Erdogan thugs beat up protesters in DC

Ace of Spades has video of Erdogan's security enforcers beating up protesters in America in the nation's capital.

Consequences must follow, up to and including arrest.

Diplomatic immunity generally only covers specified persons, usually only top officials and top staff. Others have a more limited immunity, if any at all.

Here's the least that can be done: Erdogan's retinues in the future will be denied any sort of immunity whatsoever. If he wants to come, he either comes with thugs subject to arrest and prosecution, or he comes alone.

At a minimum.

Erdogan is making his own play for rightful "Caliph." Don't kid yourselves. He's positioning himself to be the real Caliph of the Caliphate.

Displays of power like this on the soil of the Great Satan will thrill the rootless rowdies who fill the ranks of terrorist organizations.

Letting Erdogan go without consequences will make Trump look perilously weak.

I didn't mortgage my credibility backing a president who lets Islamists bust heads of protesters on American soil itself.

Watch the video here.

"Long live Valentine's Day!"

Did you know that Islamists hate Valentine's Day? Jamie Glazov writes at Front Page Magazine a round-up of how various Muslim countries ban Valentine's Day.

In the West, meanwhile, leftist feminists are not to be outdone by their Islamist allies in reviling — and trying to exterminate — Valentine’s Day. Throughout many Women’s Studies Programs on American campuses, for instance, you will find the demonization of this day, since, as the disciples of Andrea Dworkin angrily explain, the day is a manifestation of how capitalist and homophobic patriarchs brainwash and oppress women -- and push them into spheres of powerlessness.

As an individual who spent more than a decade in academia, I was privileged to witness this war against Valentine’s Day up close and personal. Feminist icons like Jane Fonda, meanwhile, help lead the assault on Valentine’s Day in society at large. As David Horowitz has documented, Fonda has led the campaign to transform this special day into “V-Day” (“Violence against Women Day”) — which is, when it all comes down to it, a day of hate, featuring a mass indictment of men.

So what exactly is transpiring here? What explains this hatred of Valentine’s Day by leftist feminists and Islamists? And how and why does it serve as the sacred bond that brings the Left and Islam together into its feast of hate?

The core issue at the foundation of this phenomenon is that Islam and the radical Left both revile the notion of private love, a non-tangible and divine entity that draws individuals to each other and, therefore, distracts them from submitting themselves to a secular deity.

The highest objective of both Islam and the radical Left is clear: to shatter the sacred intimacy that a man and a woman can share with one another, for such a bond is inaccessible to the order. History, therefore, demonstrates how Islam, like Communism, wages a ferocious war on any kind of private and unregulated love. In the case of Islam, the reality is epitomized in its monstrous structures of gender apartheid and the terror that keeps it in place. Indeed, female sexuality and freedom are demonized and, therefore, forced veiling, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honor killings and other misogynist monstrosities become mandatory parts of the sadistic paradigm.

The puritanical nature of totalist systems (whether Fascist, Communist, or Islamist) is another manifestation of this phenomenon. In Stalinist Russia, sexual pleasure was portrayed as unsocialist and counter-revolutionary. More recent Communist societies have also waged war on sexuality — a war that Islam, as we know, wages with similar ferocity. These totalist structures cannot survive in environments filled with self-interested, pleasure-seeking individuals who prioritize devotion to other individual human beings over the collective and the state. Because the leftist believer viscerally hates the notion and reality of personal love and “the couple,” he champions the enforcement of totalitarian puritanism by the despotic regimes he worships.

...Yet as these novels demonstrate, no tyranny’s attempt to turn human beings into obedient robots can fully succeed. There is always someone who has doubts, who is uncomfortable, and who questions the secular deity — even though it would be safer for him to conform like everyone else. The desire that therefore overcomes the instinct for self-preservation is erotic passion. And that is why love presents such a threat to the totalitarian order: it dares to serve itself. It is a force more powerful than the all-pervading fear that a totalitarian order needs to impose in order to survive. Leftist and Muslim social engineers, therefore, in their twisted and human-hating imaginations, believe that the road toward earthly redemption (under a classless society or Sharia) stands a chance only if private love and affection is purged from the human condition.

It becomes completely understandable, therefore, why leftist believers were so inspired by the tyrannies in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam and many other countries. As sociologist Paul Hollander has documented in his classic Political Pilgrims, fellow travelers were especially enthralled with the desexualized dress that the Maoist regime imposed on its citizens. This at once satisfied the leftist’s desire for enforced sameness and the imperative of erasing attractions between private citizens. As I have demonstrated in United in Hate, the Maoists’ unisex clothing finds its parallel in fundamentalist Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a higher entity and frustrates individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection. And so, once again, the Western leftist remains not only uncritical, but completely supportive of — and enthralled in — this form of totalitarian puritanism.

Valentine’s Day is a “shameful day” for the Muslim world and for the radical Left. It is shameful because private love is considered obscene, since it threatens the highest of values: the need for a totalitarian order to attract the complete and undivided attention, allegiance and veneration of every citizen. Love serves as the most lethal threat to the tyrants seeking to build Sharia and a classless utopia on earth, and so these tyrants yearn for the annihilation of every ingredient in man that smacks of anything that it means to be human.

Read more here.

Expressing themselves

h/t Bookworm

Anti-coup

The Zman observes that the media are having a hard time

fitting the attempted coup in Turkey into their standard narrative. Turkey is supposed to be different from the rest of the Muslim world. Turkey is a real country with elections and globalism. Sure, the political leaderships sounds a lot like the lunatics from the Arab world, but that’s just an act. It’s their version of boob bait for the bubbas. Instead of guns and abortion, their rednecks want to hear about Allah and the Jews. Turkey is a real country, not a banana republic.

Following along via SkyNews, the BBC and CNN, I had to laugh at the confusion of the news people covering this thing. They did not know which side they were supposed to support. Initially, they were just baffled, as they don’t know anything about the world that is not fed to them through their earpieces. They were reduced to stuttering through live images of people walking around the streets waving flags. Then Obama came out in defense of the Islamists and the rest of NATO followed suit. Instantly, the new media was anti-coup.

...Erdogan is the leader of the new order, the Islamists that believe they can have a modern technological society, under medieval Islamic moral codes.

...The Turks are faced with a choice. They can be fully Western and go quietly into that good night. Or, they can be Eastern and fight against the dying of the light. The former means modern technology and prosperity, for a little while at least. The latter means men in robes ordering homosexuals thrown off buildings. That’s what’s happening inside Turkey today. It’s a version of what’s happening in the West, but only in a country that culturally is closer to Byzantium than Brussels.

Read more here.

Islamist foot-soldier

Chateau Heartiste reports,

Chris Harper-Mercer had Islamist sympathies. He bought an ISIS flag online and left a comment at the store website.

Harper-Mercer goes by the User Name IRONCROSS and left a comment about his purchase of an ISIS flag[h] (shown at left of comment) that reads:

“Exactly what I was looking for. I really like the quality. Great product, thanks! I will continue to make purchases from this company. I am very impressed. I WILL be back against soon. A+++++++ Seller. He also answered my questions quickly and satisfactorily. Received quickly, will be back for more purchases.”

Islamic State Flag, 3′ x 5′, ISIS, ISIL, Muslim, Islam

This is why Mercer targeted Christians. He was a jihadi who hated non-Muslim infidels. Why is the media hiding this information?

Read more here.

An ideological struggle

On the eve of the fourteenth anniversary of 9-11 last week, Hugh Hewitt asked Mark Steyn if we are any safer.

HUGH HEWITT: Now speaking of blown sky high – "9/11" tomorrow. I asked Jeb Bush about this in the first hour. And the question was, fourteen years later, the first seven years of that were run by your brother and then the second seven years were run by President Obama. Are we safer today than we were on 9/12, 2001. What do you Mark Steyn – Jeb Bush's answer is posted over at HughHewitt.com.

MARK STEYN: I think the problem is that we defined what we were up against in the fall of 2001, 2002 too narrowly - and I think you can see that actually at the time of the first anniversary in 2002. We are in an ideological struggle... And we've seen that that ideology is very seductive to people who hold the passports of Western nations. We are a hole, we are a vacuum - and something fills the vacuum, which is what we see in Europe and to a lesser extent over here. And you can't fight this war even with the most brilliant military in the world because it's as I said in America Alone all those years ago - it's not my line, it's from Basil Liddell Hart, the great military strategist – it's not about blowing up their tanks and it's not about shooting their planes out of the sky – and nobody can beat Western militaries for doing that - but if you don't understand that you're up against this ideology and you don't target that ideology, then you can never win. And that's why I find this anniversary about as dispiriting as any of the fourteen since that Tuesday morning all those years ago.

Here are some excerpts of what Mark wrote one year after 9-11:

After September 11th, a friend in London said to me she couldn't stand all the America-needs-to-ask-itself stuff because she used to work at a rape crisis centre and she'd heard this blame-the-victim routine a thousand times before. America was asking for it: like those Norwegian women, it was being "provocative". Even so, it comes as a surprise to realize the multiculti apologists do exactly the same to actual rape victims. After the OJ verdict, it was noted by some feminists that "race trumped gender". What we've seen since September 11th is that multiculturalism trumps everything. Its grip on the imagination of the western elites is unshakeable...

I believe western culture – rule of law, universal suffrage, etc – is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, the west is slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of its lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations... The Islamists are militarily weak but ideologically secure. A year on, the west is just the opposite. There's more than one way to lose a war.

Read more here.

Is the death of Africans any less horrific than the death of Frenchmen?

These are some of the 147 African Christian college students killed in Kenya by the Islaists. For some reason, our media does not cover these African stories like it did Charlie Hebdo. Have you noticed?

thanks to Christopher Buckley

Holy week attack on Christians

The attack on Christian students in Kenya has resulted in 140 Christian students being slaughtered by the Muslim group Al-Shabaab. The Guardian reports,

When the gunmen arrived at his dormitory he could hear them opening doors and asking if the people who had hidden inside whether they were Muslims or Christians.

“If you were a Christian you were shot on the spot,” he said. “With each blast of the gun I thought I was going to die.”

Neo-neocon writes,

he pattern for attacks by this group has been to separate Muslims from Christians and murder the latter. There’s nothing equivocal about it; it’s a religious war.

The New York Times, on the other hand, is mealy-mouthed in the extreme. The headline doesn’t mention religion, and it’s only in paragraph four that it comes up, and then very tepidly [emphasis mine]:

The Shabab, an extremist group based in Somalia and affiliated with Al Qaeda, issued a statement through a radio station it controls claiming responsibility for the attack. It said its fighters attacked the university early Thursday morning, began separating Muslims from non-Muslims and started an “operation against the infidels.” The group said in its statement that its fighters were still inside the university.

So we have an “extremist” group. Although the paper does manage to say it’s affiliated with Al Qaeda, it is not characterized as Muslim, which might just be one of its most salient characteristics. It “separates” Muslims from “non-Muslims” (Jews? Hindus? No: Christians, but the word is never mentioned, because the Times is just using a quote from the perpetrators as its description). They “start an operation” which is a euphemism for “kill many and hold the rest hostage.”

The article is long, very long, but not once does it use the word “Christian.” That’s quite a feat. In fact, it goes out of its way to emphasize that the “extremists” seem to target all who are not Muslims, and that this is some sort of mixed group. But the reports in the Guardian and other papers make it clear they were explicitly going after Christians. And by the way, the most-wanted leader of the terrorists is named Mohammed Mohamud, which I’m sure has nothing to do with Islam.

Read more here.

"Provide for the common defense"

Jim Talent and Jon Kyl write,

The defense sequester was the worst possible thing to do to the military, at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way. Coming on the heels of the reductions from 2009–2011, it has resulted in large cuts to the Pentagon accounts that support day-to-day readiness. The Navy is routinely cancelling deployments. Earlier this spring, the Air Force grounded one-third of its fighters and bombers. The Army has curtailed training for 80 percent of the force. Our strategic arsenal—the final line of national self-defense—is old, shrinking, and largely untested. All this is happening at a time when the recognized threats to America—from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the inaptly named “Arab Spring,” and a resurgent and spreading al-Qaeda—are manifestly rising.

Then in 2011 a President was in power who questioned the efficacy and even legitimacy of American power, and a Congress panicked by the specter of rising deficits came to power. Without a clear understanding of why defense was important, they gave way to the assumption that it was only one in a set of competing priorities. The gradual decline in American power became an unprecedented rush to reduce the defense budget, with little long-term analysis of the impact on military strategy or national security.

“Peace through strength,” the cardinal and bipartisan principle of American politics since World War II has all but collapsed. So has the “Reaganite” corollary, which had remained the nucleus of the larger consensus coalition. For generations, leaders of both parties agreed: American strength was a good thing, and the first purpose of the federal government. If there is any bipartisan agreement now, it is that defense spending can and should be reduced.

The problem is that America’s leaders never explicitly adapted the strategy to the circumstances of the post–Cold War world. Yet mitigation of global risk is even more important today than it was during the Cold War years. The information revolution has knitted the world together both socially and economically in an unprecedented way; what happens in the Middle East, Southern Asia, and even Africa matters directly to America’s security and quality of life. At the same time, asymmetric capabilities, further enhanced by the information revolution, have increased the direct threats to the American homeland. Nuclear weapons are easier to develop, and cyber weapons and bioweapons are available even to nascent radical movements, much less nation-states.

North Korea, an economic basket case, is already a major threat to its neighbors, and will become a direct threat to the American homeland if it continues to improve its missile capabilities. China’s claims to the South China Sea threaten sea lanes through which much of the world’s shipping must travel, and China is already regularly attacking the American economy through cyberspace. If the Pakistani government becomes unstable, or is taken over by Islamists, the danger of war with India will grow, and Pakistan’s substantial nuclear arsenal will be up for grabs. Iran, the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism, is approaching nuclear capability. The fact that Egypt is now in turmoil has further isolated Israel and increased the danger of war in the Middle East. Yemen’s failed government means that the country may become a staging ground for terrorism. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated; it has returned to Iraq, spread to North Africa and Yemen, and is now run by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a medical doctor who was in charge of bioweapons laboratories that were operating in Afghanistan before the American invasion.

The U.S. Navy is the smallest it has been since 1916. The Air Force is smaller than at any time since the inception of the service. Today, the Administration is planning to reduce the number of soldiers and Marines by 100,000, despite the fact that the war in Afghanistan will continue through 2014. The Administration’s missile defense plans are in disarray, as is America’s national nuclear infrastructure.

Believe it or not, my post is a mere excerpt of the paper written by Talent and Kyle. They go on to write about the threats of Islamist movements, China, The Iranian nuclear program, the Arab Spring, and the growing isolation of Israel, increasing competition for resources, and the number of nations that are weak and growing weaker. They end by making suggestions about how to rectify the problems outlined above.