Islamic Terrorism and the European Component of the Chasm between Progressive Globalists and Conservatives

D-DAY THE 6th OF JUNE. America saved Europe from its darker tendencies twice in the 20th century. On D-Day the 6th of June, 1944, it would cost thousands of American lives and taxpayer billions, and after World War II, America again came to Europe's aid under the Marshall Plan as it rebuilt Europe and told it to straighten up and be adult. THE REAL NEWS OF THE DAY IS THAT AMERICA IS TIRED OF SAVING EUROPE FROM ITSELF. But, that is what the Second Civil War's European component will require. • • • THE SECOND CIVIL WAR'S GLOBALIST ASPECT CONFRONTS A PARALYZED EUROPE. When we talk of the European component of this Second Civil War, it might be more accurate to call it the Third European World War.The fundamental question that divides those who seek to appease migrating islamic terrorists and those who want to prevent their entry into Western society or severely crack down on them has created a chasm in European politics and in the Western Alliance. The Progressive Globalist side of the chasm has produced a torrent of hate speech directed at President Trump by European political leaders, media, and ordinary citizens who are unwilling to admit that they have a non-European contingent in their midst, invited but not assimilated, some of whom seek to destroy them. For example, Germany’s ARD is 98% negative in their Trump coverage, the Financial Times 84% negative and the BBC 74% anti-Trump. Europe's chasm can best be described as one between Globalists who want to eradicate national cultures and government for an unelected elitist EU and UN world government and Populists who seek to preserve nation states and their cultures and give government back to the citizens who pay for it. The European chasm has produced conservative Populist parties all over Europe who support Trump and would vote for him if they were American. Even in Europe there are beginning signs that a peaceful resolution of the question is becoming less possible as Populist citizens take to the street to protest an EU that they feel is destroying their countries and cultures. • • • THE LONDON ATTACK. The chasm between President Trump's and European Populists' world view and the Globalist world view of most European governments and leaders could not have been more evident than this weekend as we watched the immediate aftermath of the latest deadly London islamic terrorist attack. • President Trump warned : “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse....At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!' " Trump tweeted these comments after the London Bridge attack that killed seven people and wounded 48 others, 18 critically. • London Mayor Sadiq Khan had issued a statement that said : “This is our city...and we will never be cowed by terrorism....Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed.” Whether Mayor Khan was referring to his assurance that the additional presence of police was no cause for alarm or was giving his general view that there is no reason for alarm, the facts would lead most people to be "alarmed." • Those facts caused Trump to renew his call for US courts to approve his executive order banning travel from six Moslem-majority countries : "We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!" That, of course, caused the Progressive mainstream media in the US and in Europe and the UK to accuse Trump of "using" the London attacks for poiltical purposes -- we might ask what better political purpose there could possibly be after an islamic terrorist attack than to ask for the Supreme Court to restore the constitutional presidential power to control immigration that has been put on hold by Progressive federal judges appointed by President Obama. • • • THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION. British Prime Minister Theresa May called for tighter Internet regulation in the wake of the deadly terror attack. Mrs. May said in a statement on Sunday that technology serves as a breeding ground for terrorism and extremism : "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the Internet and big companies that provide Internet-based services provide. We need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online.” May called on democratic governments to “reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning.” • The Prime Minister was speaking in the wake of a recent UK parliamentary report alleging that social media companies have prioritized profit margins at the expense of the public’s safety by giving home to illegal content : “It is very clear to us from the evidence we have received that nowhere near enough is being done. The biggest and richest social media companies are shamefully far from taking sufficient action to tackle illegal and dangerous content, to implement proper community standards or to keep their users safe. Given their immense size, resources and global reach, it is completely irresponsible of them to fail to abide by the law, and to keep their users and others safe.” But, many IT experts pointed out that in recent months, tech firms have made pushes to get extremist content off their sites. Over the past year, Twitter has removed hundreds of thousands of profiles linked to terror groups or terror sympathizers. And, the UK already has broad powers to surveil social media on the Internet under the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act, championed by then-Home Secretary May. The Act, opposed by the British Left, expanded government Internet surveillance powers. During the latest G7 summit, May called again for Internet companies to further crackdown on terror-related content on their websites : “Against the backdrop of Monday’s cowardly attack in Manchester, we have discussed what more we can do together to address the threat from terror. Make no mistake, the fight is moving from the battlefield to the Internet.” • • • FAKE SOLUTIONS, LIKE FAKE NEWS, DOESN'T WORK. While Prime Minister May and the British population are closer than any other European country to being in the Trump camp that wants to go after islamic terrorism frontally, Mrs. May, like all Europeans, naively thinks that the Internet and other passive solutions will stop terrorism. Granted, more surveillance of Internet social media is not the only "solution" being proposed. While British and Europeans, Progressives as well as Populists, are lighting candles, placing flowers, going to memorial concerts and hugging each other, the islamic terrorists are undoubtedly plannning their next attack against what they must see as weak and frightened opponents. The suggestions about how to deal with these attacks includes building concrete barriers along every street in London. One Internet comment focused on the "rich" : "Joblessness leads to dispair anger and fatalism....the economic imbalances - pervasive world wide - are boiling over into the lives of the everyday person. Until the elite 1-percent and their heirs are also targetted global economics will be managed without regard to our everyday lives." Another commenter suggested that Brexit causes terrorist attacks : "I wonder if the xenophobic Brexit vote has increased the antipathy felt by terrorists leaning nuts - more people feel they have nothing to lose?" And, my personal favorite "butterfly" comment was not a solution but an explanation : "Another sad chapter in our current world history. What will it take for all of us to realize all life is important." Right, Butterfly -- ask the terrorists that question, but only if you take along an armed bodyguard. • And, while religious leaders have a role to play in urging peaceful solutions to social and political problems, it seemed particularly self-defeating for British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis to call on his countrymen to remain committed to the values of peace and tolerance in the wake of the latest terror attack in Britain. Rabbi Mirvis issued a statement : “In the wake of yet another attack, of more loss of life and of more families devastated by terror, every one of us will once again feel the now too familiar sense of horror and helplessness. After Westminster and Manchester we stood together defiant. Yet it seems the terrorists believe that where they have previously failed to poison our communities, with their destructive ideology of hatred and prejudice, they can succeed with still more bloodshed and murder. But we must not let them. We will not be cowed or intimidated nor will we allow our commitment to the values of peace and tolerance to be diminished. In the face of every attack, however devastating, we must continue to cleave ever closer to these values because ultimately they are what will defeat the evil of terror.” • We can only respond to all these befuddled comments by saying that it is not Christians or Buddhists or even atheists who are bombing, knifing, running over and beheading people -- it is ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. None of these flower-child suggestions will work -- because islamic terrorists are waging war on us in order to take over the world and finish us off -- starting with Jews and Christians in the Middle East -- and including any Moslems who would dare to oppose them. • And, by the way, I am still waiting for the first spontaneous demonstration by a large group of peace-loving European Moslems. CNN staged a fake Moslem anti-ISIS "demonstration" on Becky Anderson's program on Monday, but fake news is, well, it's fake news. • Daren Jonescu, a blogger on American Thinker, got it right in criticizing the response of the mainstream media and many political leaders to the London attacks : "There has been a "potential act of terrorism" in London, in which potential terrorists potentially ran over potential infidels with a potential van, and apparently also stabbed potential victims and slashed some people's potential throats. In response to this potential act, the London police "shepherded" (the word repeated through the British news reports) hundreds of people through the streets with their hands over their heads. No, those being forced to surrender were not the potential terrorists, but the potential victims. For their own safety, you understand, the innocent citizens of one of history's greatest nations, fountainhead of Western liberty, having been disarmed by their government, and while being continuously surveilled in all their daily activities by government cameras on every street corner, are now being murdered at will, and in quantity, by bloodthirsty peace-loving potential Moslems who have been allowed to occupy their country and live off their welfare state without limits -- and the nanny state's response is to demand that all those who haven't yet been run over or slashed walk slowly where police can keep a close eye on them. The most telling part is one report, on Sky News, explaining the video footage of people walking with their hands over their heads. Asked by the reporter whether the police had demanded this, they say no, they simply thought that would be the "safest" posture. And so hundreds of innocent people, knowing that killers were in the area, and not knowing whence the next attack might occur, were voluntarily assuming a posture of surrender. That, in a nutshell, is the product of a generation of Progressive propaganda, nanny-statism, and political correctness. That's the mindset of a people who have been trained to believe that their souls -- not their physical survival, but their dignity -- have no ultimate value. Welcome to the brave new world." • There we have the Progressive/Globalist vs. Conservative/Populist chasm, differences that no peaceful discussion or sharing of ideas and looking for common ground seem to bridge. REALISTIC SOLUTION SUGGESTIONS ARE FEW. While London is said to be the most surveilled city on Earth, it has not yet halted islamic terrorist attacks. Yet, instead of asking themselves why there are fewer such attacks in American, British Progressives are appalled by America's constitutional right to bear arms, calling it 'backward.' They are unable to see that Britain's state-imposed paternalism has led to British citizens being terrorized by religious fanatics who realize that their prey have no means of self-defense. As for those anti-liberty surveillance cameras, their only real purpose seems to be to provide TV footage of mass murder for BBC news. • But, to give the British fighting spirit its due, government control be damned, witnesses reported seeing some Brits caught in the melee trying to stop the terrorists by throwing chairs, tables, bottles and glassware, and people at one bar were fighting back. What a difference a 'backward' pistol or two could have made. • Speaking to Fox News London, US Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said the latest attacks mark the fourth or fifth time he's had to call his British counterpart in just four months on the job because of "terrible events like this." DHS officials have said : "At this time, we have no information to indicate a specific, credible terror threat in the United States." • Frank Gaffney, a terror expert who is president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, told Fox News : “My view is that we are no longer facing random acts of terrorism. We have reached a tipping point. This is now an insurgency.” Gaffney, who has warned of the dangers of islamic extremism for years, thinks this latest spate of attacks is the natural evolution of years of recruitment among British Moslems by terror cells like ISIS, the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Qaida : “The Moslem terrorist population in Britain and Europe no longer feels constrained to live by stealth. They have built an infrastructure, they have put it in place, and now they are moving up to the next level.” Gaffney warns that the United States is on the same trajectory. For far too long, says Gaffney, Western societies, including in the United States, have tried to rationalize what has now become an avalanche of violent hatred of democratic freedom, basic human rights, and freedom to choose if and how to worship. We have asked if some of this is our fault, if we haven’t listened to the voices of religious extremism, or if we have failed to understand their message. One result is that the British government estimates there are 23,000 jihadists living in Britain. Gaffney is one of a group of terrorism experts who now downplays the ideological differences between shiite and sunni Moslem extremists. Yes, he says, ISIS is peopled by sunni killers and Hezbollah soldiers are shiite. The two Moslem sects dislike each other and have killed one another -- always in Allah’s name -- but Gaffney says : “Shi’as and Sunnis have had serious differences for centuries, but what we are seeing now is a global alliance, they are perfectly capable of making common cause to take down the West. And I think it will get worse before it gets better.” • • • ARE THERE ACTIONS AVAILABLE? Under the Constitution the federal government can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the public safety requires it during times of rebellion or invasion. • SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS. There is one action that both Britain and the US could use, the writ of habeas corpus, which in both British and US law is a judicially enforceable order issued by a court of law to a prison official ordering that a prisoner must be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that prisoner had been lawfully imprisoned and, if not, whether he or she should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The right of habeas corpus is the constitutional right of a person to present evidence before a court that he or she has been wrongly imprisoned. • President Lincoln issued a decree suspending habeaus corpus in Maryland, although he knew the constitutional question was whether Congress or the President holds the right of suspension. Lincoln acted in a time of war as Commander-in-Chief, but without congressional authority and adamantly refused to obey Supreme Court rulings against his unilateral use of suspension, which he said was necessary in Maryland to permit the free movement of Union troops in time of war. Later, in 1863, Congress passed a law giving the President the right to suspend habeas corpus and relieved Lincoln of all liability against any lawsuits because of his prior act. • On October 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed a law suspending habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant." • Both President Lincoln and President Bush based their action on the dangers of war, and both faced sharp criticism for what many believed was an attack on a constitutional right. Bush and Lincoln both acted to suspend habeas corpus under the powers granted to them as Commander-in-Chief of the US Military during a time of war. President Lincoln acted in the face of an armed rebellion within the United States, the Civil War. President Bush acted in response to the Global War on Terrorism, considered to have been started by the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon. While President Lincoln's action suspended the habeas corpus rights of US citizens, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, signed by President Bush, stipulates that the right of habeas corpus should be denied only to aliens "detained by the United States." Both suspensions of habeas corpus applied only to persons held in military prisons and tried before military courts. The habeas corpus rights of persons tried in civilian courts were not affected. • Today, non-citizen terrorists could be arrested and jailed indefinitely without trial if the British or US govenrment chose to do so. And, non-citizens who were seen to be abetting such terrorists could also be arrested and held indefinitely. • Alternatively, and more simply, such non-citizen persons could simply be arrested and deported. This is the French approach, under which any legal appeals from the deportation are filed after deportation occurs. • • • DEAR READERS, the United States still has time to prevent suspected terrorists from entering US territory, if the Supreme Court acts to allow the President to use his constitutional powers to control immigration into the US. On Monday, President Trump said that his administration is now using "extreme vetting" of immigrants, despite court holds on his proposed temporary travel ban. Unfortunately, Britain has probably by now admitted so many terrorists that stopping new arrivals would have much less affect. • Finally -- although mainland Europe seems politically and in practical terms -- thanks to Chancellor Merkel's decision to allow the wholesale influx of unvetted "refugees" into the EU -- unable to act to use extreme vetting to prevent terrorists from entering EU territories, with the possible exception of France that monitors and often arrests on their return to France suspected terrorists who leave the country for "training." But, the UK and the US should form a special alliance to act with massive military power against known terrorist enclaves, both domestically and anywhere in the world. This would mean civilian casualties, but the result would be the end of the drip-drip-drip of terrorist massacres of British and American citizens at home. It is clear that the police, the military and intelligence agencies know where these enclaves are -- consider the fact that British police in every recent terrorist attack have arrested the entire cell within hours of the attack occurring. • Former FBI assistant director James Kallstrom expressed frustration at the recurrence of terrorism in Europe, saying authorities are "frozen by political correctness." Kallstrom says it’s only a matter of time before Europe is torn apart by jihad, by China and Russia, and by other serious forces. • President Trump actually did what a majority of Americans would do if they had the chance -- he gave Angela Merkel a bill for all the billions or trillions Europe owes the US for defending them for almost 80 years, while every nation in the EU has cheated on its defense spending to buy more welfare votes from more immigrants, just like the Progressive Globalist Democrats are doing in America with American Blacks and illegal immigrants. • And, when Donald Trump told Europe at the G-7 meeting that he represents Pittsburgh, not Paris, he was speaking the literal truth. Paris and Berlin, that mythic couple that holds the EU together, are what one writer has called the Thieves’ Axis of Europe, with all their decisions made to benefit Berlin and Paris -- the “European Union” is a fraud, designed to pull all power and resources out of other EU capitals, concentrating all the power in Brussels, the unelected obedient servant of Paris and Berlin, and we can be sure that Berlin and Paris are not about to get rid of terrorists because that would mean getting rid of one of their voter bases -- it does sound familiar, doesn't it. • America has elected a truth-teller in President Trump, and he frightens EU leaders. If you don't think so, consider that French President Emmanuel Macron used Twitter and spoke English in a video (unheard of for French politicians, although they all speak English) to offer refuge to American Progressives upset at President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Macron was trying to belittle Trump : “I wish to tell the United States : France believes in you. The world believes in you. I know that you are a great nation. I know your history, our common history. To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the President of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland. I call them : Come and work here, with us, to work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment. I can assure you, France will not give up the fight.” One point President Macron forgot to mention is that the unemployment rate in France hovers around 12% and well-educated French are fleeing their country to find decent-paying, interesting jobs -- in London. One tongue-in-cheek American response came from newspaper columnist and talk radio guest host Mark Steyn on “The Rush Limbaugh Show” on Friday : “If you’re wondering how to get into France, you can either be a Syrian [jihadist] or an American climate scientist,” noting that France would likely require more paperwork from the American climate scientist than from the jihadist. • It was Trump's message for Britain that most Americans will prefer : “We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety! Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the UK, we will be there - WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!” • And, we will be there with you, Mr. President, wearing our Deplorables teeshirts, our Make America Great Again baseball caps, and with our Conservative love for Britain intact, our sleeves rolled up to do whatever is required for our British "cousins." That, after all, is the Golden Rule of "special relationships." • Historian and filmmaker G.M. Davis, author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against The World,” says of the London terrorist attack : “There will be much done in the security sector to try to ‘clamp down’ on ‘extremism’ and the like but nothing will be done in a larger sense to contain Islam. That would require a sea change in the mentality of the establishment, both in Britain and throughout the West, which a single attack, no matter how gruesome, is not going to change. The British establishment has been pursuing an essentially defeatist strategy toward Islam for many years; it is somewhat harder to know how representative of the larger population this attitude is. Certainly, politicians, pundits, academics, bureaucrats, officials, etc., almost universally act as though being labelled an Islamophobe is a greater danger than Islamic terrorism itself, such is the grip of political correctness on this issue.” • In the long run, whether individual terrorist attacks are prevented or not, Davis argues the United Kingdom faces an existential choice as to whether it will resist becoming an Islamic nation or not : “The future looks bleak for Great Britain and the rest of Western Europe. While the Moslem population of Britain remains relatively small (5-7%), the Islamization of Britain continues apace. Whereas the native religion and culture of Britain are weak and self-abasing, Islam is growing and defiant of the secular world around it. There are now more than three times the number of mosques in Britain as 15 years ago; London has a Moslem mayor; the most popular name for newborn boys in Britain is now Muhammed." For Davis, the future of Europe is -- yes, civil war : “Regardless of the relative intensity or quiescence of Islamic terrorism, there continues to tick beneath the walls of Europe a huge demographic mine that will one day explode, most likely in the form of civil war. At some point in the game, probably many years hence, ineffective European governments will lose control of their domestic situations : orthodox Moslems will be calling for more autonomy and elements of Sharia law, while fed-up elements of the domestic population will be forced to take matters into their own hands for their self-protection. At that point, we will begin to see quasi-militia groups forming on both sides, while official governments will be increasingly relegated to the sidelines. Modern democracy as we know it will cease to function and civil war will have begun.” • We can only hope that the Populist parties now growing in Europe, and the fundamental character of the British who never give up, will prevail. But, for that to happen, we will probably have to endure, and as Americans intervene to save, a Europe that is too weak to stand up for itself. • Tomorrow, the Second Civil War in America.