It has long seemed to us that prophecy of the planet burning up was theological rather than scientific.

Now we learn (somewhat belatedly) that a “mini ice age” is coming soon. In just 12 years from now (this being 2018), the earth will become colder. Much colder.

That is, if those scientists were right whose prediction Jon Austin wrote about in the Express in December 2o15:

A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

At the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said there will be a freeze the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s. From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

The researchers have now developed a “double dynamo” model that can better predict when the next freeze will be. Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

Professor Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent.

Sunspots are dark concentrations of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are bursts of radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth’s atmosphere protects us from the otherwise devastating effects.

She said: “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun.  “We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder Minimum.”

The test of good science is whether it predicts accurately.

While we do not relish the coming of a great shiver, there would be a certain intellectual satisfaction – not to mention a degree of Schadenfreude – in store for climate skeptics like us if it transpires that the prophets of cooling were right and the prophets of warming were wrong.

Jacki Pick, host of the Jacki Daily radio show and former Counsel to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee, reveals that the Obama administration required the Department of Homeland Security to “scrub terrorist databases”.

And on the subject of protecting the enemy, Daniel Greenfield writes at Front Page:

On September 4, 2001, Robert Mueller took over the FBI …

[He] fought alongside [James] Comey against surveilling terrorists. Materials involving the Muslim Brotherhood were purged. Toward the dawn of the second Obama term, Mueller met with CAIR and other Islamist groups and a green curtain fell over national security.

But the surveillance wasn’t going anywhere. Instead it was being redirected to new targets.

Those targets were not, despite the wave of hysterical conspiracy theories convulsing the media, the Russians. Mueller’s boss was still quite fond of them. Barack Obama did have foreign enemies that he wanted to spy on. And there were plenty of domestic enemies who could be caught up in that trap.

By his second term, the amateur was coming to understand the incredible surveillance powers at his disposal and how they could be used to spy on Americans under the pretext of fighting foreign threats. ….

While the Mueller purge was going on, Obama was pushing talks with Iran. There was one obstacle and it wasn’t Russia. The Russians were eager to play Obama with a fake nuke deal. It was the Israelis who were the problem. And it was the Israelis who were being spied on by Obama’s surveillance regime.

But it wasn’t just the Israelis.

Iran was Obama’s big shot at a foreign policy legacy. As the year dragged on, it was becoming clear that the Arab Spring wouldn’t be anything he would want to be remembered for. By the time Benghazi went from a humanitarian rescue operation to one of the worst disasters of the term, it was clearly over.

Obama was worried that the Israelis would launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. And the surveillance and media leaks were meant to dissuade the Israelis from scuttling his legacy. But he was also worried about Netanyahu’s ability to persuade American Jews and members of Congress to oppose his nuclear sellout. And that was where the surveillance leapfrogged from foreign to domestic.

The NSA intercepted communications between Israelis and Americans, including members of Congress, and then passed the material along to the White House. Despite worries by some officials that “that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress”, the White House “believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign”.

The precedent was even more troubling than it seemed.

Obama Inc. had defined its position in an unresolved political debate between the White House and Congress as the national interest. And had winkingly authorized surveillance on Congress to protect this policy in a domestic political debate. That precedent would then be used to spy on members of the Trump transition team and to force out Trump’s national security adviser.

National security had become indistinguishable from the agenda of the administration. And that agenda, like the rest of Obama’s unilateral policies, was enshrined as permanent. Instead of President Trump gaining the same powers, his opposition to that agenda was treated as a national security threat.

And once Obama was out of office, Comey and other Obama appointees would protect that agenda.

We still don’t know the full scope of Spygate. But media reports have suggested that Obama officials targeted countries opposed to the Iran sellout, most prominently Israel and the UAE, and then eavesdropped on meetings between them and between figures on the Trump team.

Obama had begun his initial spying as a way of gaining inside information on Netanyahu’s campaign against the Iran deal. But the close election and its aftermath significantly escalated what had been a mere Watergate into an active effort to not only spy, but pursue criminal charges against the political opposition. The surveillance state had inevitably moved on to the next stage, the police state with its informants, dossiers, pre-dawn raids, state’s witnesses, entrapments and still more surveillance.

And the police state requires cops. Someone had to do the dirty work for Susan Rice.

Comey, Mueller and the other cops had likely been complicit in the administration’s abuses. Somewhere along the way, they had become the guys watching over the Watergate burglars. Spying on the political opposition is, short of spying for the enemy, the most serious crime that such men can commit.

Why then was it committed?

Yes, WHY?

To understand that, we have to go back to 9/11. Those days may seem distant now, but the attacks offered a crossroads. One road led to a war against our enemies. The other to minimizing the conflict.

President George W. Bush tried to fight that war, but he was undermined by men like Mueller and Comey. Their view of the war was the same as that of their future boss, not their current one, certainly not the view as the man currently sitting in the White House whom they have tried to destroy.

Every lie has some truth in it. Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty, his frequent claims of allegiance to American ideals, are true, as he sees it, if not as he tells it. Men like Comey and Mueller believed that the real threat came not from Islamic terrorists, but from our overreaction to them. They believed that Bush was a threat. And Trump was the worst threat imaginable who had to be stopped by any means.

But WHY?

Daniel Greenfield has an answer which he explains:

What Comey and Mueller are loyal to is the established way of doing things. And they conflate that with our national ideals, as establishment thugs usually do. Neither of them are unique. Washington D.C. is filled with men and women who are registered Republicans, who believe in lowering taxes, who frown at the extremities of identity politics, but whose true faith is in the natural order of government.

Mueller and Comey represent a class. And Obama and Clinton were easily able to corrupt and seduce that class into abandoning its duties and oaths, into serving as its deep state against domestic foes.

It is a plausible answer. But we do not and cannot really know why some people – a large number of intellectuals – feel more anger about a reaction to terrorist criminality than to the crimes themselves. We do not and cannot know why highly educated Westerners – children of the Enlightenment – admire, and even desire to protect, the deeply immoral religion of Islam.

We agree with what follows:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? It’s the old question of who watches the watchmen that no society has found a good answer to. And the answer is inevitably that the watchers, watch themselves and everyone else. What began as national security measures against Islamic terrorism was twisted by Obama and his deep state allies into the surveillance of the very people fighting Islamic terrorism.

Spygate was the warped afterbirth of our failure to meaningfully confront Islamic terrorism. Instead, the political allies of the terrorists and the failed watchmen who allowed them to strike so many times, got together to shoot the messengers warning about the terror threat. The problem had never been the lack of power, but the lack of will and the lack of integrity in an establishment unwilling to do its job.

After 9/11, extraordinary national security powers were brought into being to fight Islamic terror. Instead those powers were used to suppress those who told the truth about Islamic terrorism.

Was there no political bias among the corrupt FBI officials, as some say the inspector general’s report indicates?

Mark Steyn points out that there certainly was:

World Religion News recently interviewed Lauren Ell, the founder of REPUBLICAN ATHEISTS.

She makes many interesting points, among them these:

WRN: Is there a historical precedent for this [Republicans being atheists], or would you call this a relatively new thought process?

LE: I don’t think atheist Republicans are new. They are new in the sense of being more outspoken about their atheist views, but they have existed as far back as the Civil War era. My organization, Republican Atheists, is the first organization I know of at this point that is representing atheist Republicans.

WRN: So you’ve mentioned you had this treatment by certain podcasters and writers, could you go into that in more detail?

LE: I started Republican Atheists in February of 2017 as an experimental project. I haven’t been involved with atheist organizations at all in the United States, such as American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, or Secular Coalition for America. Originally I had assumed these organizations would take some interest in Republican Atheists. I didn’t expect them to embrace our political views, but I thought at least they would maybe mention the existence of Republican Atheists to their base, considering many of these atheist organizations claim they are representing the entire atheist community in the United States. But I found when I contacted groups I did not get much response from them. They did not respond to the idea of mentioning Republican Atheists to their base. I was in contact with the Secular Coalition for America who at first had interest in Republican Atheists and said they would publish a guest article by me. I was in touch with their media coordinator and we discussed a topic to write about, and I wrote an article for them. It ended up being scrapped because they didn’t like my wording in the article, so I wrote it according to what they recommended and did multiple edits over a period of months. Despite all that time and effort of meeting their requests, at the end of the day they did not publish the article and didn’t even mention Republican Atheists to their base. They actually have not been responsive to me ever since. Some organizations haven’t responded to us at all, so I keep chipping away to build our relevance in the atheist community.

WRN: I would be interested in knowing about podcasters because you mentioned that specifically.

LE: I had an experience with one atheist podcast called Cognitive Dissonance. I actually hadn’t listened to them much, but I sent them an email introducing myself and offered to be interviewed on their show. They agreed to do a 45-minute interview. I was pretty excited because they are one of the more known atheist podcasts. I would say they have around 17,000 followers on Facebook. I ended up doing the interview with them, but they hung up on me 15 minutes into the interview because I mentioned something they didn’t agree with. They called it “the dumbest interview they’ve ever done”. I have actually been met with much more interest in gaining understanding by Christian podcasters.

WRN: What was the particular issue they didn’t agree with?

LE: We were talking about prominent movements such as Women’s March and the Occupy Movement which was big back in 2011. We discussed who is behind the movements in terms of people who financed protests, and I mentioned the name George Soros. The hosts didn’t want to continue the conversation after that.

In the course of the interview Lauren was so kind as to make favorable mention of our editor-in-chief, and simple vanity brings that part of the interview to this post:

WRN: So they’ve associated specific views on issues that don’t relate to Christianity directly, but they still associate it with Christianity. You’re saying within the Republican Party base you can reach a similar conclusion but through a different process and different thinking?

LE: Yes, that is what I do when I communicate with Republicans and Christians. I don’t bring up my atheist views up front and instead focus on what we have in common. I actually never really feel the need to talk about my atheist views unless I am trying to make a point about the existence of atheist Republicans. When I talk to people, I try to find what we have in common in terms of political policies and social policies. We’ll talk about education, taxation, freedom of speech, and so forth. I find a commonality with them, and once we have that commonality, they see that even though I’m atheist we have a lot in common. That is the situation I like to be in.

RN: This reminds me of Christopher Hitchens who was both an outspoken atheist and had several politically conservative stances. Is there anyone who you look to as a person who’s advocating besides of course yourself?

LE: There is a woman who is very impressive, and I wish she was mentioned a lot more. Her name is Jillian Becker, and she manages a blog called The Atheist Conservative. One thing I point out about Jillian Becker is she does not promote the Republican Party. Her thing is just conservatism, and there’s a difference. I always have to point out there’s a difference between an atheist conservative and an atheist Republican. I know a lot of people get it intertwined and sometimes conservatives get a little irritated. But Jillian Becker and I get along pretty well because we see eye to eye on a lot of issues. If you look her up you will see she has an impressive resume. She’s on Wikipedia. She has spoken with the British Parliament in regards to terrorism in the past. She’s a published author, has been featured in interviews, and is very outspoken. She is older now, so I wish she was mentioned more often. I also note Heather Mac Donald who is a published author and a conservative atheist. She was recently shut down on college campuses in California, and she has been interviewed about it.

We too are admirers of Heather Mac Donald, and strongly recommend her books – all of them.

Read the whole interview with Lauren Ell here.

An Imam who wants to reform Islam speaks to Tommy Robinson:

He is self-contradictory on the main issue, saying both that Islam will “never” be reformed, and that preparation should be made now for it’s reformation some centuries hence.

But he says quite a lot that explains why Tommy Robinson and he can discuss Islam amicably with each other. This Shi’a Imam wants the sharia courts of Britain to be abolished. He wants the Saudis and other Arab leaders to stop pouring money into institutions for indoctrination, such as university colleges and professorial chairs. He wants the madrassas to be done away with. He opposes the failed policies of Saddiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, pointing out that London has lost respect among many Arab Muslims for electing the Pakistani. He puts heavy blame on the Left, calling Leftists “the real bigots”. He declares that to be against ISIS is a humanitarian position, not a political one.

Our British associate Chauncey Tinker, editor of The Participator, writes an interesting critique of the interview at Altnewsmedia. We quote it in part: :

About half way through the interview the imam reveals his views on the Koran and the Hadith (he doesn’t mention the Sira but I think we can assume his remarks about the Hadith can probably be taken to include the Sira as well). He says that in order to reform Islam, violent passages should be removed from the Hadith, but not the Koran – the Koran cannot be altered in the imam’s view. From what he says here I infer that he is what is called a Koranist (or Quranist), or at least he is something very similar – he speaks of throwing the Hadiths out of the window. A Koranist is a Muslim who rejects the Hadith and Sira and believes only what is written in the Koran.

Incidentally at one point Tommy and the imam discuss the question of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was only 6. The imam gives quite an astonishing explanation for this which I have never heard before, Tommy was equally surprised …

Tawhidi maintains that Aisha was actually 21 when Muhammad married her, but it was so important to Islam that Muhammad’s wife be a virgin that they reduced her to infancy to ensure that she could not be suspected of being unchaste. Islam holds virginity to be a much higher virtue, apparently, than refraining from pedophilia. What the Imam seems to have forgotten, is that Muhammad’s first wife (according to all the accepted records of his life such as they are) was a widow!

Unfortunately there is a fundamental problem with the Koranist viewpoint in general, which has been identified by Islamic scholars. According to verse 33:21 of the Koran, Mohammed’s life is a most beautiful example for Muslims to follow, but the Koran contains only a tiny number of fleeting mentions of Mohammed, there is simply not enough information in the Koran for Muslims to learn very much at all about Mohammed’s life. It is only by studying the Hadith and Sira that Muslims can learn much about Mohammed’s life, and thus learn properly about this “beautiful example” that they are supposed to follow. Perhaps it is not surprising then that the Koranist movement is relatively only a tiny movement, because their beliefs simply don’t make sense. As he states in the interview, there are probably only a few million Koranists worldwide. The exact numbers are hard to know as the Koranists are regarded as apostates by many mainstream Muslims and therefore tend not to be open about their beliefs. …

The imam speaks of the existence of many different interpretations of the Koran in the interview …

There are, he says, “hundreds of thousands of interpretations” …

… and asks why he should not be able to reform the religion by making his own interpretation. He suggests that the violent passages (for example verse 8:12 that speaks of striking terror into the hearts of the disbelievers) can be interpreted as only applying in the time and place of Mohammed’s battles. Of course if we only refer to the Koran there is somewhat less certainty about everything, because the Koran is much less explicit than the Hadiths. If we look again at verse 33:21 of the Koran though, this  context interpretation is hard to take seriously – Mohammed waged wars against the disbelievers to propagate his religion, so surely the Koran at the very least condones this kind of behavior. In fact, violent acts of war are one of the few things about Mohammed’s life that actually are mentioned in the Koran. What’s more, verse 33:21 that states that Mohammed’s life is a “beautiful example” comes right in the midst of other verses describing a very violent period, including the reference at verse 33:26 to what is either the Banu Qurayza massacre or a very similar event:

And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Scripture from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts [so that] a party you killed, and you took captive a party.

Finally on this question of context, there is nothing in the passages that explicitly states that the violence is only justified in the particular context. The references are for example to “the disbelievers” rather than to “the disbelievers in this particular settlement at this particular time”. For example Koran 8:55 says that:

The disbelievers are the vilest of animals … 

Even if we were to accept this context-driven interpretation of the Koran alone though … there is still a huge and inescapable problem with all attempts at a peaceful reformation of Islam. Let us imagine for a moment that at some point far into the future the majority of Muslims worldwide eventually accepted the imam’s interpretation of the Koran, and rejected the Hadith. As long as there are significant numbers of people in the world who believe that the Koran is the unquestionable word of Allah and that Mohammed was his last prophet, the door will be left ajar for any other interpretations of the Koran to return to prominence – including of course the violent interpretations. This is the reason I say that a peaceful reformation of Islam is not even a desirable goal,  the religion must be rejected altogether.

We strongly agree!

There is simply nothing worth reforming or preserving about this religion, it is a belief system that must be defeated so that freedom of speech can flourish and human thought can progress unhampered by threats of violence.  As the imam rightly points out, the texts cannot be physically destroyed, but there are many means available that should be used to persuade Muslims to reject their religion including reason and debate, economic pressure and social ostracism.

At one point the imam says to Tommy that we will never be able to stop the growth of Islam in the UK.  He cites the demographic trend, which is indeed suggestive of the continuing growth of the Islamic population if all else stays the same.  However, Tommy responds with some perfectly plausible suggestions about government policy changes that would in fact help to slow (and possibly even halt) the growth of Islam in the UK.

In particular he points out that if the British tax-payer were no longer to provide Muslim immigrant families (sometimes consisting of multiple wives and their children) with social security, free schooling, free health care, housing and legal defense, they would be less eager to come to Britain, or to stay in it.

… Beliefs can change, they are not a fixed aspect of a human being.

We are also in a new age of mass communication now, a point that the imam may not have properly considered. Never before has this religion (or any other) been subjected to such an enormous amount of scrutiny all around the world. The internet is enabling a revolution in human thought, and I truly believe we are only just seeing the beginnings of this revolution today. We simply don’t know the full impact that this degree of almost instantaneous around the world communication, exchange and clashing of ideas will have in the longer term.

While it is indeed refreshing to come across an imam who has the courage to so frankly discuss all these issues with an unrestrained critic of Islam such as Tommy Robinson (others could take note), I feel it necessary to point out all these problems with his belief system nonetheless. What we certainly don’t want to do is start moderating our criticisms of Islam for fear of upsetting this and other (probably well-meaning) reform attempts. Let us boldly speak the truth as we see it, and may the best argument win – if the imam’s interpretation cannot stand up to rational scrutiny then it is unlikely to catch on in any case.

… [M]y highest regard will continue to be reserved for those Muslims who, as it were, “go the whole hog” and throw not just the Hadith and Sira but also the Koran out of the window as well, and become EX Muslims.

A preference we echo.

Oh for a god-free world!

President Trump addresses the international press after his meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

He starts at 22.30 minutes.

We enjoy this triumphalist article by James Delingpole at Breitbart – and post it even though the certainty of triumph may be premature:

President Trump just became the Nobel Peace Prize committee’s worst nightmare.

As he didn’t neglect to remind us in his hilarious post North Korea summit press conference, President Trump just saved maybe 30 million people from nuclear annihilation. He did what his predecessors considered impossible and what the liberal media and all the “experts” continue to assure us can never be done: he brought peace to the region which up till now was considered the likeliest ground zero for World War III.

In other words, pretty much, President Trump just saved the world.

Beat that Barack Obama! Suck on this, all you liberal MSM and NeverTrumpers! Who’s the boss now, President Xi Ping of China? Remind me what your name was again, Prime Minister – Bieber, is it? – of Canada. How are you going to wriggle out of this one, all you buttoned up bien-pensants at the Nobel Prize academy?

These were just of the few things President Trump didn’t actually say at his hugely entertaining post-summit press conference in Singapore. But then he didn’t need to. Anyone watching could read the subtext for themselves.

“I’ll do whatever it take to make the world a better place,” said President Trump in the special, soften humble-brag voice he uses to wind up reporters from Time.

What he meant was: “You still think I’m not the greatest president you’re ever likely to see in your life time? Hold my beer…”

Looking bright and alert on virtually no sleep, Trump worked the event like an Olympic sprinter doing a victory lap of the track after smashing the world record. This was his moment – one to cherish with his friends and supporters; one to rub in the noses of his enemies – and he was in no mood to rush his time in the sun. To show us just how much he was enjoying it, he casual-ostentatiously asked his press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if she’d allow him an extension …

Goodness, it must have been annoying for his critics. If this had been Obama, the BBC and CNN would have been running replays 24/7 for months to come: this was a master at the very top of his game, winning new friends, confounding his enemies, reminding the world that he is by some margin its greatest, most charismatic leader.

This was a masterclass on how to be Leader of the Free World in the era of social media, reality TV and a global populist revolt against the staid, dishonest, sclerotic political class.

You bypass the media – treating them with a mix of jocular affection and amused contempt – and speak directly to the people in language they can understand.

There were so many choice moments that it sometimes felt more like a comedy set by an experienced stand up than the President of the USA. Trump has the same skill set: quick-witted, funny, thinks on his feet, even better on the ad libs than he is on the pre-prepared material.

I loved his line when asked about North Korea’s possible political and economic future. After explaining that it was really Kim Jong Un’s decision, not his, he couldn’t resist adding a helpful suggestion.

“They have great beaches. (You see that when they’re firing off their cannon). Think of that from a real estate perspective.”

See what he did there?

I’ll explain because I don’t want to sound like some David L Brooks character from the Obama era, hailing every presidential fart like it was the heavenly ambrosia which precedes the Second Coming.

No, Trump is not just impressive, but demonstrably brilliant at what he does.

So in those sentences I just quoted, he manages in the space of less than 30 seconds to move from economic policy outline to humorous mockery to self-aggrandising self-reference to his skills as a big swinging dick real estate player. Apart from being varied, interesting – keeping his listeners on their toes because they just never know what he’s going to say next – it also very clearly delineates US foreign policy objectives for North Korea. “Sure, you could go back to being a comedy, no-hope war-zone hell hole waiting to explode, like you were before,” Trump is telling Kim Jong-Un. “But don’t you think it would make so much sense, for all of us, if you became the hot new tourist resort for the enormous South Korean and Chinese markets instead?”

People who don’t get this – which of course still means the entirety of the liberal MSM and the Davos-going global elite  – don’t get it because they don’t want to get it.

They’ll continue to pontificate that President Trump is a vulgar, stupid, undignified, egotistical, hamfisted, troublemaking, divisive, dangerous braggart because that’s the only way they’re ever going to be able to deal with fact that he is so obviously #winning. Sure he might get the odd thing right, probably by accident – or, in the case of North Korea, because of all the amazing groundwork done by the genius Obama and by the arch deal-maker Dennis Rodman – but it’s all OK because in their heads they just know that Trump is the bad guy while they are all vastly his superior.

Meanwhile, every day, Trump is going to keep on reminding us that he is the greatest US president since Reagan, maybe even of our lifetimes. His second term is assured. As is his place in the pantheon.

Nice job, the Donald!

… of the G7 summit and his meeting with the dictator of North Korea:

https://youtu.be/bcXgLqFZ47c

… and how they are getting away with their crimes, helped by traitorous House Democrats led by the unconscionable Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and ignored by the Department of Justice.

On April 3, 2018, we posted the story: House Democrats put complete trust in a gang of Pakistani crooks.

We ended with this  –

To sum up: These Pakistani crooks were engaged by Democratic members of Congress, without any enquiry into their background, to “look after” their computers which contained highly confidential information concerned with the protection of Americans. The Democrats never apparently considered the possibility that their data was being stolen and sent to Pakistani authorities. When their hardware was stolen by the crooks – and they knew it was the Awan gang who had stolen it – they did not go to the police. When the FBI did finally arrest Imran Awan on charges of fraud in a car-dealership – and denied that the gang “had any connection with a foreign government” – Imran Awan continued to be on the payroll of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Democrats were putty in the hands of the foreign criminal gang. Helpless as babies. They feared to offend them by reporting them to the police or firing them.

Yet these people, for whom large numbers of Americans voted to represent them in the federal government, want, yearn, ache to rule the country. To conduct US relations with foreign powers. To be in charge of the world’s mightiest military force …

Now (June 7, 2018) Creeping Sharia deplores the inaction of the DOJ:

What the Democrats did here was treason. …

The DOJ under Jeff Sessions is covering up a scandal. … It is in[Attorney General] Jeff Sessions’s power to … charge the Pakistanis with hacking Congress and exposing Democrats’ hypocrisy and negligence. He has a list of witnesses and his FBI is refusing to interview them… They have all the goods. It’s in the server logs. This case is open-and-shut. And Jeff Sessions is refusing to bring the charges.

The question is, why?

Whatever his reasons, Jeff Sessions is failing President Trump and the nation.

The Dutch hero of freedom Geert Wilders went to London in support of the English hero of freedom Tommy Robinson who has been imprisoned on lame excuses (“breaching the peace”, “contempt of court”) but in truth for opposing the Islamization of Britain and Europe.

Breitbart reports what Geert Wilders said to a huge crowd assembled to hear him.

Massive crowds turned out in London on Saturday [June 9, 2018] to rally for free speech and hear Dutch firebrand Geert Wilders demand the release of Tommy Robinson from prison.

“It’s so good to see so many of you here today, you are all heroes for being here today,” said the Freedom Party leader, an outspoken critic of radical Islam who rose to second place in the Dutch national elections last year.

Wilders told the crowd he had come to Britain to tell Robinson’s supporters they “will never walk alone” and to “tell the world, and the UK government in particular: Free Tommy Robinson!”

“At this very moment, thousands of people all over the world are demonstrating in front of British embassies, from LA to Sydney, and over half a million people have already signed the petition for Tommy,” he told the crowd.

“And all with the one important message: Free Tommy!

“So, Downing Street is just around the corner, so maybe once again, as loud as possible as we can, let them hear our message: Free Tommy Robinson!” he cried, prompting extended chants of “Oh, Tommy Tommy, Tommy Tommy Tommy Tommy Robinson!” and “We want Tommy out!”

“Listen to us Theresa May, listen to us Sajid Javid, listen to us Sadiq Khan,” he continued, each name provoking passionate boos.

“Listen to us, all you in power: we want the release of Tommy Robinson!

“Tommy Robinson is the greatest freedom fighter of Britain today. Tommy Robinson is a freedom fighter. He says what no-one dares to say. He has guts. He has courage.

“And that is more than we can say for all those people that govern us. Because our governors sold us out with mass immigration, with Islamisation, with open borders. We are almost foreigners in our own land,” he declared.

“And if we complain about it, they call us racists or ‘Islamophobes’ — but I say, no more. And what do you say?” Wilders asked the assembled crowds.

“No more!” they shouted back.

“That’s right. Enough is enough. We will not be gagged anymore. No more tyranny.

“My friends, 75 years ago, your fathers and grandfathers liberated my country from tyranny,” he continued.

“My country, the Netherlands, is a free country today, because the British brave boys and men, people like you, liberated us.

“And do you know how we used to call these British soldiers? We called them Tommies!” he exclaimed.

“But today your government has put a Tommy in jail. Freedom is behind bars. Tommy is behind bars.

“And that is totally unacceptable, and that is why we say: Set him free!” Wilders shouted.

“Tommy is in jail while the British state looked the other way for years, when thousands — thousands — of English children and girls were brutally raped by those grooming gangs.

“They were your daughters. The daughters of the brave Tommies. The daughters of the hard-working, decent people of Britain, who made this beautiful country so great.

“But for years, and years, the police, the politicians, the prosecutors did nothing, and looked the other way.

“They refused to listen to the victims. They arrested fathers who tried to liberate their daughters. They left children in the hands of those gangs.

“But Tommy, my friends, Tommy acted. Tommy didn’t look in the other direction. He refused to ignore the problem. He gave voice to millions of Britons who were abandoned by the authorities.

“And when Tommy protested, the same authorities could not be fast enough to jail him and to gag the media.

“And I tell you: that is not democracy. That is not freedom. That is what they do in Saudi Arabia.

“So I ask you: Do you want to be Britain, or Saudi Arabia?

“My friends, it was not Tommy who was breaching the peace, it was your government who was breaching the peace!” he declared.

“And we cannot, and we will not, accept it any longer. We want freedom, and it is our duty to speak out against rape, against grooming gangs, against Sharia law, against barbarism — and we demand the release of Tommy Robinson.

“So here we stand in full solidarity with Tommy, because, like him, we are sick and tired of being silenced.

“And I tell you, today we have a message for all the governments of the world, and our message is: We will not be silenced! We will not be intimidated! And we tell the government, we are not afraid of you!

“We will never surrender! We will stand strong and do our duty, we will defend our civilization, and we will protect our people.

“And I tell you, to the governments, you can throw us in jail, but you will never defeat us.

“Because, my friends, for every Tommy whom you imprison, thousands will rise up.

“So take notice Theresa May, take notice Dutch prime minister Rutte, take notice, Mrs Merkel and President Macron.

“Take notice: The future is ours, and not yours. We will defeat you politically — because we, my friends, we are the people.

“And every day, more people are joining our cause. The cause of freedom. Every day our members grow, and our demands are right and just.

“This is what we want. First, and most important: Free Tommy Robinson!

“But we also want you to give our countries back to us. Stop selling us out. Stop the mass immigration. Protect your own people. Stop gagging us. Restore the freedom of speech.

“My friends: long live Great Britain,” he concluded.

“Allow me, long live the Netherlands.

“Long live freedom.

“But most of all, long live Tommy Robinson!”

” The truth is to be discovered by contention.”

“Libertarianism is an excellent and irreplaceable critique of conservatism, but is too poor and limited to be a governing philosophy.”

“You decide your own ends – but in an ordered universe underpinned by liberty.”

Charles Krauthammer talks about his university education and the formation of his political philosophy, stressing the important influence on him of  John Stuart Mill, in conversation with Charles R. Kesler: