NATO YEAR END TOP VIDEOS

8182

    

December 19, 2014                                                     8090

Five Weapons Russia Could Use in an Arctic War 

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/5-weapons-russia-could-use-in-an-arctic-war       

By Robert Farley, National Interest

       

Russian Mig-31, March 31, 2012 (photo: Dmitriy Pichugin)

• Full Text: National Interest

It's not surprising that Russia has prepared its military for arctic operations better than any other country. . . .

Icebreakers: The single most important vessel for access to the arctic is the icebreaker, and Russia retains the most extensive fleet of icebreakers anywhere in the world. Warming does not eliminate arctic ice, but instead makes the movement of ice more fluid and less predictable.

As access to the Arctic improves, and as the commercial interest in exploiting the region increases, the movement of ice and increased frequency of military and civilian use will make icebreakers more necessary than ever. . . .Icebreakers guarantee Russian military access to the Arctic with a certainty that no other country enjoys.

This gives Russia great freedom in planning its military and resource access strategy in the polar region. . . .

Akula:  The premier Russian nuclear attack vessel remains the Akula, a monster of a boat that can carry a vast arsenal of weapons. Although built in the 1980s, the Akula can operate effectively in anti-submarine roles (either under the ice or under open seas), and in anti-shipping roles (where a reduction in surface ice can make cruise missiles somewhat more effective).

The Akula isn't quite as quiet as its Western counterparts, but it makes up for that deficiency in size and weapons load. The Russian Northern Fleet, normally tasked with arctic ops, currently maintains six Akulas, which regularly operate under the icepack. . . .

MiG-31:  Operating from bases along the rim of the Arctic, the MiG-31 Foxhound—a fast, long-legged interceptor developed from the MiG-25 Foxbat, can cover a lot of space.The MiG-31 and its predecessor were designed to hunt and kill American bombers as they attempted to penetrate Soviet air defenses. . . .Russia operates around 200 MiG-31s between the Navy and the Air Force, and has taken steps to revive and improve the infrastructure to support its arctic airbases.

Tu-95/Tu-142:  The Tu-95 (and its maritime variant, the Tu-142) are particularly at home in the cold, bleak skies of the arctic, where land bases are distant and carrier operations often impractical. In its classic Tu-95 variant, the Bear can carry anti-ship and anti-surface cruise missiles. Its maritime patrol variant, the Tu-142, can conduct anti-submarine operations.

With a combat radius upwards of 3000 miles, the Bear can operate well beyond the reach of land- and carrier-based fighters, which is fortunate, because the Bear can no longer run from enemy interceptors.

Special Forces:  Russian special forces have long prepared for warfare in the arctic. During the Cold War, Spetsnaz teams trained to attack NATO installations in Norway, the Faroes, Iceland and elsewhere. In recent years, Russia has stepped up training of special-forces formations intended for deployment in the Arctic. Submarines, aircraft and surface ships can deliver these teams, which can take and hold inaccessible areas, conduct reconnaissance and disrupt communications.

Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce.

European Parliament votes to recognize Palestine statehood 'in principle'

Published time: December 17, 2014 12:07
Edited time: December 18, 2014 14:07

                       

 

Members of the European Parliament take part in a voting session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, December 17, 2014 (Reuters / Vincent Kessler)

 

The European Parliament has adopted a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood in principle. A total of 498 MEPs voted in favor, while 88 were against.

A parliamentary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday could not decide on the matter, opting for further negotiations, but on Wednesday the European Parliament eventually adopted a resolution that “in principle” grants the troubled region statehood.

"[The European Parliament] supports in principle recognition of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution, and believes these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should be advanced," the motion said. The vote also saw 111 abstentions.

The European Parliament reiterated its support for the two-state solution "on the basis of the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, with the secure State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security on the basis of the right of self-determination and full respect of international law."
MEPs emphasized the EU's strongest opposition to any acts of terrorism connected with Palestinians' campaign for statehood, however.

Several of the EU's 28 member countries were already in favor of full recognition. Sweden in October became the only EU member so far to officially recognize Palestine as an independent state.

The European Parliament vote comes as the Palestinians are soon to make their case at the UN Security Council in New York, where they will ask for a complete Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem and the West Bank to the 1967 borders in two years' time.
These discussions follow a tense summer period when Israel carried out its controversial Protective Edge operation against the Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and elicited international condemnation for the number of civilians killed and damage that would take decades to undo.

READ MORE: Palestine resolution: US ‘unresolved’ ahead of Security Council meeting

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is adamantly against any resolution under which Palestine gains back the occupied East Jerusalem and West Bank, believing it would lead to “terrorists” running wild and causing regional problems.

"Attempts of the Palestinians and of several European countries to force conditions on Israel will only lead to a deterioration in the regional situation and will endanger Israel," Netanyahu said Monday.

Although the US, which has been trying to broker a two-state solution, has been a close ally of Israel for years, it is now also taking on a more stern tone with the Israeli leadership.

"This isn't the time to detail private conversations or speculate on a UN Security Council resolution that hasn't even been tabled, no matter what pronouncements are made publicly about it,” US Secretary of State John Kerry told journalists Tuesday.

It remains to be seen what Washington’s actions will be at the Security Council, when Palestine makes its case for a full Israeli withdrawal.

Palestine resolution: US ‘unresolved’ ahead of Security Council meeting

Published time: December 17, 2014 11:12
Edited time: December 17, 2014 14:20

      

http://rt.com/news/215139-palestine-un-security-resolution/

8035

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat (R) and US Secretary of State John Kerry (AFP Photo / Brendan Smialowsky)

                                                                                                                       

The Palestinian Authority is filing a UN resolution demanding a full Israeli pull-out from the occupied territories within two years. Meanwhile, the US is unsure what it wants to see from the resolution.

Officials in Ramallah warned they would press ahead with Wednesday’s Security Council bid in spite of American opposition, just as US Secretary of State John Kerry was still trying to find common ground between the Palestinians and Israelis this week.
"We will submit our project to the UN Security Council tomorrow [Wednesday]," Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told journalists late on Tuesday.

The motion, among other things, will push for Israeli withdrawal beyond the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem becoming its capital, and advance the process of a two-state solution. It will be submitted by Jordan, as Palestine is still an observer at the Security Council. Only the 15 members can file motions.

But Washington is still likely to veto the Wednesday resolution in New York, despite the risk of greater alienation from a Europe that is increasingly vocal on the issue of Israeli aggression against Palestine. The US has supported Israel with its veto power dozens of times throughout the last seven decades.

Chief Arab League negotiator for Palestine Saeb Erekat told RT in Ramallah that “if the bill is approved we are going to move in the direction of Palestine’s accession, to other UN agencies, conventions and protocols, including the International Criminal Court.”

Members of the European Parliament take part in a voting session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, December 16, 2014 (Reuters / Vincent Kessler)

The American role in all this continues to be unclear at this point, as the secretary of state still wouldn’t admit if there was a version of the document that Washington could get behind, telling journalists in London that there were “no determinations about language, approaches, specific resolutions, any of that.”
"This isn't the time to detail private conversations or speculate on a UN Security Council resolution that hasn't even been tabled, no matter what pronouncements are made publicly about it,” he added.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continued to be adamantly against the motion throughout the week, warning that “terrorists” would run wild if Palestine were free.

"Attempts of the Palestinians and of several European countries to force conditions on Israel will only lead to a deterioration in the regional situation and will endanger Israel," he warned in a statement.

Kerry, despite admitting that a two-state solution is important, warned that nothing can be allowed to derail March’s snap elections in Israel.

He said they were mindful they had to "carefully calibrate" any steps that were taken and it was "imperative to lower the temperature" in the region to find a path for peace wanted by both Israelis and Palestinians.

"The status quo is unsustainable for both parties," he said. "Right now what we are trying to do is have a constructive conversation with everybody to find the best way to go forward."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (AFP Photo / Oliver Weiken)

EU pursues pro-Palestine path

A parliamentary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday could not decide on the matter, opting for further negotiations, but on Wednesday the European Parliament eventually adopted a resolution that “in principle” grants the troubled region statehood.

The European Parliament adopted the resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood in principle. A total of 498 MEPs voted in favor, while 88 were against.

[The European Parliament] supports in principle recognition of Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution, and believes these should go hand in hand with the development of peace talks, which should be advanced," the motion said. The vote also saw 111 abstentions.



The European Parliament reiterated its support for the two-state solution "on the basis of the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, with the secure State of Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security on the basis of the right of self-determination and full respect of international law."

MEPs emphasized the EU's strongest opposition to any acts of terrorism connected with Palestinians' campaign for statehood, however.

Several of the EU's 28 member countries were already in favor of full recognition. Sweden in October became the only EU member so far to officially recognize Palestine as an independent state.

The Allah of the Koran is not the same as the God of the Bible.

8010
"An 11-year old Arab Christian girl was listening to an Islamic scholar preach about Allah. When he was done, the little girl approached him and said this – “show me where in the Koran that Allah loves me as the sinner that I am, and I will become a Muslim.” The dumbstruck man was silent for a long time, and then walked away. He had no answer to give her. Why?

Because the Allah of the Koran does not love the sinner, or the unrighteous, or the lost, or the struggling, or the backslider. Allah of the Koran displays only a highly-qualified, conditional type of “love”, and it is for Muslims only. The Koran clearly teaches that Allah hates non-Muslims

Qur’an 3:31-32—Say [O Muhammad]: 

If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

Qur’an 30:43-45—Then turn thy face straight to the right religion before there come from Allah the day which cannot be averted; on that day they shall become separated. Whoever disbelieves, he shall be responsible for his disbelief, and whoever does good, they prepare (good) for their own souls, that He may reward those who believe and do good out of His grace; surely He does not love the unbelievers.

This is a startling contrast to the words of Scripture that shows that God offers His love to any and all who will receive it, as a free gift paid in full with no strings attached:

“The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.” Zephaniah 3:17
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

The bible teaches that God is not interested in “making you a Christian”, He desires to save you from the penalty of your sins which is an eternity in Hell. God’s salvation is a free gift that only needs to be received to become active.

 It is the Great Transaction – your sins in exchange for His righteousness and a full and free eternal pardon.
The Allah of the Koran is not the same as the God of the Bible. Allah wants to make you a Muslim, God wants to set you free."

Read the details here: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=28858

WHY?Outreach

"An 11-year old Arab Christian girl was listening to an Islamic scholar preach about Allah. When he was done, the little girl approached him and said this – “show me where in the Koran that Allah loves me as the sinner that I am, and I will become a Muslim.” The dumbstruck man was silent for a long time, and then walked away. He had no answer to give her. Why?

Because the Allah of the Koran does not love the sinner, or the unrighteous, or the lost, or the struggling, or the backslider. Allah of the Koran displays only a highly-qualified, conditional type of “love”, and it is for Muslims only. The Koran clearly teaches that Allah hates non-Muslims
Qur’an 3:31-32—Say [O Muhammad]: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

Qur’an 30:43-45—Then turn thy face straight to the right religion before there come from Allah the day which cannot be averted; on that day they shall become separated. Whoever disbelieves, he shall be responsible for his disbelief, and whoever does good, they prepare (good) for their own souls, that He may reward those who believe and do good out of His grace; surely He does not love the unbelievers.

This is a startling contrast to the words of Scripture that shows that God offers His love to any and all who will receive it, as a free gift paid in full with no strings attached:

“The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.” Zephaniah 3:17
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

The bible teaches that God is not interested in “making you a Christian”, He desires to save you from the penalty of your sins which is an eternity in Hell. God’s salvation is a free gift that only needs to be received to become active. It is the Great Transaction – your sins in exchange for His righteousness and a full and free eternal pardon.

The Allah of the Koran is not the same as the God of the Bible. Allah wants to make you a Muslim, God wants to set you free."

Mayday.us: A Citizen-Funded Super PAC to End All SuperPACs

Amb. Prosor addresses UNGA debate on the Question of Palestine

Published on Nov 25, 2014

"Today’s debate is not about speaking for peace or speaking for the Palestinian people – it is about speaking against Israel."

Ambassador Prosor's remarks at the UN General Assembly as part of the international day of solidarity with the Palestinian People debate.


This debate commemorates the UN's Partition Plan for Palestine, and results in numerous anti-Israel resolutions.

7830

HABEMUS PAPAM Daily: The Pope to Ecumenical Patriarch: “We're brothers ...

HABEMUS PAPAM Daily: The Pope to Ecumenical Patriarch: “We're brothers ...

Sommet du G20 aux accents de guerre froide

Mise à jour le vendredi 14 novembre 2014 à 12 h 01 HNE

Radio-Canada avec Associated Press

    7707

Le premier ministre australien, Tony Abbott, lors d'une réunion à la veille du sommet du G20.  Photo :  Jason Reed / Reuters

L'Australie et la Grande-Bretagne dénoncent le déploiement de quatre navires de guerre russes au large de l'Australie, où le président Vladimir Poutine est arrivé pour participer au sommet du G20 de Brisbane.

   

La Marine australienne a déployé au moins trois frégates au large de l'Australie à la rencontre du plus puissant navire de la flotte russe dans le Pacifique, le Varyag, qui croise en mer de Corail avec trois navires d'escorte.
   
Le premier ministre australien, Tony Abbott, et son homologue britannique, David Cameron, ont accusé le président russe de se servir de cette démonstration de force pour ressusciter la « gloire perdue » de l'Union soviétique au moment où son économie pique du nez.
   

« La Russie serait beaucoup plus attrayante si elle aspirait à être une superpuissance pour la paix, la liberté et la prospérité, au lieu d'essayer de recréer la gloire perdue du tsarisme ou de l'Union soviétique. » — Tony Abbott, premier ministre de l'Australie

Le croiseur lance-missiles russe Varyag ancré à Vladivostok.  Photo :  US Navy

       
Un simple exercice naval, selon Moscou 

L'ambassade russe en Australie a expliqué vendredi que ce déploiement d'éléments de la flotte russe dans le Pacifique fait partie d'exercices prévus, dont le but est de mesurer la portée opérationnelle de ses bâtiments. L'ambassade a ajouté que ces forces pourraient aussi être appelées à protéger le président Poutine, en cas de besoin.
   
Quant au président Poutine, il a fait son arrivée à Brisbane en soirée, affichant un air détendu à sa descente d'avion.
En mer de Corail, les bâtiments russes et australiens auraient établi un contact radio et se seraient entendus pour procéder à divers exercices, selon le gouvernement australien.
   
David Cameron a pour sa part renchéri en déclarant que l'Occident pourrait imposer de nouvelles sanctions à la Russie si elle continuait à attiser la rébellion dans l'est de l'Ukraine.
   
La chancelière allemande Angela Merkel a tenté de calmer le jeu en minimisant l'importance de la présence des navires russes. Elle a dit s'inquiéter bien davantage des multiples atteintes à l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine.
   
L'écrasement du vol MH17 au coeur des tensions
   
Les relations diplomatiques sont très tendues entre Canberra et Moscou depuis qu'un avion de la Malaysia Airlines a été abattu dans un secteur de l'est de l'Ukraine contrôlée par des insurgés prorusses en juillet. Sur les 298 passagers tués dans l'écrasement, 38 étaient australiens. L'appareil a été abattu par un tir de missile russe, selon Kiev et plusieurs pays occidentaux.
   
M. Abbott a dénoncé l'accroissement des activités militaires tous azimuts de la Russie. « Qu'il s'agisse d'agresser l'Ukraine, qu'il s'agisse de l'intensification des vols d'avions militaires dans l'espace aérien du Japon, des pays européens, qu'il s'agisse de la force navale qui est maintenant dans le Pacifique Sud, la Russie est beaucoup plus sûre d'elle maintenant qu'elle ne l'a été depuis longtemps », a déclaré Tony Abbott.

 

Ultimatum russe à la France
   
Les relations ne sont pas non plus au beau fixe entre la Russie et la France, à qui Moscou a lancé un ultimatum mettant Paris en garde si les navires de guerre Mistral qu'elle lui a achetés ne lui sont pas livrés à la date prévue.
   
Citant une source « haut placée », l'agence Ria Novosti a affirmé que Paris avait jusqu'à la fin novembre pour livrer un premier navire, à défaut de quoi la France s'exposera à de « sérieuses demandes de compensation ».

Un des porte-hélicoptères de classe Mistral que doit livrer la France à la Russie sur le chantier de Saint-Nazaire.  Photo :  Stephane Mahe / Reuters

       
Une rencontre est d'ailleurs prévue entre les présidents français, François Hollande, et russe, Vladimir Poutine, au cours de ce sommet.
   
Moscou, qui a acheté deux navires de guerre Mistral, s'impatiente depuis la décision de Paris, en septembre, de ne livrer ces bateaux qu'une fois que la crise ukrainienne sera réglée.
   

Le sommet du G20 réunit les représentants des 20 pays les plus industrialisés qui représentent environ 85 % de la richesse mondiale.

   

Stephen Harper à Brisbane

Le premier ministre du Canada, Stephen Harper, en compagnie de son homologue néo-zélandais, John Key.  Photo :  PC/Adrian Wyld

       
Le premier ministre du Canada, Stephen Harper, est arrivé à Birsbane tard en soirée en provenance de la Nouvelle-Zélande pour prendre part au sommet qui portera, entre autres, sur la crise en Syrie et en Irak.
   
À ce chapitre, Stephen Harper a déclaré aux journalistes, lors d'une conférence de presse en Nouvelle-Zélande, que le Canada n'offrirait pas son appui à une guerre contre le gouvernement syrien ou toute autre nation du Moyen-Orient, mais bien seulement contre le groupe armé État islamique (EI).
   
Questionné sur les succès ou échecs des six chasseurs CF-18 qu'il a dépêchés au Moyen-Orient pour effectuer des frappes contre l'EI, le premier ministre Harper a expliqué que le succès ne pouvait se mesurer par le nombre de bombes larguées, mais surtout par le fait que ces frappes maintiennent les djihadistes en mode défensif plutôt qu'offensif.
   
Également questionné sur les efforts déployés par le Canada pour lutter contre les changements climatiques, Stephen Harper s'est contenté de saluer l'entente prise par la Chine et les États-Unis de réduire de 26 % à 28 %, sous le niveau de 2005, leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Une entente qui ne devrait pas avoir d'impact, selon lui,  sur le projet d'oléoduc Keystone XL entre le Canada et les États-Unis.
   

À lire aussi :Le G20 divisé sur les mesures de relance à court terme 

• Harper accueilli en ami à AucklandÉcrasement du vol MH17 en Ukraine
• Ukraine : un pays déchiré entre l'Est et l'Ouest
• 4 questions pour comprendre la crise en Ukraine
• Poutine minimise l'impact de nouvelles sanctions occidentales
• Visite à bord du BPC Mistral, un géant des mers

7616 7974 dec15

Why the real battle for America is over culture, not elections

By Mark Steyn

October 19, 2014 | 12:00am

Though his new collection of essays, “The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned” (Regnery), recounts many of the biggest political events of recent history, bestselling author Steyn says that’s not the real battleground. While everyone is focused on the 2014 midterms, the question about where our country is headed is being decided in our entertainment and our schools. Here, in an excerpt from the book, he explains how culture is king.

Over the past few decades, I’ve seen enough next-presidents-of-the-United-States for several lifetimes: Phil Gramm, Pete Wilson, Bob Dornan, Bob Dole, Elizabeth Dole, Orrin Hatch, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Alan Keyes. . . .

“The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned” by Mark Steyn (Regnery)

Would it have made any difference to the country had any of these fine upstanding fellows prevailed? Or would we be pretty much where we are anyway? Aside from a trade agreement here, a federal regulation there, I’d plump for the latter.

You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican Party is in.

After the last election, I said that the billion dollars spent by the Romney campaign on robocalls and TV ads and all the rest had been entirely wasted, and the Electoral College breakdown would have been pretty much what it was if they’d just tossed the dough into the Potomac and let it float out to sea. 

But imagine the use all that money and time could have been put to out there in the wider world.
Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November — and then are surprised that it doesn’t make much difference.

Culture trumps politics — which is why, once the question’s been settled culturally, conservatives are reduced to playing catch-up, twisting themselves into pretzels to explain why gay marriage is really conservative after all, or why 30 million unskilled immigrants with a majority of births out of wedlock are “natural allies” of the Republican Party.

Steyn argues that, like politics, the Supreme Court is also playing catch-up to culture.Photo: Getty Images

We’re told that the presidency is important because the head guy gets to appoint, if he’s lucky, a couple of Supreme Court judges. But they’re playing catch-up to the culture, too.

In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the chief justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.” A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage.

What happened in between? Jurisprudentially, nothing: Everything Chief Justice Warren Burger said back in the ’80s — about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature,” “the legislative authority of the State” — still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture — from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts — moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat.

Because to say today what the chief justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office — not merely as Chief Justice but as CEO of a private company, or host of a cable home-remodeling show, or dog-catcher in Dead Moose Junction.

What politician of left or right championed gay marriage? Bill Clinton? No, he signed the now notoriously “homophobic” Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama? Gay-wise, he took longer to come out than Ricky Martin. The only major politician to elbow his way to the front of the gay bandwagon was Britain’s David Cameron, who used same-sex marriage as a Sister-Souljah-on-steroids moment to signal to London’s chattering classes that, notwithstanding his membership of the unfortunately named “Conservative Party,” on everything that mattered he was one of them.

If the culture’s liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal…electing a guy with an ‘R’ after his name isn’t going to make a lot of difference.

But, in Britain as in America, the political class was simply playing catch-up to the culture. Even in the squishiest Continental “social democracy,” once every four or five years you can persuade the electorate to go out and vote for a conservative party. 

But if you want them to vote for conservative government you have to do the hard work of shifting the culture every day, seven days a week, in the four-and-a-half years between elections.

If the culture’s liberal, if the schools are liberal, if the churches are liberal, if the hip, groovy business elite is liberal, if the guys who make the movies and the pop songs are liberal, then electing a guy with an “R” after his name isn’t going to make a lot of difference.

Nor should it. In free societies, politics is the art of the possible. In the 729 days between elections, the left is very good at making its causes so possible that in American politics almost anything of consequence is now impossible, from enforcing immigration law to controlling spending.

What will we be playing catch-up to in another 28 years? Not so long ago, I might have suggested transsexual rights. But, barely pausing to celebrate their victory on gay marriage, the identity-group enforcers have gone full steam ahead on transgender issues. Once upon a time there were but two sexes. 

Now Facebook offers its 1.2 billion patrons the opportunity to select their preference from dozens of “genders”: “male” and “female” are still on the drop-down menu, just about, but lost amid fifty shades of gay — “androgynous,” “bi-gender,” “intersex,” “cisfemale,” “trans*man,” “gender fluid” . . .
Oh, you can laugh. But none of the people who matter in American culture are laughing. They take it all perfectly seriously.

Supreme Intergalactic Arbiter Anthony Kennedy wields more power over Americans than George III did, but in a year or three he’ll be playing catch-up and striking down laws because of their “improper animus” and wish to “demean” and “humiliate” persons of gender fluidity.
Having done an impressive job of demolishing the basic societal building block of the family, the ambitious liberal is now moving on to demolishing the basic biological building block of the sexes.

Indeed, taken in tandem with the ever greater dominance of women at America’s least worst colleges and, at the other end of the social scale, the bleak, dispiriting permanence of the “he-cession,” in 28 years’ time we may be fairly well advanced toward the de facto abolition of man, at least in the manly sense.

That seems to me at least as interesting a question as whether the Republicans can take the Senate with a pick-up in this or that swing state.

Steyn believes that “the nationalization of the family” can turn a free western society into a “futuristic dystopia where technology has advanced but liberty has retreated.”Photo: Getty stock Images

Culture is the long view; politics is the here and now.
Yet in America vast cultural changes occur in nothing flat, while, under our sclerotic political institutions, men elected to two-year terms of office announce ambitious plans to balance the budget a decade after their terms end. Here, again, liberals show a greater understanding of where the action is.

So, if the most hawkish of GOP deficit hawks has no plans to trim spending until well in the 2020s, why not look at what kind of country you’ll be budgeting for by then? What will American obesity and heart-disease and childhood-diabetes rates be by then? What about rural heroin and meth addiction? 

How much of the country will, with or without “comprehensive immigration reform,” be socioeconomically Latin-American? And what is the likelihood of such a nation voting for small-government conservatism?

There’s a useful umbrella for most of the above: The most consequential act of state ownership in the 20th century western world was not the nationalization of airlines or the nationalization of railways or the nationalization of health care, but the nationalization of the family.

I owe that phrase to Professor R Vaidyanathan at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore. He’s a bit of a chippy post-imperialist, and he’s nobody’s idea of a right-winger, but he’s absolutely right about this.

‘The West has nationalized families over the last 60 years….Old age, ill health, single motherhood — everything is the responsibility of the state.’
 - Professor R Vaidyanathan

It’s the defining fact about the decline of the West: Once upon a time, in Canada, Britain, Europe and beyond, ambitious leftists nationalized industries — steel, coal, planes, cars, banks — but it was such a self-evident disaster that it’s been more or less abandoned, at least by those who wish to remain electorally viable.

On the other hand, the nationalization of the family proceeds apace, and America is as well advanced on that path as anywhere else. “The West has nationalized families over the last 60 years,” writes Vaidyanathan. “Old age, ill health, single motherhood — everything is the responsibility of the state.”

When I was a kid and watched sci-fi movies set in a futuristic dystopia where individuals are mere chattels of an unseen all-powerful government and enduring human relationships are banned and the progeny of transient sexual encounters are the property of the state, I always found the caper less interesting than the unseen backstory: How did they get there from here? From free western societies to a bunch of glassy-eyed drones wandering around in identikit variety-show catsuits in a land where technology has advanced but liberty has retreated: How’d that happen?

I’d say “the nationalization of the family” is how it happens. That’s how you get there from here.

Mark Steyn on . . . .

More insights from his new collection, “The Undocumented Mark Steyn.”

. . . ISIS
 
The roots of ISIS do not lie in the actions America took in 2003. Bush made mistakes in Iraq and left a ramshackle state that functioned less badly than any of its neighbors. Obama walked away, pulled out a cigarette, tossed a match over his shoulder and ignited a fuse that, from Damascus to Baghdad to Amman and beyond, will blow up the entire Middle East.

. . . [Obama’s] contempt for American power — a basic class signifier in the circle in which he’s moved all his life — is so deeply ingrained that he doesn’t care what replaces it.
. . . Multiculturalism 
 
Just in case you’re having difficulty keeping up with all these Composite-Americans, George Zimmerman, the son of a Peruvian mestiza, is the embodiment of epidemic white racism and the reincarnation of Bull Connor, but Elizabeth Warren, the great-great-great-granddaughter of someone who might possibly have been listed as a Cherokee on an application for a marriage license, is a heartwarming testimony to how minorities are shattering the glass ceiling in Harvard Yard. Under the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Laws, Mrs. Warren would have been classified as Aryan and Mr. Zimmerman as non-Aryan. Now it’s the other way round. Progress!

. . . Big government 
 
Whenever I write about the corrosive effects of Big Government upon the citizenry in Britain, Canada, Europe and elsewhere, and note that this republic is fairly well advanced upon the same grim trajectory, I get a fair few letters on the lines of: “You still don’t get it, Steyn. Americans aren’t Euro-pansies. Or Canadians. We’re not gonna take it.”

I would like to believe it. It’s certainly the case that Americans have more attitude than anybody else — or, at any rate, attitudinal slogans. I saw a fellow in a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt the other day.

 He was at La Guardia, being trod all over by the overgropinfuhrers of the TSA, who had decided to subject him to one of their enhanced pat-downs. There are few sights more dismal than that of a law-abiding citizen having his genitalia pawed by state commissars, but having them pawed while wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt is certainly one of them.

. . . Islam 
 
I made the mistake of going to Europe to visit the famous banlieues of Paris and other continental Muslim neighborhoods. And at that point I started to get the queasy feeling the bewildered investigator does when he’s standing in the strange indentation at the edge of town and, just as he works out it’s a giant left-foot print, he glances up to see Godzilla’s right foot totalling his Honda Civic.

 I began to see that it’s not really about angry young men in caves in the Hindu Kush; it’s not even about angry young men in the fast growing Muslim populations of the West — although that’s certainly part of the seven-eighths of the iceberg bobbing just below the surface of 9/11.

 But the bulk of that iceberg is the profound and perhaps fatal weakness of the civilization that built the modern world. We’re witnessing the early stages of what the United Nations Population Division calls a “global upheaval” that’s “without parallel in human history.” 

Demographically and psychologically, Europeans have chosen to commit societal suicide, and their principal heir and beneficiary will be Islam.

. . . The tech economy 
 
So what does every initiative of the Obama era have in common? ObamaCare, Obamaphones, Social Security disability expansion, 50 million people on food stamps. . . . The assumption is that mass, multi-generational dependency is now a permanent feature of life.

 A coastal elite will devise ever smarter and sleaker trinkets, and pretty much everyone else will be a member of either the dependency class or the vast bureaucracy that ministers to them.

 And, if you’re wondering why every Big Government program assumes you’re a feeble child, that’s because a citizenry without “work and purpose” is ultimately incompatible with liberty. 

The elites think a smart society will be wealthy enough to relieve the masses from the need to work. In reality, it would be neo-feudal, but with fatter, sicker peasants. It wouldn’t just be “economic inequality,” but a far more profound kind, and seething with resentments.

French-Built Mistral Ships For Russia Could End Up In Canadian Hands
7565

French-Built Mistral Ships For Russia Could End Up In Canadian Hands

By Christopher Harress @Charressc.harress@ibtimes.com on November 05 2014 1:12 PM

The Mistral-class helicopter carrier Vladivostok is seen at the STX Les Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard site in Saint-Nazaire, France, Sept. 4, 2014. Reuters/Stephane Mahe 

 

The Canadian military has emerged as a potential destination for the controversial French-built Mistral helicopter carrier ships, built for Russia and now at the center of an international row after France indicated it would not hand them over, in response to international indignation over Russian actions in Ukraine.

The possibility of a Canadian solution appeared in French media after French President François Hollande began a state visit to Canada this week. 

While Hollande has yet to make a decision on whether Russia has met the criteria to receive the ships, the presence in the French delegation to Canada of the diplomatic advisor to the chairman of DCNS, the company that manufactures the ships, offers the first indication that France could actively be seeking an alternative buyer.

While the $1.6 billion deal was signed in 2010, European relations with Russia deteriorated significantly in 2014 after the former Soviet country annexed Crimea and assisted pro-Russian separatist in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.  

Sanctions imposed against Russia did not prohibit the final delivery of the two Mistral ships, but the French president decided that the deal should go ahead only if Russia meets two criteria: one, genuinely observing the ceasefire between the Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels that was signed in September; and, two, agreeing to formally resolve the conflict in Ukraine.

The idea of Canada buying the ships is not a new one. In May 2014, Canadian Senator Hugh Segal publicly suggested that France should sell to Canada instead of Russia. “Canada or NATO should buy these ships from France, leaving the Russians to await a further slot on the list, which good behavior would assure,” Segal said. “Being silent as French technology is afforded to an adventurist Russian military stance makes no sense at all.”
It’s unclear whether Hollande has decided if Russia has met the criteria. However, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin said at the end of October that Russia has not managed to meet the criteria and the ships should not be delivered. In the wake of those comments, the CEO of DCNS fired Yves Destefanis, the project manager responsible for the delivery of the ships to Russia, saying that he had “caused damaging consequences” to the company.

The Canadian link, first reported by French newspaper Le Monde on Monday, comes at a time when the Canadian military is aggressively modernizing its navy and coast guard. According to French and Canadian sources cited in Le Monde, the Canadian Armed Forces “are now determined to diversify their partners in defense matters,” moving away from their traditional U.S. suppliers.
Canada may seek to take the two ships for less than Russia paid for them, meaning a deal could be delayed for negotiations. But a deal is further complicated by two issues: The decision not to deliver the ships is a political one that DCNS has no say in. According to the company, the deal will go ahead with Russia; the state-owned Russian defense company Rosoboronexport has already been invited to the handover ceremony of the first ship, the Sevastapol, set for Nov 14. Second, should the ships be handed over to a different military, DCNS may be sued for breach of contract, which could force them to return the cash Russia paid upfront and face a possible fine. 

Islamism and Islamists: A very short introduction

1533
Islamism today has many faces: militant groups in Iraq and Lebanon, political parties in Tunisia and Egypt, and regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia. But this umbrella term conceals the fact that these groups use different tactics, tap into different grievances and have different political goals. Lumping them together is a gross oversimplification – it is time for an overview.
Although often associated with terrorist groups, the term Islamism simply denotes a political project inspired by Islam. Current streams of political Islam all belong to a wave of Islamist revivalism, the likes of which was last seen on several occasions between the 11th and 14th centuries. Their goal is the re-Islamisation of their respective societies, and ultimately a state based on the principles of Islam. The three major currents belonging to this wave, however, differ starkly on religious doctrine, on what kind of state to establish, and how to fulfil their objectives. In contrast to adherents of ­authoritarian Islamism, who believe they have already accomplished the goal of creating an Islamic state, advocates of both revolutionary and electoral Islamism are ‘changists’, seeking to replace incumbent regimes. The latter two disagree, however, on the means to bring about the desired change, as well as on the form of the Islamic state to be achieved.

 

Islamism and Islamists:

A very short introduction
by Florence Gaub
 

European Union Institute for Security Studies October 2014 2

Although several attempts have been made to restore

the title since the abolishment, the Muslim

consensus necessary to pick the next caliph has

never materialised. Self-proclamations, such as

that recently of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr

al-Baghdadi, have no validity in accordance with

Sunni tradition. This absence of a unifying figure

offers some explanation as to why Sunni Islamic

authority is particularly fragmented today.

Around the same time as the fall of the Ottoman

empire, school teacher Hassan al-

Banna founded

the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The society

had three objectives, which have since remained

largely the same: social renewal based on Islamic

values, the long-term implementation of traditional

Islamic law, and ending foreign occupation

of Muslim lands (at that time by the United

Kingdom). Al-Banna’s vision was a progressive

and gradual one: he advocated re-Islamisation

through means of charity and information, and

can be seen as the founding father of what is now

the Sunni branch of electoral Islamism.

The foundations of Sunni revolutionary Islamism

were laid down twenty years later by Sayyid

Qutb, also an Egyptian civil servant. Qutb rejected

al-Banna’s incremental approach and believed

that only the violent overthrow of existing

regimes (all of which he considered ‘un-Islamic’)

would lead to the establishment of a fully Islamic

state – a position which led to his execution in

1966. Al-Banna and Qutb, albeit both Muslim

Brothers, symbolise the two factions which have

dominated the re-Islamisation movement since

the 1950s: the progressive/electoral versus the

revolutionary/terrorist approach.

Created shortly after the birth of the Muslim

Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia was the first Arab

state to base its existence on Islam. A safe haven

for Islamists persecuted elsewhere in the Arab

world, the country only gained traction as the

region’s ideological powerhouse after the sudden

and exponential production of oil allowed it to

spread its own ‘brand’ of Sunni Islam – Salafism

or Wahabism – from the late 1960s onwards.

Ideological nuances

  

What is potentially confusing is that every form

of current political Islam claims to be somewhat

influenced by Salafism – but there is disagreement

over what this means in practice amongst

the various contenders. In the decades following

independence, institutional Islamic clergy were

repressed in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia

and Morocco. Salafism therefore began to spread

in the Arab world not only because Saudi Arabia

actively engaged in proselytism, but also because

the theological field had been left vacant.

Salafism as a movement is not necessarily a militant

one. It is a school of thought advocating the

return to the purest form of Islam as practiced by

Muhammad’s ‘companions’ – Salaf meaning ancestors

or predecessors. Today, Salafism is practiced

mainly in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab

Emirates and Qatar – and is strongly influenced

by the conviction that obedience to authority is

key. Proponents of revolutionary Islamism (who

see themselves as the real Salafis) disagree with

this notion, and see all current Muslim governments

as un-Islamic and therefore legitimate targets.

While electoral Islamists such as the Muslim

Brothers sympathise with Salafism’s rhetoric of

Islamic renewal, their progressive approach has,

in practice, meant making concessions on issues

such as gender equality and political pluralism.

Such compromises are, however, rejected by

most Salafi thinkers on the grounds that they

contradict Islamic principles. This explains why

al-Qaeda’s leader al-Zawahiri once wrote an entire

book condemning the Muslim Brotherhood

for acquiescing with Egypt’s leadership ever

since its inception. His recent (contradictory)

vocal support for the organisation following the

ouster of President Muhammad Morsi is a mere

tactical move.

Shiite Islamism lacks these ideological debates,

and does not challenge the revolutionary-turnedauthoritarian

Islamism of Iran. It does, however,

have representatives in both revolutionary and

electoral branches.

The three main streams

  

▪▪ The children of the revolution

The notion that an Islamic renewal will be triggered

by a revolution began to take root in the

1970s: the defeat against Israel in 1967 exposed

the shortcomings of Islamism’s main political

contender, pan-Arabism, and in 1979, Shia

revolutionary Islamism toppled Iran’s regime.

Ayatollah Khomeini claimed Iranian supremacy

over all Muslims (in spite of the fact that Iran

is a Shia state and around 90% of Muslims are

Sunni) and openly called for an overthrow of the

Gulf monarchies. Sunni revolutionary Islamism,

albeit different in many ways, drew inspiration

European Union Institute for Security Studies October 2014 3

 

from Iran’s successful example, and has, on occasion,

been funded by Tehran, too.

While the rhetoric emanating from Iran was

frightening enough to its neighbours, actual attempts

to topple first the Saudi regime in 1979

and then the Bahraini one in 1981 confirmed

revolutionary Islamism (whether Sunni or Shia)

as a genuine threat to Arab regimes. Egypt’s

President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981

by Islamic Jihad during a military parade, and

similar groups began to form in Algeria, the

Palestinian territories and Lebanon. Arab governments

chose three broad tactics to counter

revolutionary Islamism: repress their populations,

engage in a sectarian war of words against

Iran, and co-opt certain Islamist groups considered

to be moderate. A fourth tactic emerged

following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

in 1979: it provided a welcome opportunity to

actively encourage young men who adhered to

revolutionary Islamism to take up arms against

the communist occupation of Muslim lands.

But the hope that the concept and these men, like

Osama Bin Laden, would fade away in the mountains

of Afghanistan proved false. Revolutionary

Islamism was galvanised

by the Soviet

withdrawal in 1988,

the arrival of American

forces in the Arabian

Peninsula following

the invasion

of Kuwait, and the

Palestine Liberation

Organisation’s renunciation

of violence,

which led to the creation

of Hamas in

1987. Returnees from

Afghanistan began to train in camps in states

such as Sudan, Yemen and Somalia, and established

a database of those volunteers who had

attended – hence the name al-Qaeda (Arabic for

‘the base’) attributed to the organisation by US

secret services.

Revolutionary Islamist terrorist attacks, involving

suicide bombings, became a global phenomenon

from 1998 onwards. Groups such as al-

Qaeda, IS, Beit al-Maqdis, Ansar al-Sharia and

others routinely employ terrorism in an attempt

to weaken governments and trigger a uprising

of the Muslim population against their rulers.

They differ in tactics, however; whereas al-Qaeda

seeks to hit the ‘far enemy’ (i.e. the US and

its allies), IS, for instance, takes the fight to the

‘near enemy’ – ranging from secular Arab governments

to adherents of different faiths. This

tactical choice is, however, determined by feasibility

rather than ideology.

But in spite of the recent hysteria over Sunni

revolutionary Islamism, it is clear that all groups

have failed to inspire the uprising they desire.

Whether in Algeria, Iraq, Bosnia or Saudi Arabia,

Sunni revolutionary Islamism has never managed

to garner large-scale and lasting support.

In this regard, it stands in stark contrast to the

Iranian revolution, a mass event which enjoyed

popular backing.

▪▪ The descendants of the founder

Less prominent than revolutionary Islamists,

electoral Islamists – groups which chose to follow

Hassan al-Banna’s tactic of a progressive and

gradual Islamisation of society – also emerged on

the political scene from the late 1970s onwards.

This happened first in Sudan with the admission

of the National Islamic Front to parliament in

1979, and later with the creation of the Islamic

Salvation Front in Algeria in 1988. Hizbullah,

a Shiite militia created in 1984 with Iran’s support,

has participated

in Lebanon’s elections

since 1992. The

Muslim Brotherhood,

albeit formally banned,

fielded individual

candidates for political

office in Egypt

from 1984 onwards.

Its Palestinian counterpart,

Hamas, won

the elections in 2006,

while the Turkish AKP,

founded in 2001, secured

a majority in 2002 and has been in power

ever since. In Iraq, dozens of Islamist parties

– both Shia and Sunni – have dominated

the political landscape following the removal of

Saddam Hussein in 2003.

But it was the overthrow of governments in

Tunisia and Egypt which provided Sunni Islamist

political parties with the necessary launch pad to

come to power. In Tunisia, Ennahda (the Tunisian

outlet of the Muslim Brotherhood), won 37%

of votes cast in the country’s first free elections;

in Egypt, six Islamist parties participated in the

2011 elections, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s

Freedom and Justice Party winning 34.9% and

its Salafi competitor, Nour, 25%. The Muslim

Brotherhood’s candidate, Muhammad Morsi,

‘Revolutionary Islamism was

galvanised by the Soviet withdrawal in

1988, the arrival of American forces

in the Arabian Peninsula following the

invasion of Kuwait, and the Palestine

Liberation Organisation’s renunciation

of violence...’

 

European Union Institute for Security Studies October 2014 4

 

then went on to become president in 2012 with

51.73% of the vote.

Although these parties share a broad political

goal, they nevertheless disagree over content

and strategy. In Egypt, Nour joined the anti-

Muslim Brotherhood alliance in spite of their

shared Islamist background, arguing that the

Brotherhood is too flexible on issues such as allowing

women and Christians to serve in office,

and too tolerant towards Iran. In the tradition of

Hassan al-Banna (and in stark contrast to IS), the

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood did not seek the

establishment of a state encompassing all of the

Muslim community. Although al-Banna favoured

the pursuit an all-Islamic state, he nevertheless

accepted the existence of Egypt as a country.

Electoral Islamism is often viewed with suspicion;

this is in part because some of its representatives

started out as revolutionary movements (such

as Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Dawa in

Iraq and Hizbullah in Lebanon) or eventually resorted

to violence (such as the Algerian Islamic

Salvation Front). When parties favouring electoral

Islamism have reached power, their track record

is mixed: the Sudanese National Islamic Front

supported not only an authoritarian government

but also the strict implementation

of Islamic law,

Dawa proved to be a divisive sectarian actor in

Iraq, whereas the Tunisian Ennahda successfully

embraced political pluralism. President Morsi’s

constitutional decree of 2012, which granted

him near absolute powers, fuelled fears of an

undemocratic Islamist regime in Egypt and undermined

the Brotherhood’s earlier declarations

advocating a pluralistic and democratic society.

▪▪ The established regimes

There are currently only a few states which actually

come close to embodying the ideal of

an Islamic state. Aside from Saudi Arabia and

Iran, Islamist governments have also existed in

Afghanistan (1996 – 2001) and, to some extent,

Sudan (since 1989). Both Saudi Arabia and

Iran rest their legitimacy on a certain form of

Islamism, although they are, in essence, authoritarian

regimes. Saudi Arabia has declared jihad

illegal on its soil and argues that as its political

system is perfectly in line with Islamic doctrine,

there is no need for elections or political pluralism.

Across the Persian Gulf, Iran’s political

system is based on the supremacy of the Shiite

clergy.

The difference between the two states is that while

Iran’s revolutionary-turned-electoral outlets,

such as Hizbullah, accept its authoritarianism,

Sunni revolutionary and electoral Islamism challenge

Saudi Arabia either by violent means or

by offering a political alternative. Although ideologically

distinct from Iran, the two wings nevertheless

echo Teheran’s rhetoric of change – fostering

Saudi fears of an alliance between Sunni

‘changists’ and its geopolitical rival. These fears

seem somewhat unfounded, given the different

political goals of Sunni and Shia revolutionary

Islamism in Syria, Iraq, the Palestinian territories,

and Lebanon.

In an attempt to roll back both revolutionary and

electoral Islamism, Saudi Arabia has reversed

some of its previous positions and adopted a

hard line. It lately declared both Hizbullah and

the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorist organisations,

although the latter’s leadership was granted

exile in Saudi Arabia for decades. And though

the Saudis once supported Islamist groups in

Syria fighting the Assad regime, it has joined the

international coalition in its bombing campaign

against IS. Riyadh also sent troops to Bahrain in

2011 to quell a Shia uprising it claimed was instigated

by Iran. Most importantly, Saudi Arabia

is financially supporting Egypt’s new government

in order to ensure stability in a country which

was traditionally a hub of political Islam.

Although clothed in doctrinal and sectarian

rhetoric, the current struggle among the three

Islamist wings is ultimately one concerning

political

power.

Florence Gaub is a Senior Analyst at the

EUISS.