deal” of respect for the police in their area, up from 64% in 2015. Another 17% in this year’s survey say they have some respect for local cops, and only 7% say they have “hardly any.”

Strong support for local police cuts across racial lines. Whites have historically been the most supportive in Gallup surveys and that’s true again this year, with 80% expressing great respect for their local cops. But support is also surging among nonwhites, 67% of whom say they have great respect for the police in their area, up from 53% last year.

Politicians like Hillary Clinton have responded to the message of Black Lives Matter by vigorously agreeing that all Americans have a problem of “implicit bias,” if not worse. But on this issue the politicians seem to be way out of step with the people. While Gallup finds rising support for local police across all demographics, the biggest surge in respect for America’s men and women in blue is occurring among political liberals. People in this category expressing a great deal of respect for police shot up to 71% this year from 50% in 2015.

Perhaps they have come to realize that blue lives matter a lot in any successful campaign to save black lives.