Google+

The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .


Krauthammer’s Take: President Obama is Using the Pentagon as a Scapegoat



Text  



On Friday’s Special Report, Charles Krauthammer said President Obama’s indecisiveness—on display yesterday when Obama announced that he didn’t have a strategy for the Islamic State in Syria—is not new. Krauthammer related the president’s apprehension to Obama’s past decisions regarding Afghanistan and Syria. 

“This is a president who cannot decide, and on this he obviously cannot decide, but what does he do?” Krauthammer said. “Instinctively, he blames somebody else for the so-called misinterpretation of his thing about strategy…So the president looks for a scapegoat, it’s the Pentagon.” Krauthammer said he thought the Pentagon spokesman bit his tongue about being made into a scapegoat, and instead saluted to the president today when he had the opportunity to respond. 

A Vintage Joke from Mexico



Text  



One item in Impromptus today, Part V of a “Salzburg Journal,” goes like this:

Out and about, I see a man in a “CCCP” jersey. Typical. Usually, I hold my tongue. I’m a good boy. When I let loose, it’s in print. But I can’t help muttering, as I pass, “Where’s your swastika?”

(This issue is not without complications. I wrote an essay about it several years ago. If you’re interested, go here.)

A reader writes,

The jersey you saw reminded me of a joke that children in Mexico told during the 1970 World Cup: “What does CCCP [on the Soviet uniform] stand for?” “Camaradas, Cuidado con Pelé” (i.e., “Comrades, beware of Pelé”).

Beautiful. By the way, the World Cup was held in Mexico that year, and it was won by Pelé’s team, Brazil.

ADVERTISEMENT

Obama Targets Scott Walker



Text  



President Obama has a rough relationship with unions these days, but they might appreciate his decision to visit Wisconsin in the middle of Republican governor Scott Walker’s reelection campaign.

Obama will speak at Laborfest 2014 in Milwaukee on Monday. The president is trying to travel to places where he still has a chance of doing some good for Democratic candidates. “The White House is putting the finishing touches on a post–Labor Day schedule that will send the president to states where he’s still popular, such as: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California, Obama officials and Democratic operatives said this week,” according to Politico.

The president frustrated labor allies when he refused to campaign against Walker during the 2012 recall race.

“I’ve got a lot of responsibilities,” Obama said as an excuse for his failure to appear on the stump for Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, who was challenging Walker.

Obama’s willingness to campaign on behalf of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke could be a sign that they believe Walker is more vulnerable this time around than during the recall race. Walker won the recall by almost seven points, but a poll from Marquette University has him trailing by two points among likely voters, but winning by three among registered voters. That’s an odd result, because “Republican candidates typically poll better among likely voters, particularly in midterm elections when Democratic-leaning constituencies are less likely to turn out,” as FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten notes.

Or maybe the president is more willing to risk backing a losing candidate because he’s not on the ballot himself. In any case, he should take some time to mend fences with the unions at Laborfest.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said that his organization won’t back a presidential candidate who keeps Obama’s economic team. “One of our biggest concerns is who is the candidate’s economic team, because if the present economic team doesn’t change, you are going get the same results,” he said, per the Washington Times.

Web Briefing: August 29, 2014

Rand Paul Blasts Administration’s ‘Old MacDonald’s Farm’ of Scandals



Text  



“Is Hillary Clinton fit to be commander-in-chief?” Rand Paul asked the 3,000 people packed in a hotel ballroom at Americans for Prosperity’s annual Defending the Dream summit on Friday. They answered in unison: “No!”

With the 2016 presidential election on the horizon, the Kentucky senator isn’t exactly subtle about whom he has in his crosshairs. But then again, subtlety has never been his trademark. 

Paul blasted the Obama administration, which he said has played host to an “Old MacDonald’s farm” of scandals, making reference to the children’s song, but homed in on one scandal in particular: Benghazi. It’s clear he believes it’ll be a major vulnerability if she runs for president in 2016 — or, at the very least, he is going to do his best to make it one.   

Paul compared Clinton’s failure to secure the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, where American ambassador Chris Stevens and three others died in September 2012, to those of former secretary of defense Les Aspin, who resigned in disgrace after admittedly mishandling requests for military support that led to the deaths of 18 Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.

“I think if Hillary Clinton had worked for Bill Clinton she’d have probably been fired,” Paul said. 

The Kentucky senator has made no secret that he is mulling a presidential bid, and his pitch to Republican heavyweights is that he represents a new kind of Republican who can appeal to constituencies, from African Americans to young people, on which Democrats have long had a lock. 

He is clearly making progress. Americans for Prosperity board member Frayda Levin, who introduced Paul, called herself a “‘Stand for Rand’ gal,” referred to the senator as “my man,” and said that associating with Paul “makes me seem cool.” 

That is precisely the response Paul hopes to elicit from Republicans writ large. Whether he can pull it off remains to be seen, but it’s probably a good sign that, when the music began to play, Oscars-style, as a sign for Paul to exit stage left, the crowd booed. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Perry Plays to Hometown Crowd at AFP Summit in Dallas



Text  



Americans for Prosperity may be focused on promoting free-market economic policies, but Texas governor Rick Perry’s speech to the crowd at the organization’s annual “Defending the Dream” summit cast a much wider net.

President Obama, the Texas economy, foreign policy, and the influx of Central American children on the southern border all got the Perry treatment and his remarks, which ran nearly 20 minutes, offered a preview of the sort of stump speech he’ll deliver across the country if he decides to make another run for president, in 2016. 

He strode to the podium to the tune of “God Blessed Texas,” and his remarks were infused with his own brand of Texas bravado. The hometown crowd, 3,000 strong, many of them clad in some sort of American-flag paraphernalia, was receptive. Perry predicted that Republicans would reclaim control of the Senate in November and that, when the Republican majority is sworn in, Obama will have a “little appointment” with “constitutional limits.” 

“When an American president is constantly exceeding his constitutional authority, it doesn’t do wonders for bipartisan spirit,” Perry said. 

The governor was indicted last week on charges that he abused his power and he spent much of his time pressing the importance of constitutional government. He praised the work of Republican governors like Iowa’s Terry Branstad and South Carolina’s Nikki Haley, who he said have successfully cut taxes, controlled spending, and promoted job growth. Perhaps coincidentally, both Branstad and Haley are governors of early-primary states; left unmentioned were Perry’s potential rivals in a 2016 Republican primary: Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, Ohio governor John Kasich, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, and Indiana governor Mike Pence, who addressed a smaller group at the conference earlier on Friday.

The governor told the crowd, which packed the ballroom of the city’s Omni hotel, that defending the border was “not a political option but a constitutional obligation.” He received whoops and cheers at the mere mention of his decision to send National Guard troops to the Texas border. 

Conspicuously absent from Perry’s remarks: any mention of Hillary Clinton. 

He left the stage as “God Blessed Texas” blared again. The chorus: ”Well I’ve been sent to spread the message, God blessed Texas.” If Perry has any say, it appears he’ll be spreading his gospel much wider. 

Rogan: Cameron’s ‘Unprecedented’ Rhetoric on ISIS Shows Degree of UK’s Concern of Threat Coming Home



Text  



Tom wrote more about the threat of the Islamic State and more in his latest piece, “Obama, Check Your Answering Machine.”

Is Obamacare Hurting Wages? Probably



Text  



Over at the Wall Street Journal, the Heritage Foundation’s Salim Furth has a post looking at whether the Affordable Care Act has increased or lowered wages. Before he looks at the wage data for the first half of 2014, which is now available, he gives a good summary of who said what on the issue:

Predictably, fans of the ACA claimed it would raise wages. David Cutler, Karen Davis and Kristof Stremikis projected that health care costs would fall and the savings would be passed on to workers in the form of higher wages. Dean BakerJosh BarroPolly Cleveland, and Donald Marron all argued that because the ACA lowers labor supply, it must raise wages.

In response, Greg Mankiw pointed out that this conclusion can be drawn only if all else remains equal, which is surely not the case under the ACA.

    Skeptics and opponents of the ACA argued either that increasing labor costs would specifically lead to lower take-home pay for affected workers or more generally that the ACA would decrease efficiency in the economy. Michael Cannon and Paul Howard argued that in order to keep their existing health insurance plans, some employers would have to cut real wages. Henry Aaron and Gary Burtless wrote that higher costs for health insurance would lower non-health insurance compensation.

    Casey Mulligan and Trevor Gallen modeled the ACA and predicted lower wages due both to lower productivity and the (still-looming) employer penalty. Reihan Salam and my colleagues James Sherk and Patrick Tyrrell argued that the ACA will encourage companies to shift from labor to capital, reducing payrolls. Another colleague, Curtis Dubay, predicted wage suppression due to the many taxes in the ACA.The Economist warned that the ACA subsidizes low-wage work, shifting the wage distribution downward.

    Now, looking at some preliminary data, the trend isn’t good:

    Elise Gould, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report’s author, highlighted in a blog post just how bad a year it has been for wages. There are some caveats: Her data describe the wage distribution, which combines changes in individuals’ wages with changes in the composition of the workforce. But, regardless of the cause, Table 1 shows that for 9 out of 10 percentiles measured, the past year was worse than the average wage change since 2007.

    We need more data to be sure but as he concludes, sadly, so far the “initial evidence is thus firmly in favor of the ACA’s skeptics.” At the very least, he advises, that data should encourage the proponents of the law to reconsider some of their assumptions. 

    Celebrate Labor Day . . .



    Text  



    . . . by contemplating and planning some real R&R – the kind you’ll get (fortified by conservative camaraderie, revelry, and discussion!) on the National Review 2014 Post-Election Cruise, scheduled for November 9–16 on the luxurious Allure of the Seas. Over 500 have already booked cabins. You’ve always wanted to come on an NR cruise, so make this the one. For complete info, and to securely reserve your stateroom, visit www.nrcruise.com right now!

    Alison Lundergan Grimes’s First National TV Interview Was Absurdly Robotic



    Text  



    Alison Lundergan Grimes made her national-television debut last night on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, and the Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate didn’t exactly impress.

    Throughout the interview, Grimes, who’s running against Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, seemed committed to delivering a canned stump speech even as O’Donnell served up easy questions.

    The host began by asking her about McConnell’s vow not to raise the minimum wage — seemingly a toss-up — and Grimes pivoted immediately to attacking McConnell on other, unrelated specific policy issues. There was, of course, frequent use of “Koch brothers,” “millionaires and billionaires,” and “Wall Street” references.

    At one point, she abruptly reverted to a campaign-style rallying cry in a question about audio of McConnell discussing potential approaches to budgetary showdowns.

    “I invite everyone to come and join, and be a part of this effort — the nation needs to rise up with us,” she said, pitching her campaign’s website. “And together we will make November 4 Mitch McConnell’s worst day yet.”

    On the campaign trail, Grimes has run into her share of problems articulating her message, and often times confusing reporters and voters with her off-the-cuff, unprepared remarks. Earlier this summer, I chronicled the several times her staff has had to clean up after her and clarify what she’s said. On other circumstances, she’s offered incoherent or uniformed answers on topics such as the president’s emergency supplemental request for the border crisis or Israel’s Iron Dome.

    The More You Know, the Less You Trust



    Text  



    Matti Friedman is a former Associated Press correspondent in its Jerusalem bureau. If you missed his excellent insider’s account of how the news from the Middle East gets shaped, and becomes misshapen, please give it a read. The more you know about how the media actually operates, the less you will trust it. 

    Friedman identifies a number of important  problems with coverage of Israel, starting with the oldest one:

    The lasting importance of this summer’s war, I believe, doesn’t lie in the war itself. It lies instead in the way the war has been described and responded to abroad, and the way this has laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western discourse—namely, a hostile obsession with Jews. 

    . . . Many in the West clearly prefer the old comfort of parsing the moral failings of Jews, and the familiar feeling of superiority this brings them, to confronting an unhappy and confusing reality. They may convince themselves that all of this is the Jews’ problem, and indeed the Jews’ fault. But journalists engage in these fantasies at the cost of their credibility and that of their profession. And, as Orwell would tell us, the world entertains fantasies at its peril.

    From ignoring key aspects of the story — starting with what Hamas is and what it is about — to the outright suppression of non-conforming stories, the reality is ugly and disturbing. 

    No, Pointing Out Muslims Have Been Beheading People for Centuries Isn’t Islamophobic



    Text  



    “Leave it to ‘journalists,’” quips Twitchy, “to make a Fox News personality the villain in a story about Islamic terrorists beheading people.”

    But that is exactly what the Asian American Journalists Association has done, calling on Fox News to apologize for Andrea Tantaros’s August 20 comments on the channel’s roundtable show, Outnumbered.

    Discussing the beheading of American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State, Tantaros said: “And they’ve been doing this for hundreds and hundreds of years, if you study the history of Islam. . . . This isn’t a surprise. You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit,” she said. “You solve it with a bullet to the head. It’s the only thing these people understand.”

    In a statement on its website, AAJA condemned the “blanket comments that serve to perpetuate hate and Islamophobia.”

    Here’s the video of the segment:

    Beheading, as I wrote last week, is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon — the Romans did it, the English, the French — but Muslims are particularly zealous practitioners. It is no surprise that today’s jihadists have revived the practice, since it has a long and august tradition in Islam, dating back to the Prophet Mohammed himself.

    On the historical question, Tantaros is obviously correct. The larger question is whether Islam qua Islam sanctions beheading — or if jihadists pervert a religion that, in its orthodox form, is peaceful.

    That debate can be left to religious scholars. What is evident is that, as Tantaros observes, the masked men in our age who delight in chopping off heads are typically Muslim, and they believe that they have the sanction of their religion. Furthermore, that religious fervor has made them less than amenable to reasoned, dispassionate negotiation.

    No doubt AAJA is interested in saving the necks of the innocent men, women, and children who are targets of the Islamic State and their ilk. Then perhaps they can find something more constructive to do than call for journalists’ metaphorical decapitation.

    Harry Reid’s Alma Mater Removes His Name from Building



    Text  



    Southern Utah University has decided to do away with its Harry Reid Outdoor Engagement Center. Not the building itself, but the current Senate majority leader’s name on the building due to his unpopularity as well as unfulfilled promises in donations.

    The St. George Spectrum reports that university president Scott Wyatt and local officials began receiving calls for Reid, a one-time SUU Thunderbird, to no longer have his name on the building. “We had people step up and pledge money towards removing his name. In five days I received pledges totaling $40,000 — in just five days,” said a city councilman in Cedar City, Utah, where the university is located, who took part in the meetings. Wyatt decided not to accept such pledges, however, saying he did not want to disrespect or offend the senator.

    While Wyatt initially resisted the calls, he recently decided to drop Reid’s name, but said that it may be given to another building in the future. He noted that another reason for dumping it from the Outdoor Engagement Center is because the expected donations to put his name on the building never came.

    “They thought there would substantial donations from Harry Reid’s friends,” Wyatt told the newspaper. “But there has never been any money donated for that purpose.”

    The building’s faculty also agreed with removing Reid’s name. 

    Reid attended SUU before ultimately graduating from Utah State University.

    UKIP, Plus One



    Text  



    The chances of a Conservative victory in the next election (May) grew even more remote with the announcement yesterday that Tory MP Douglas Carswell, perhaps the most libertarian member of the parliamentary party, has defected to UKIP. Carswell is giving his constituents a chance to turf him out at a special election. Typically defecting MPs simply switch sides without more ado, leaving their constituents represented by somebody from a party for which most of them did not vote.

    Norman Tebbit, one of the last of the Truly Thatcherite old guard, comments in the Daily Telegraph:

    If Carswell just wanted to put on a show and rock the boat a bit he could have defected to Ukip but stayed on in the Commons until the general election next year. If he had done so he would also have qualified for a generous resettlement grant should he then have lost his seat. He has been unmoved by such personal considerations.

    Impressive.

    Carswell is a convinced euroskeptic, but his decision is about more than just that.

    The Guardian reports:

    With cameras crammed into a darkened room at One Great George Street, Farage walked in with Carswell to declare cheerfully that he had brought in the media on false pretences. Carswell then announced, to cheers from Ukip supporters, that he was abandoning the Tories to join Ukip after accusing Cameron of failing to deliver change on Europe.

    Carswell made clear that his criticisms went beyond Europe as he criticised what he called the “little clique” of Westminster. He said: “Of course they talk the talk before elections, they say what they feel they must say to get our support when they want our support. But on so many issues – on modernising our politics, on controlling our borders, on less government, on bank reform, on cutting public debt, on an EU referendum – they never actually let it happen.”

    To be fair, I think that Cameron (if he is reelected) will provide a referendum even if sets the stage in a way designed to secure a vote for continued EU membership.

    For now the focus will be on Carswell’s ability to hang on to the seat (too early to say; but I’d guess that he’s in with a good chance), but for those interested in the longer term outlook for UKIP this piece by Henry Hill on Conservative Home  (written before the Carswell news) is well worth a look.

    Hill discusses a conventional build-up of UKIP (focusing on it appeal to former Labour votes as the next stage in its growth),. But goes to add this:

    The other path is what The Week termed a ‘reverse takeover’: use the party as a vehicle for shifting the political centre in a given direction, and then dispose of it. Nigel Farage likes to describe the SDP [a breakaway party on the center-left that rose to brief prominence in the 1980s] as the most influential  political [British] party of the late 20th Century because, to paraphrase, we ended up with three of them. The SDP, UKIP supporters should note, is conspicuous today by its non-existence.

    On this model, UKIP brings sufficient pressure to bear to move the Conservatives where Farage wants them, and then reunites the right – on Farage’s terms.

    It’s easy to see why this attracts Farage – and it isn’t just because he probably doesn’t have two decades of frontline politics left in him. Farage, like a lot of UKIP activists but crucially unlike most of the party’s potential support, is a committed Thatcherite. Apart from getting out of Europe, what he’d really like is the ‘proper’ Conservative Party back. Moreover, he is deeply opposed in principle to the sort of policies that would maximise his party’s potential vote, especially on economic matters: patriotic protectionism, industrial policy, and so on.

    Yet the more UKIP attempts to move away from being perceived as ‘single issue’, the more it attracts people who don’t view it as a vehicle for leaving the EU. As Daniel Hannan has noted, the more time and effort people spend pounding the streets, running for councils and assemblies, and serving in elected office, the more people are getting attached to UKIP as a party.

    This probably won’t matter so long as Farage remains leader, and of course it is impossible to know what impact an In/Out referendum could have on the UKIP phenomenon, whatever the outcome. But such a referendum will bring these questions to a head: the party will be forced to decide, and articulate, whether or not it has a purpose beyond the EU and, if so, what that purpose is.

    It seems likely that whoever succeeds Farage as leader will be drawn from the new school of UKIP politicians, who are more attached to the party and better prepared to make the leftward adjustments of course required to align the party best with the economic inclinations of its potential voters. In which case the party could well become a permanent fixture of British politics – in a form that Nigel Farage never intended, and probably would not like at all.

    Yes, Hill is writing on a Tory website, so he won’t be disposed to portray UKIP in the most favorable light, but there’s a great deal to what he has to say. The problem (and opportunity) posed by “red UKIP”  would best be resolved within a reunited (and somewhat redefined) right, but I don’t see how that happens, for just the reasons that Dan Hannan suggests. UKIP’s activists have invested too much of themselves in their own party for that.

    NR Seeks Full-Time Editor



    Text  



    National Review is hiring a full-time editor. Applicants should have several years of experience and be familiar with, and enthusiastic about, National Review. If you are interested, please send a résumé and a cover letter to editorial.applications (at) nationalreview.com.

    Judicial Watch: Feds’ Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border



    Text  



    For those of us who’ve been raising alarms about both the jihadist threat and the national-security vulnerability created by the Obama administration’s non-enforcement of the immigration laws, this is not a surprise — particularly less than two weeks before September 11. But it is nonetheless jarring to read. Judicial Watch has just put out this statement:

    Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.  Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

    Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

    Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

    The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

    The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

    These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.

    The GOP’s Woman Trouble



    Text  



    At Bloomberg, I criticize the latest attempt by Republican pollsters to get a handle on the gender gap.

    Polling turns out to be a business in which generating data that confirm the thuddingly obvious can get you both money and news media attention.

    Politico tried hard to make its story on a new poll sound exciting, choosing the headline, “Exclusive: GOP poll of women: Party ’stuck in past.’” Did we really need an exclusive, though, to find out that women in the Northeast are not especially fond of Republicans? . . .

    I go on to make the perhaps provocative argument that people pay too much attention to the gender gap.

    WH: Obama ‘Determined as Ever’ to Take Action on Immigration



    Text  



    President Obama will “use as much authority as he can muster within the confines of the law” to solve the nation’s immigration problems, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Friday. Although he offered no timetable for the potential executive actions, Earnest said the president feels compelled to act because the House has blocked similar legislation.

    The president’s plans will proceed even as he’s “hoping House Republicans will come to their senses at some point and pass a piece of legislation that will be even more impactful,” Earnest said during the daily briefing. “The president is determined as ever to take that kind of action on his own simply because House Republicans have blocked the ability of Congress to try and solve this problem.”

    Reports have hinted that the president’s action may grant legal status to as many as 6 million immigrants currently in the country illegally, and some Democratic lawmakers have expressed excitement over the prospect. The president’s actions were expected as early as next week, but now the White House has hinted he may wait until after the November midterms to avoid jeopardizing vulnerable Democrats running for reelection.

    David Cameron: ‘We Need to Tackle the Ideology of Islamist Extremism Head On’



    Text  



    British Prime Minister David Cameron today addressed growing concerns about ISIL, noting that the British government had raised its threat level from “substantial” to “severe.” While declining to endorse military action, Cameron struck a serious pose. “What we are facing in Iraq now with ISIL,” he continued, “is a greater and deeper threat to our security than what we have known before.” On more than on occasion he suggested that that threat “comes from the poisonous narrative of Islamist extremism” and not from the fallout of the Iraq War or from global poverty. Moreover, Cameron suggested that the “mistakes” of the past should not be seen as an indication that force was always inappropriate. On the contrary: ” ISIL, he suggested, cannot be “appeased,” adding that the civilized world cannot permit the existence of a “terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean.”

    Cameron also noted that “openness” does not accommodate “intolerance,” and hinted that there is no place for people in Britain who won’t assimilate. “Adhering to British values,” he said, “is not an option or a choice, it is a duty for those living in these islands.”

    Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana Residency Is Her Parent’s House



    Text  



    Mary Landrieu is using her dad for more than just his renowned name in Louisiana politics: She also uses his address.

    A new report from the Washington Post finds that the Louisiana Democrat in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country claims her parents’ New Orleans home as her primary residence in the state. She is also registered to vote at that home.

    The house is jointly owned by her father, former New Orleans mayor Moon Landrieu, and her mother Verna, as well as Nineland Partnership, which is a partnership consisting of the couple’s nine children, according to the Post.

    On her Federal Election Commission statement of candidacy from earlier this year, Landrieu used her D.C. address.

    Residency questions have proved to be a problem for a number of congressional candidates over the years, most notably former Indiana Republican senator Richard Lugar, who hadn’t had a home in the state for years and lost in a 2012 primary. Landrieu’s likely Republican challenger, Representative Bill Cassidy, is already hitting her for her strong ties to D.C.

    Polls show Cassidy and Landrieu advancing to Louisiana’s run-off election December following November’s jungle primary, in which the top two candidates advance if none receive more than 50 percent of the vote.

    The NYPD Has a ‘Hip-Hop Squad’ That Keeps Tabs on Rappers’ Parties to Prevent Shootings



    Text  



    The New York Post reports that the NYPD boasts a special unit known as the “Hip-Hop Squad,” responsible for monitoring area parties and concerts that might feature stars from the rap/hip-hop industry. The squad’s “watch list” includes rappers Drake, Chris Brown, and French Montana. The Post reports:

    The shadowy specialist unit, known locally as the “Hip-Hop Police,” keeps a list of rappers and hip-hop stars whose shows and night club appearances are closely monitored. It also includes Fabolous, Wiz Khalifa, Young Jeezy, Fat Joe, Jim Jones and Lil Wayne.

    A source told us: “All New York club owners are required to inform the Hip-Hop Police in advance if anyone on the watch list is coming in. They want to be there to monitor the crowd and in case any trouble starts.” The insider added, “They don’t want any situations like the Suge Knight shooting. If something does go down, they want to already be on the scene. . . .

    “The other part of it is, there’s a lot of really street-leaning gangster guys on the fringes of the industry. . . . The police task force keeps tabs on who is around certain rappers and what movements they are going through.”

    No similar squads specializing in country, big band, or opera? Just another example of outrageous NYPD profiling.

    Pages

    Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

    NRO Polls on LockerDome

    Subscribe to National Review