Reader’s links for November 20 – 2016

Daily Links Post graphic

In order to preserve the flow of conversation about various posted items, and also in order to make it easier for visitors to find the list of related links being shared by other readers, regulars and interested parties in one place, each day a post is automatically created at a minute past midnight ET.

This way, under the various posts of the day, conversation can take place without as much ‘noise’ on the various links and articles and ideas in the main posts and all the news links being submitted can be seen under these auto-posts by clicking on the comments-link right below these ones.

Thank you all for those that take the effort to assist this site in keeping the public informed. Below, typically people can find the latest enemy propaganda, news items of related materials from multiple countries and languages, op-eds from many excellent sites who write on our topics, geopolitics and immigration issues and so on.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

78 Replies to “Reader’s links for November 20 – 2016”

  1. A Trump protester was pushed down the steps at Ohio State University while a Trump supporter was bloodied by four attackers in Chicago.

  2. Expel Iran from OIC, Arab states urged (saudigazette, Nov 21, 2016)

    “Jeddah — The Council of Gulf International Relations (COGIR) has urged Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as well as Arab and Islamic states to expel Iran from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) because of its harmful acts against Islamic unity and solidarity and its sponsoring of terrorism and promoting sectarianism.

    The Council also stressed that Tehran’s instigation of its agents in Yemen to target Makkah showed the Muslim world the hatred of this country for Islam’s holiest sites.

    This was announced by the President of COGIR and Chairman of its Arab Society for Press and Freedom of Information Dr. Tariq Al-Sheikhan.

    Last Month, 11 countries wrote a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon cautioning that Iran was continuing a negative role in causing tension and instability in the region.

    The letter cited Tehran’s expansionist regional policies, flagrant violations of the principle of sovereignty and constant interference in the internal affairs of Arab states.

    The letter was signed by the UN ambassadors of Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

    UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitoring group, welcomed the letter, saying it was “important” that Muslim countries were speaking out against Iranian policies.

    “Iran likes to dismiss all criticism of its human rights violations and brutality at home and abroad as part of a Western plot, but that’s hard to sustain when the accusers are all Muslim governments, including recent allies of Iran like Sudan,” said UN Watch director Hillel Neuer in a statement.”

      • This is a development I didn’t expect.

        G’wan!!! Do you not know enough about Islam to where it’s a surprise that the Sunni / Shiite (or is that just shite?) schism is sufficient to drive an apocalyptic Middle East nuclear conflict all by itself? ‘Fess up!

        This is why it’s so crucial to deprive Iran of—not just immediate nuclear capability—but any such capacity for the next century.

        For those who harbor even the slightest doubt regarding this issue, I refer the lot of you to, “No Substitute for Victory – The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism“, by the (lamentably) late John David Lewis. An excerpt:

        Perhaps we should try “shuttle diplomacy”: appeasing one dictator here, buying off one over there, making deals with others, calling on allies to “put pressure on” another. The only absolute is that we must not engage in focused, principled military action toward a firm, self-interested, pro-American victory. The second, flexible, response is, again, the right choice—according to pragmatism.

        Altruism leads to the same conclusion. To fight for our own benefit—to elevate our lives over those of our enemies—is almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus “immoral.” A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak. It is only by a continuous policy of aiding others that we can rise to moral goodness. Even restrained, limited military action is wrong, if taken for our own benefit. In this view, a strong power is good only when it recognizes the moral claims of those in need—even enemies and their supporters. The route to peace is not through victory, since altruism (“otherism”) cannot abide the defeat of others. The “path to tomorrow” is through the sacrifice of our own wealth, values, and lives to the needs of others—even those who threaten us. Again, their freedom must be our goal—their prosperity must be our mission—if we wish to be “good.”

        Pragmatism and altruism dictate American foreign policy today—as they have done for over fifty years. To be practical is to be pragmatic, and to be moral is to be altruistic—these are the accepted axioms of the modern day. An all-out offensive response, in this view, would be an utter disaster—pragmatically because it holds to principles in defiance of constantly shifting reality, and morally because it seeks the enemy’s defeat rather than his benefit. On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the measured, proportional, restrained approach is our only option.

        Students of history, of course, will recognize that the attack I posed—and the two responses—were not hypothetical. Such an attack [Pearl Harbor and the 9-11 Atrocity] has been launched against America twice in the past two generations, and both options have been tried. On the premises of pragmatism and altruism, the first response should have led to escalating hostilities and a new generation of war against America, and the second should have ended the attacks. The results, however, have been precisely the opposite.

        Disregarding undeniably prohibitive strategic considerations—such as area of land mass, extra mountain ranges, and numerous other niggling details—
        invading Iraq appeared more easily justified (especially if your daddy had been put in the cross hairs). Nonetheless, removing Iran from the chess board carried with it substantial benefits that, most likely, were never even considered.

        Admittedly, there is much in the way of appropriate and extended debate over the magnitude of what, when, how, why, and, specifically, where the nexus of political Islam lies. It is far too convenient to allocate that designation to Saudi Arabia. Especially in light of how there are many more “peaceable” (for what that’s worth) Sunnis—if only because of sheer numbers—compared to Shiites who tend to sponsor more, on a percentage basis, of global terrorism.

        All the same, please read Lewis’ work and tell me if you disagree. Thank you.

    • That is true, as many people voted against Hillary as voted for Trump. The left will do everything they can to try and hide that fact from the uninformed useful idiots. However out here in flyover country those of us outside of the big cities are busy informing the Dems of that fact.

      No if/when Hillary is indicted and convicted they may start paying attention to what we are saying.

  3. Obama ‘opens borders’ in his final weeks by ‘quietly shutting down surveillance scheme’ (express, Nov 21, 2016)

    “BARACK Obama has been accused of “opening” America’s borders in the final weeks of his presidency by “quietly” shutting down the national border surveillance programme.

    The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operation Phalanx, was launched in 2010 to supply the National Guard with resources to monitor illegal border crossings and drug smuggling operations.

    But Obama closed the programme, despite being fully funded for another year, because of a major reduction in illegal crossings.

    This has left politicians furious at the outgoing President with Republicans
    writing a letter to the DHS.

    Texas Governor Gregg Abbott and US Representative Henry Cuellar said the shut down is contradictory.

    Their letter read: “Any decrease in aerial observation is not only imprudent, but contradicts the very mission of border security enforcement.

    “In order to ensure we are doing everything possible to effectively secure the border, we request immediate information on the metrics used to determine that a 50 per cent reduction in aerial resources would be sufficient to support this important border security operation.”

    Governor Abbott went the extra mile to post on twitter: “Obama is doing everything he can to open the border. January 20 can’t come soon enough.”…”

  4. New York Governor Unveils Hate-Crime Unit, Plans Taxpayer-Funded Defense Of Criminal Illegal Immigrants

    It seems that even the Governor of the great state of New York is incapable of discerning ‘real’ from ‘fake’ news when it doesn’t fit his narrative. Proclaiming that “if there is a move to deport immigrants then I say start with me,” Andrew Cuomo appears to have missed Trump’s proposal focused on ridding America of ‘criminal illegal immigrants’ and plans “to provide immigrants who can’t afford their own defense the legal assistance they need.. because in New York, we believe in justice for all.”

    Before his address today, Cuomo tweeted…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *