A rash of knife attacks by recently released terrorists has put Britain on edge and serves as a reminder that the United States needs to do more itself to prepare for the imminent release from prison of convicted terrorists. In order to avoid the current problems of the British government, which is rushing to pass emergency legislation, American lawmakers should take advantage of our federalist system to bring state and local resources to play in tracking released terrorists.
The British government is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/02/streatham-attacker-was-released-terror-offender-sudesh-amman">struggling to address</a> the threat from dozens of convicted jihadi terrorists who are due to be released within months. Britain has seen several high-profile attacks from freed terrorists who received early release before serving even half their sentences.
Earlier this month, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/03/wave-jihadi-terrorists-due-freed-early-release-within-months/">20-year old Sudesh Amman</a> strapped on a fake explosive vest before launching a knife attack on Streatham High Road in London. Despite being under direct police surveillance during the attack, the jihadist critically wounded one person. Amman had previously been sentenced to three years and four months in prison for multiple terrorism offenses in November 2018 <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-46592539">related to distributing Islamic State propaganda</a>.
The attack methodology of a fake suicide bomb vest and knives directly mirrored that of Usman Khan, another convicted terrorist, who in November 2019 <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50653191">killed two people</a> on London Bridge. Prior to the attack, authorities had considered Khan <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50653191">a model</a> rehabilitated prisoner. Khan was attending a deradicalization conference minutes before he launched his attack.
Official data show that the British government has reconvicted <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/12/six-terrorists-freed-from-jail-committed-further-terror-act-figures-reveal">an additional six British jihadi terrorists</a> released from prison between 2013 and 2019.
This newest wave of attacks is a reminder that the U.S. also faces a risk from previously convicted terrorists who are released; various “rehabilitation” schemes are highly suspect.
Aimen Dean, a former al-Qaeda member who later spied for Britain’s MI6, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/al-qaeda-spied-mi6-know-deradicalisation-doesnt-work/">told The Telegraph</a>, “there is no such thing as a rehabilitated jihadist.” Morton Storm, a Danish former al-Qaeda member who later helped to betray terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki to the CIA, agrees. Rehabilitation efforts, he says, ignore that jihadis are not confused or mentally ill, <a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/joseph-perticone/denmark-aims-rehabilitate-not-punish-returning-jihadists">but are adherents of an ideology</a> to which they are committed. “[D]eradicalizing the jihadists doesn’t work, because they’re religiously motivated,” Storm told the Associated Press in 2017, in response to a Danish rehabilitation program.
Nearly two decades after 9/11, even high-level terrorist leaders facing long sentences are becoming eligible for parole and may even complete their full sentences. While there is very little information available on recidivism rates among convicted terrorists, the recidivism rate of jihadist fighters released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was nearly 17% in 2018, with another 13% also suspected of returning to active terrorism.
In 2017, a National Counterterrorism Center <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/the-troubling-us-post-prison-experiment-to-rehabilitate-an-isis-supporter">report noted,</a> “more than 90 homegrown violent extremists incarcerated in the U.S. who are due to be released in the next five years will probably re-engage in terrorist activity.”
In order to address this challenge, U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement need tools in order to prepare for released terrorists. One such tool would be a terrorism registry, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/america-needs-a-national-terrorist-registry-to-keep-us-safe">which would provide law enforcement</a> the ability to track the location of former terrorists in the same way police and the public can keep tabs on sex offenders — with legal sanction for failure to register. Louisiana successfully passed the first terrorism offender registry law in 2019, and several states have expressed interest in following suit.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/america-needs-a-national-terrorist-registry-to-keep-us-safe">A nation-wide network</a> has also been proposed by Patrick Dunleavy, a specialist on terrorist activity in the prison system. Realistically, such a proposal requires both federal assistance with information-sharing, as well as state laws to establish the registries and allow state authorities to enforce them.
A nationwide system of state terrorism registries would also take advantage of American federalism, utilizing state and local law enforcement to help prevent federal counterterrorism agents from being overwhelmed with keeping tabs on prior offenders.
Public registries protect and empower the individual citizen without need for government controls. The Department of Justice maintains a <a href="https://www.nsopw.gov/">public sex offender registry</a>, which private companies often use as a database for <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fsp.android.h&amp;hl=en">websites and apps that alert citizens</a> about rapists, stalkers, and molesters living in their neighborhoods.
Pseudoscience models of rehabilitation treat convicted terrorists as emotionally stunted unfortunates rather than committed ideologues willing to use violence for a political purpose. This has proven to be a disaster. Instead, the U.S. should implement a registry system for terrorists, bringing state and local law enforcement resources, as well as private enterprise, to bear and improving communication and cooperation for law enforcement in order to ensure that terrorist re-offenders do not slip through the net.
&nbsp;
Kyle Shideler is the Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy.

London

SHIDELER: Stop Releasing Jihadists From Prison

Al Qaeda

Great Britain

Islamic State (ISIS)

Jail

Prison

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

United Kingdom

After polls showed that Canadians were overwhelmingly opposed to paying for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle&#8217;s security should they relocate to the country, over 80,000 citizens have signed a petition demanding that the royals foot the bill themselves.
According to <a href="https://pagesix.com/2020/01/22/80k-canadians-sign-petition-for-prince-harry-meghan-markle-to-pay-for-their-security/">Page Six</a>, the fiscally conservative Canadian Taxpayer Federation (CTF) launched the <a href="https://www.taxpayer.com/media/No-Taxpayers-Money-For-Meghan-and-Harry.html">petition</a> last week by arguing that Harry and Meghan are welcome to seek financial independence apart from the royal family so long as Canadian taxpayers don&#8217;t supplement their security costs.
“Everyone wishes Meghan and Harry all the best in becoming financially independent, but we need to be clear about one thing: Canadian taxpayers shouldn’t have to cover their bills,” said CTF Federal Director Aaron Wudrick. “The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is launching this petition to make sure Prime Minister Justin Trudeau knows that Canadians are happy to welcome the couple as long as they pay their own way.”
“True financial independence cannot be achieved if Canadian taxpayers are still paying the bills,” continued Wudrick. “Canadians are already on the hook for the unlimited, unaccountable expenses of retired governors general and they should not be responsible for funding the private lifestyle decisions of members of the royal family.”
The 80,000 signatures were delivered to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau&#8217;s office on Tuesday.
According to <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-security-in-canada-for-meghan-harry-could-cost-over-10-million/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Globe and Mail,</a> experts say Prince Harry and Meghan Markle&#8217;s security detail could cost upwards of $10 million annually. Chris Mathers, formerly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), said security measures have changed drastically over the years and that the royal couple would have little say in how much or how little is required. Their residence alone would require &#8220;fences, explosive-detection dogs, closed-circuit television surveillance, alarms and a security team on the ground&#8221; as well as &#8220;a team to accompany them when they leave their residence.&#8221;
“They want to live their own life as best they can and they decided this is a place that will allow them to do that. You really can’t take that away from them,” Mathers told the outlet. “They need personal body guards all the time. You have to pay those peoples’ salaries. You’ve got to pay for the vehicles they travel in and the aircraft they travel in. You have to pay for the communications equipment they require because it has to be sophisticated so that you can’t listen to it.&#8221;
However, Bruce Hallsor of the Monarchist League of Canada <a href="https://vancouversun.com/news/welcome-canadian-taxpayers-federation-has-welcome-basket-for-meghan-and-harry" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told the Vancouver Sun</a> that no expectation exists that the royals “are going to receive any money from the Canadian taxpayer.”
“Regardless of whether they’re a public figure or not, I honestly think the best thing to do is leave that to the RCMP to determine what’s appropriate,” said Hallsor. “I think if they’re not going to be performing public duties they shouldn’t draw any kind of public resources. But if there’s a security threat to any Canadian resident, then police need to assess that and deal with that appropriately.”
According to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/megxit-canadians-overwhelmingly-against-paying-for-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-to-live-there">new poll last week</a> from the Angus Reid Institute, only 5% of Canadian taxpayers are okay with footing the bill for Harry and Meghan’s stay in the country, despite having a generally positive attitude about the migration.

REPORT: Meghan Markle And Prince Harry Are A ‘Public Relations Disaster’

PETITION: 80,000 Canadians Demand Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Pay Their Own Security

Canada

Meghan Markle

Prince Harry

Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle, duke and duchess of Sussex, have already stumbled upon a snag in Canadian living.
The exiting royals issued a cease and desist letter to British media outlets threatening legal action following Meghan and baby Archie being photographed in a public park in Canada, <a href="https://www.tmz.com/2020/01/21/meghan-markle-cease-desist-letter-photos-archie-canada-paparazzi-legal-action/">TMZ</a> reported Tuesday.
In England, Harry and Meghan were protected from being photographed in public outside of official appearances, TMZ noted.
“There are serious safety concerns about how the paparazzi are driving and the risk to life they pose,” the cease and desist letter reads, according to the outlet.
The couple’s legal team claimed in the letter that the photographs of Meghan and her infant son were taken while photographers hid in the bushes. “The letter took special issue with the commentary around the pictures that suggested they had been taken with Meghan’s consent,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/world/canada/meghan-and-archie-photos.html">The New York Times</a> reported.
According to the Times, The Daily Mail and The Sun posted the photos in question.
“Harry and Meghan have taken their privacy very seriously from the start of their relationshp, and even sued a UK tabloid last year for alleged misuse of private information,” TMZ reported. “In England, strict privacy laws protect even the Royals from being photographed in public when they’re not making official appearances.”
According to privacy law specialist David Elder, the couple could potentially bring a lawsuit forward under the under British Columbia’s Privacy Act, the Times reported. However, Elder noted, “the legislation contains many exemptions intended for news media, as does Canada’s constitution, and that Canadian courts have generally ruled that people in public places and public figures have little expectation of privacy.”
The privacy law specialist added that it “is unlikely to be a slam-dunk and, in fact, may be a difficult claim to make out successfully.”
Earlier this month, Harry and Meghan announced their intentions to step away from their royal duties and become financially independent.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen,” the couple announced in a joint statement.
On Saturday, Queen Elizabeth II, Harry’s grandmother, pulled the trigger on the exiting royals, outing the new conditions of the split. For example, “His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness” titles from Harry and Meghan were stripped and the couple will be financially cut off from royal funds, effective this spring.
“Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much loved members of my family,” the Queen said in a statement, noting her support for their “independent” life.
According to <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/duke-duchess-sussex-longer-working-members-royal-family/story?id=68372425&amp;cid=social_twitter_abcn">ABC News</a>, “Prince Harry is losing his military titles and patronages including Captain General Royal Marines, Honorary Air Commandant Royal Air Force Honington and Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command: Commodore in Chief. He will also no longer be a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador. Harry and Meghan will keep their roles at the Queen’s Commonwealth Truth – Harry serves as president and Meghan is vice-president.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meghans-sister-rips-her-for-destroying-royals-treatment-of-father-chasing-fame-and-fortune">Meghan’s Sister RIPS Her For Destroying Royals, Treatment Of Father: CHASING ‘FAME AND FORTUNE’</a>

Prince Harry And Meghan Markle

Harry And Meghan Already Find Snag In Canadian Living, Take Legal Action

Another member of Meghan Markle&#8217;s family has come forward to express harsh criticism of the existing royal.
On the heels of father <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walmart-with-a-crown-meghans-father-rips-daughter-for-cheapening-royals-choosing-money-over-family">Thomas Markle</a> ridiculing Meghan for &#8220;cheapening&#8221; the royal family to &#8220;Walmart with a crown,&#8221; sister Samantha Markle recently penned an op-ed taking Meghan to task for treating their sickly father poorly and destroying the royals in pursuit of &#8220;fame and fortune.&#8221;
&#8220;Meghan knew the social requirements of joining the royal family,&#8221; Samantha outlined in an op-ed published at <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10775155/samantha-markle-meghan-harry-never-find-happiness/">The Sun</a> on Monday. &#8220;She should have asked herself if she was willing and able to behave in accordance with the expectations.&#8221;
Samantha said Meghan had her friends leak negative stories about the royal family, highlighting a report that claimed the duchess found the royal lifestyle &#8220;toxic.&#8221; The estranged sister also accused Meghan of allowing &#8220;damage to be done against our family via friends and P.R. advisers.&#8221;
&#8220;She watched the media taunt and torture my dad, never springing to his defence like a true humanitarian would,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;Thomas was an incredible dad. He paid every penny of her education and cared greatly for her. He is now frail, with a heart condition. He doesn’t have a P.R. team to spin him a good story.&#8221;
&#8220;She knows how Harry leaving has affected&#8221; the royal family, she added, &#8220;but she hasn’t spoken up in their defense.&#8221;
&#8220;She could have expressed her thanks for the kindness of the Queen and Prince Charles,&#8221; wrote Samantha. &#8220;She could have expressed gratitude to her own father or her first husband, Trevor, who gave her career opportunities.
&#8220;My sister has become a totally different person, choosing wealth and fortune over family,&#8221; charged Samantha.
The sister suggested Meghan and Prince Harry&#8217;s claim to want a quiet, private life is suspect.
&#8220;My fear is Meghan’s decision isn’t about moving to Canada for a quiet life as a young mother,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;Nothing about their actions so far suggest they truly desire a private life out the limelight. They have paraded themselves on the red carpet, tried to make deals with Disney, and become pals with the Clooneys and other A-list stars. Smooching up to Vogue magazine, to fashion and to the film industry is not consistent with taking a step back.&#8221;
&#8220;Their objective is fame and fortune — to be Hollywood,&#8221; Samantha added.
The narrative that Meghan was pushed out for racial reasons was also dissected.
&#8220;Her decision to leave is nothing to do with the behaviour of the royals, or race,&#8221; Samantha said. &#8220;Her marriage to Prince Harry was so symbolic of ethnic unity. &#8230; The royals &#8230; welcomed Meghan into their lives, into the culture, and allowed her to promote people of all races. I have never heard anything racist coming out of the Windsors about my sister.&#8221;
The sister signed off: &#8220;I am worried that Meghan and Harry will never find true ­happiness. They could not find contentment with the Royal Family, will they be able to find it away from them?&#8221;
As reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-fame-fortune-sister-says">The Daily Wire</a> over the weekend, Mr. Markle told Channel 5 news he was disappointed in his daughter.
“This is, like, one of the greatest long-living institutions ever,” he said. “They are destroying it; they are cheapening it; they’re making it shabby.”
Harry and Meghan “are turning it into a Walmart with a crown of it now,” continued Mr. Markle, who has been estranged from Meghan since her wedding in 2018. “It is something that is ridiculous. They shouldn’t be doing this.”
Earlier this month, Duke and Duchess of Sussex Harry and Meghan dropped the bombshell announcement that they were planning to step away from royal duties and work to become financially independent.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen,” the couple announced in a joint statement. 
Queen Elizabeth II announced Saturday that the exiting royals will have their “His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness” titles stripped, as well as be financially cut off from royal funds, effective this spring.
“Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be much loved members of my family,” the queen said in a statement, noting her support for their “independent” life.
“Prince Harry is losing his military titles and patronages including Captain General Royal Marines, Honorary Air Commandant Royal Air Force Honington and Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command: Commodore in Chief. He will also no longer be a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador. Harry and Meghan will keep their roles at the Queen’s Commonwealth Truth – Harry serves as president and Meghan is vice-president,&#8221; <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/duke-duchess-sussex-longer-working-members-royal-family/story?id=68372425&amp;cid=social_twitter_abcn">ABC News</a> reported.

Meghan’s Sister RIPS Her For Destroying Royals, Treatment Of Father: CHASING ‘FAME AND FORTUNE’

Though Queen Elizabeth gave her public blessing to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in their decision to seek more independence from the royal family by splitting their time in North America, inside reports indicate something more tumultuous.
According to <a href="https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/prince-charles-is-livid-about-harry-meghans-step-down-decision/">Us Weekly</a>, royal insiders report that Prince Charles, Harry&#8217;s father, is &#8220;livid&#8221; over the announcement and blames Duchess Meghan Markle for the split. Given that the couple get 95% of their income from the Prince of Wales — $6.5 million — Prince Charles will now have to &#8220;decide to keep paying them or not,” said the insider source.
Despite the turmoil, neither Harry nor Meghan have shown any sign of backing down from their decision.
“They’re not having any second thoughts,” the insider said. 
The reported plan now for Harry and Meghan will be to settle in Canada while keeping a vacation home in Los Angeles. They also hope to soon give baby Archie a sibling. As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/duchess-meghan-wants-to-move-to-progressive-california-but-she-doesnt-want-her-company-to-pay-california-taxes">reported</a> by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Amanda Prestigiacomo, Duchess Meghan wants to settle down in &#8220;progressive&#8221; California after Trump leaves office.
News of Prince Charles&#8217; anger with the situation comes just days after Queen Elizabeth announced that she supports Harry and Meghan&#8217;s decision while still working to hammer out the details of their split — they plan to gain more financial independence while still keeping their royal titles, as they carve out a &#8220;progressive&#8221; role in the family.
“Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family,” the British monarch <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/queen-elizabeth-gives-new-statement-on-megxit-supportive-but-still-issues-to-be-resolved">said on Monday</a>. “My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”
The queen went on to say that there are “still issues to be resolved” before a final exit can be established.
“Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives,” continued the queen. “It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK. These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.”
Though the queen expressed support in her statement, reports leading up to it told a different story, with royal insiders telling various media outlets that she was both disappointed and blindsided by the sudden decision. Steve Hilton, former senior adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron, said on <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/deep-dive-nation/clips/?cmpid=org=NAT::ag=owned::mc=referral::src=FNC_web::cmp=article::add=DeepDive_Article_FNC_Platform" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fox Nation’s</a> <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/deep-dive-nation/clips/?cmpid=org=NAT::ag=owned::mc=referral::src=FNC_web::cmp=article::add=DeepDive_Article_FNC_Platform" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“Deep Dive”</a> that the queen’s statement is one of her most emotional.
“It feels like the most emotional words I’ve ever heard from the queen,” said Hilton. “It’s very interesting. It feels very personal in a way that I’ve never seen before.”

The Prince Of Wales Visits Flood-Hit Communities In South Yorkshire

REPORT: Prince Charles ‘Livid’ Over ‘Megxit’ As He Decides To ‘Keep Paying Them Or Not’

England

On Wednesday, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, announced that they would split from the Royal family to become &#8220;financially independent.&#8221;
&#8220;Harry and Meghan say they plan to step back as senior members of the British Royal family, and &#8216;carve out a progressive new role within this institution&#8217; while working &#8216;to become financially independent,&#8221; NBC News reported Wednesday afternoon.
&#8220;Harry and Meghan say plan to balance time between U.K. and North America,&#8221; the outlet added.
&#8220;This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter,&#8221; the couple said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Harry and Meghan say plan to balance time between UK and North America: &quot;This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter.&quot;
&mdash; NBC News (@NBCNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1214981140924260354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The shocking declaration was called &#8220;stunning&#8221; by <a href="https://apnews.com/d6710051fc250a094f23febc304eddb6?utm_medium=AP&amp;utm_campaign=SocialFlow&amp;utm_source=Twitter">The Associated Press</a>.
The couple have continually promoted progressive causes. This summer, for example, the Duchess and Duke <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prince-harry-says-he-and-meghan-markle-will-only-amanda-prestigiacomo">announced</a> that they will have two children at most to help save the planet and slow down climate change. 
In an interview published in an issue of British Vogue that was guest-edited by Meghan, Harry said fatherhood has made him more aware of the environment. 
The New York Daily News <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ny-prince-harry-meghan-markle-two-children-max-protect-earth-20190730-mpk2neaqubfede4adfodpsrzwu-story.html">reported</a>:
<blockquote>“‘It does make it different,’ he said, adding that he has ‘always had a connection and a love for nature’ and has ‘always wanted to try and ensure that, even before having a child and hoping to have children.’”
“‘Not too many!’ [Jane] Goodall said with a chuckle.”
“‘Two, maximum!’ Harry said. ‘But I’ve always thought: this place is borrowed. And, surely, being as intelligent as we all are, or as evolved as we all are supposed to be, we should be able to leave something better behind for the next generation.&#8217;”</blockquote>
Meghan and Harry have had a hard time with the press, as well, reportedly creating “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-are-public-paul-bois">a public relations disaster for Buckingham Palace</a>,” per royal insiders.
“Royal experts griped about everything from the Sussexes’ private jet use to Duchess Meghan allegedly courting the press to ‘<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9880041/meghan-markle-royal-hollywood-princess/">break the Internet</a>‘ with her guest-edited edition of Vogue U.K.’s September issue,” <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/meghan-markle-prince-harry-public-relations-disaster-royal-family">Fox News</a> reported in September. 
As noted by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-are-public-paul-bois">The Daily Wire</a>, “The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50073/meghan-markle-praises-trans-actor-laverne-cox-paul-bois">Vogue U.K. September issue</a> that Meghan Markle guest-edited packs a whole lot of woke punch between the magazine’s thin pages, from its feminist messaging to the inclusion of transgender actor Laverne Cox as a cited ‘woman of impact.’”
Additionally, author Lady Colin Campbell spoke to <a href="https://pagesix.com/2019/09/07/royal-insiders-dish-on-prince-harry-and-meghans-summer-of-hell">Page Six</a> about Meghan’s “media stunts.&#8221;
“[The couple’s recent behavior is] a public relations disaster for Buckingham Palace, who are having a hard time reining them in,” Campbell said. “Meghan is clearly calling the shots, but she’s a minor operator who is playing in the big leagues and mucking it up in the most catastrophic fashion.”
The climate-alarmist couple’s questionable travel habits have also welcomed accusations of hypocrisy. “Despite being avid environmentalists to the point of vowing to have only two children, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle traveled on a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/uk/harry-meghan-private-jets-gbr-intl/index.html">private jet two times</a> in just one week while preaching about the purported terrors of climate change,” The Daily Wire reported. 
“I spend 99% of my life traveling the world by commercial [flights]. Occasionally there needs to be an opportunity based on a unique circumstance to ensure that my family [is] safe,” Harry responded to critics. “We can all do better and while no one is perfect, we all have a responsibility for our own individual impact. The question is what we do to balance it out.”

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Harry And Meghan Announce Split From Royal Family

I always watch with amazement how the conservative Twittersphere reacts to a far-right terror attack. After the New Zealand shooting, when it was revealed that the attacker wasn’t just an anti-Semite but an eco-fascist and supporter of communist China, I saw activists and commentators immediately assert that the shooter “wasn’t really right-wing.” This seems to happen every time a similar terrorist incident has taken place in the United States.
I’m sure this is difficult to read, but I believe conservatives must consider the possibility that this kind of response may be both untrue and unhelpful. As a conservative who has seen the far right up close, I believe we are failing (not for want of trying) to tackle political extremism, and that there is much we must do to reclaim this issue from the Left. I understand that this is a difficult topic to navigate, but I ask that you read this piece with an open mind and consider what I have to say.
Surely the rise of a young, white nationalist movement that disguises itself as “America First” should have proven to us by now that anti-Semites exist within some segments of the broader self-proclaimed Right. Sure, in many instances these people are also socialists, but to be &#8220;right-wing&#8221; is not necessarily to only believe in a free market and small government. We cannot simply ignore the social values of these people, and far-right terrorists cannot be conveniently dismissed as left-wing as if they would not look out of place at a Bernie Sanders rally waving an LGBT flag. In most cases of far-right terrorism, the perpetrator holds extreme conservative (or &#8220;right-wing&#8221;) social values, has a desire to protect European identity in the most extreme way, and hates left-wing progressives as much as he hates Jews. These are the same ideas promoted by some of the young so-called “America First” activists, and their economic beliefs are largely inconsequential. A far-right terrorist isn’t thinking about the economy when he’s shooting innocent people in a synagogue.
While conservatives assume a defensive position on these tragedies, far-left ideologues are successfully holding onto the mantle of the political extremism narrative. They decide what is far right and what’s not, and they get to choose what constitutes extremism. Dangerous radicals dictate what can and cannot be said, and we conservatives do our best to assure them that we’re not the same as those far-right terrorists.
Not only do we know we are not the same, but so do the far-left radicals who claim that we are. This is the power that comes with winning a culture war, and with ineffectual measures taken by conservatives to address these issues. When we deny the existence of far-right terrorists, we appear delusional at best, or as if we have something to hide at worst.
We simply cannot continue to allow far-left “progressive” extremists to control the narrative on extremism. If we manage to change this, we will strip the power from those who dictate the parameters of political discussion and reverse the leftward shift of the Overton Window.
Accepting the existence of far-right extremists is just the first part of reclaiming this narrative, and in my new book <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Monster-of-Their-Own-Making/Jack-Buckby/9781642934243">Monster of Their Own Making</a>, I describe how we can successfully expose the role that far-left progressives have to play in the radicalization of young white men.
My experience in the far Right as a teenager has led me to the conclusion that young white men are radicalized, for the most part, by a three-pronged attack from the politicians, the media, and far-left progressive activists. In 2009, almost one million British people voted for a white nationalist political party, the British National Party. It was the result of mainstream politicians neglecting working class communities across the U.K., ignoring their concerns about mass immigration, and pushing forward with an unpopular policy of state-sponsored multiculturalism. It alienated normal British people, particularly those on the lowest wages and living in the most deprived towns and cities, and pushed people into the arms of white nationalists.
In my hometown, a boy around my age named Jack Renshaw was welcomed into the arms of the most extreme fringe of our political party. His radicalization was gradual, but surprisingly quick. I watched him get angrier and more disenfranchised until eventually, he was arrested after purchasing a machete and plotting to murder our local member of Parliament. I knew him fairly well, and it still gives me chills to this day knowing the monster he turned into.
Issues like this came to a head in the U.K. ten years ago, and it’s happening in the U.S. now. When politicians refuse to accept that Trump voters might have had a point when they said illegal immigration is a problem, call his supporters deplorables, and encourage far-left goons to ambush them (as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) once did), then you can bet you’re going to see the likes of so-called &#8220;groypers&#8221; capitalizing on that frustration.
It is surprisingly easy for extremists to latch onto legitimate concerns. Just look at how dangerous ideologues have latched onto the “America First” mantra and injected their own blend of smug hatred and anti-Semitism. This does real harm to the America First movement by conflating Holocaust denial and white supremacy with a desire to reduce immigration and protect American workers. It blurs the line between what is important, and what is flat-out extreme. The Left depends on this as it validates its argument that advocates of a stricter immigration policy are extremists and bigots.
Conservatives must realize that we have more power than we think. We can reclaim the narrative on extremism by not just being champions of positive and productive discussion on difficult issues, but by acknowledging that far-right extremism exists and pointing the finger at the far-left radicals who have facilitated its growth.
It is madness — utter madness — to allow far-left extremists to dominate the narrative on extremism. We must now expose the hand they have played in creating a new breed of far-right extremists, and we must start righting those wrongs.
&nbsp;
Jack Buckby is an English conservative author and researcher. His new book, <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Monster-of-Their-Own-Making/Jack-Buckby/9781642934243">Monster of Their Own Making</a>, analyzes how far-left progressives, politicians, and the media have facilitated the radicalization of young white men to the far Right. Follow him <a href="https://twitter.com/JackBuckby">@JackBuckby</a>.

U.S. flags waving

BUCKBY: Now More Than Ever, Conservatives Must Reclaim The Extremism Narrative

Conservatism

Leftism increasingly functions as less of a political ideology and more of a superstitious cult. Many examples could be presented to prove this point, but today&#8217;s &#8220;controversy&#8221; should suffice.
For a little bit of background, Maya Forstater is a researcher in the United Kingdom who recently lost her job for stating the scientific and indisputable fact that men cannot turn into women. Forstater went to court to win back her job but an employment judge <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets">ruled against her</a> this week, declaring that Forstater&#8217;s belief in biological science is &#8220;not worthy of respect in a democratic society.&#8221; He also ruled that her views on biology do not &#8220;have the protected characteristic of philosophical belief.&#8221; On that point, he&#8217;s correct. It is not at all a &#8220;philosophical belief&#8221; that men can&#8217;t transition into women. It is a scientific fact. But a fact that, in these times, cannot be stated publicly.
J.K. Rowling was next in line for cancellation. The author came to Forstater&#8217;s defense, but did so in the mildest and most leftist-friendly way possible (or so she thought). Writing on Twitter, Rowling said: &#8220;Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?&#8221;
Rowling here affirms the relativistic, libertine position on every point, except she is not willing to profess biological sex as a figment of our imagination. So, simply for suggesting that sex exists, Rowling has found herself in the <a href="https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/j-k-rowlings-support-of-researcher-fired-for-being-anti-trans-sparks-backlash-1203448705/">middle of a leftist firestorm</a>. Thousands of science-hating lunatics are calling her bigoted, transphobic, and so forth, all because she relayed a fact as indisputable and uncontroversial as &#8220;two plus two equals four.&#8221;
<iframe title="Leftism Is A Religious Cult | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 395" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rh2M7Qzx0Bg?start=14&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You could argue that Rowling deserves to be eaten by the alligator she&#8217;s been feeding all these years. Perhaps she does. But it is worth highlighting her plight because it underscores the point I made at the top. Leftist gender theory is a superstition and leftism itself is a cult. That is certainly how anthropologists of the future will categorize it when they sift through the wreckage of our once-great civilization.
On a related note, and inspired by this latest bit of madness, I am repeating the challenge I have made to the Left several times before. Only now I am upping the ante a little bit. As I <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1207727719192117253?s=20">announced on Twitter</a> this afternoon, I will give $100 to the first leftist who can provide me with a coherent definition of the word &#8220;woman&#8221; that permits biological males to be included yet still maintains womanhood as a distinguishable and objective category.
It is my contention that this simple question — what is a woman? — completely dismantles left-wing gender theory in its entirety. I claim that everything the Left says about gender can be discredited just by posing this question. After all, a statement like &#8220;I identify as a woman&#8221; has no meaning if the word &#8220;woman&#8221; has no meaning. Indeed, all statements about women are rendered incoherent if we do not have a working definition of the term itself.
The problem for the Left is that they need the word &#8220;woman&#8221; to mean something in order for feminist and LGBT rhetoric to have relevance. But any attempt to define the word must result in the exclusion of biological males. There simply is no available definition of &#8220;woman&#8221; that legitimizes transgenderism. If it means anything for a woman to be a woman, then it cannot mean anything when a man says he is one. I submit that transgenderism is both scientifically and logically invalid. This is a very important point. It&#8217;s not just that the Left is promoting a crazy new scientific theory. It&#8217;s that they are making a claim that is logically incoherent and thus dismissible and out of hand.
To review: The phrase &#8220;I identify as a woman&#8221; requires that the word &#8220;woman&#8221; mean something. But if the word &#8220;woman&#8221; means anything at all, then men who identify as woman must be mistaken. All you have to do to prove me wrong is offer a definition of the word that successfully navigates all of these obstacles. If you can, I&#8217;ll pay you for your trouble. But you can&#8217;t.

J.K. Rowling

WALSH: J.K. Rowling Is Being Attacked For Saying Biological Sex Exists, Proving Again That Leftism Is An Anti-Science Cult

JK Rowling

Leftism

LGBT

Progressivism

Sexuality

Transgender

A primary school in London has sparked outrage among parents for creating a woke version of the classic Christmas carol &#8220;Away In a Manger&#8221; in the name inclusivity.
According to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/london-parents-upset-after-school-changes-lyrics-to-christmas-carol-to-be-more-inclusive">Fox News</a>, Whitehall Primary School in East London told students that the word &#8220;Lord&#8221; would be replaced in the timeless song with the word &#8220;little baby&#8221; so as not to offend anyone. The order came from Zakia Khatun, the school&#8217;s headteacher, who said that 60 students out of 500 did not attend last year&#8217;s Nativity Tuesday celebration due to their religious beliefs.
Parents have not cheerfully accepted the news.
&#8220;I picked up my children at the end of the day and they were so upset, saying to me, &#8216;Mummy, today in assembly the headteacher told everybody that she would be changing the words to the Christmas song,'&#8221; one mother told the group Christian Concern. &#8220;I am taking this stand as Christian belief and tradition, which means so much to so many people of all generations, is being sacrificed and silenced in the name of inclusion and political correctness.&#8221;
Another mother told the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793487/Fury-primary-school-tells-pupils-say-Baby-Boy-Jesus-instead-Lord-Jesus.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daily Mail </a>that the school has effectively taken Christ out of Christmas and accused the headteacher of discriminating against Christians.
&#8220;If he was just a baby boy named Jesus, there wouldn&#8217;t be a celebration in the first place,&#8221; the mother said. &#8220;He is our Lord and Saviour and King of all Kings — that&#8217;s the whole point. Ms. Khatun doesn&#8217;t want the people who don&#8217;t have the same beliefs to feel excluded, yet it&#8217;s okay to exclude Christians,&#8221; the mother said.
Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said in a statement that the school has ripped the heart out of Christmas. “Removing the Lordship of Christ at Christmas guts the Christian message of its truth around which the whole of Western civilization once based its culture,&#8221; she said. “Let’s put the Lord Jesus Christ back into Christmas.”
In response, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of the Church of England, said the school should not remove the word &#8220;Lord&#8221; from the song, adding that students who do not wish to participate should be allowed to opt-out.
&#8220;The words ‘the Lord Jesus’ occur three times in the carol and point to the central message of Christmas which is: God is with us in Jesus. Everything in the Church, where the Nativity play is being held, points to this central truth of the Christian Faith,&#8221; the bishop said. “If parents do not wish their children to participate in a Christian Nativity play and any accompanying worship, they should be able to opt out and the school should provide an alternate activity for such children. But basic Christian teaching should not be changed just to accommodate everybody.”
The Diocese of Chelmsford weighed in, arguing that the school&#8217;s lyrics transformed the Christmas message into a joyful experience that everyone can partake in.
&#8220;The service maintains the traditional Christian message of the joy of Christmas in a way that can be celebrated by everyone, including those of other faiths and none,&#8221; said the diocese.

Claremont United Methodist Church Displays Nativity Scene Depicting Jesus, Mary, And Joseph As Detained Immigrants

London School Introduces Woke Lyrics To ‘Away In A Manger’ For Inclusivity Purposes

Christmas

<div>
Once the political home for many British Jews, the Labour Party now faces a systemic anti-Semitism crisis. Leader Jeremy Corbyn fundamentally altered the Labour Party in 2015. His rise to leadership was accompanied by an affinity for Britain’s radical leftists and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/europe/karl-marx-admirer-jeremy-corbyn-voted-britains-labour-party-leader-n426316" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/europe/karl-marx-admirer-jeremy-corbyn-voted-britains-labour-party-leader-n426316&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGaizO84EQWp5T2ku3LKMKwWT24Wg">Marx supporters,</a> including fervent anti-Zionists and pro-Palestinian sympathizers.
However, Corbyn and other Labour members have been accused of much more than merely criticizing the right-leaning government of Israel. Allegations range from Corbyn’s <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-not-a-man-of-the-people/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-not-a-man-of-the-people/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGVVTDKf-PjAxZA7JrJMRWjqQ292w">ties</a> to Deir Yassin Remembered, an anti-Israel organization led by a Holocaust denier, to Corbyn’s hosting a 2010 panel wherein Israelis were compared to Nazis. At National Review last month, David Harsanyi <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-reminds-us-why-israel-exists/">wrote</a> that a 2018 review of online posts by Labour Party Parliament members found “examples of Holocaust denial, crude stereotypes of Jewish bankers, conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Israel, and even one individual who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood.”
Equally as concerning is Corbyn’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups that specifically call for the destruction of Israel. In a 2009 speech in London, Corbyn notably <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/03/jeremy-corbyn-has-a-soft-spot-for-extremists-ira-hamas-hezbollah-britain-labour/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/03/jeremy-corbyn-has-a-soft-spot-for-extremists-ira-hamas-hezbollah-britain-labour/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG4pvTcb1-ldp6my3-NMeCjbWRjEA">described</a> these groups as his “friends.” His ultimate apology for that comment was overshadowed by his voluntary attendance at a 2012 Qatar conference that featured Palestinian militants previously imprisoned by Israel for perpetuating terror attacks against civilians. Corbyn described the terrorists’ comments as “fascinating and electrifying.”
In 2011, Corbyn <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-blamed-zionist-lobby-for-blood-libel-cleric-raed-salah-s-expulsion-from-the-uk-1.482455" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-blamed-zionist-lobby-for-blood-libel-cleric-raed-salah-s-expulsion-from-the-uk-1.482455&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGFc43jUXBUY-SCm9DJ4RtR5YfS0A">famously blamed</a> the “Zionist lobby” for procuring the deportation of the Islamist cleric notorious for promoting the infamous blood libel conspiracy, Raed Salah. The blood libel helped fuel the Nazis&#8217; genocidal, anti-Jewish crusades during the Holocaust. Salah was convicted in Israel for inciting violence and racism with statements like “whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the (Jewish) holy bread.” Corbyn defended Salah, stating that it was “time that Western governments stood up to the Zionist lobby which seems to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.”
Last month, Ephraim Mirvis, the chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/world/europe/chief-rabbi-labour-jeremy-corbyn.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/world/europe/chief-rabbi-labour-jeremy-corbyn.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGOs6QlT-yBhArnrZZJNHDO5wSyxQ">made</a> an unprecedented intervention in the United Kingdom’s political arena. He spelled out the anti-Jewish racism that has fully enveloped the Corbyn-led Labour Party.
On Sunday, the Simon Wiesenthal Center <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-group-names-uks-corbyn-top-anti-semite-of-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-group-names-uks-corbyn-top-anti-semite-of-2019/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGxwtPIuXAH-W3GKa4dJyKh6TGhIw">named</a> Corbyn as its top anti-Semite of 2019. Rabbi Marvin Hier, head of the Center, warned that if Corbyn wins, he would “make Britain a pariah on the world stage,” adding that “to have a person seeking the highest office who ignored anti-Semitism for years, who did everything in his power to encourage it, is shocking.”
Last year, Corbyn’s Labour Party <a href="https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEbSNNJ6EqoQE3lWMffqoTo2og3-w">refused</a> to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance&#8217;s (IHRA) internationally endorsed definition of anti-Semitism. Instead, the Party constructed a revised version, omitting the description of the “dual loyalties” trope as anti-Semitic. The amended version also intentionally left out the notion that comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is inherently anti-Semitic.
Public outrage has recently forced Corbyn to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/corbyn-apologises-for-antisemitism-in-labour-party" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/03/corbyn-apologises-for-antisemitism-in-labour-party&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHrPjuEO81z5uVsqpCxW9_TCvDPag">apologize</a> to the United Kingdom’s Jewish community. Corbyn stated he was “sorry for everything that has happened,” referring to the heightening tensions between the Labour Party and British Jews. The apology did not include a pledge to recognize the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, however.
David <a>Harsanyi perfectly </a><a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-reminds-us-why-israel-exists/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-reminds-us-why-israel-exists/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576075895003000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG4kzCYzxi-tOfwcZElk4tUHnC8JQ">summarized</a> the dire threat Jeremy Corbyn poses to Britain when he wrote that “Corbyn hasn’t merely &#8216;tolerated&#8217; anti-Semitic attitudes. He has actively transformed Labour into a safe haven for Jew hatred.” Corbyn’s watered-down apology cannot overturn the years of blatant and dangerous anti-Semitic rhetoric that has fueled the Labour Party under his leadership. Britain’s Jewish community must duly consider the chief rabbi’s unprecedented warnings and take a stand against Corbyn’s possible election.
&nbsp;
</div>
Maya Carlin is an M.A. candidate in counter-terrorism and homeland security at IDC Herzliya’s Lauder School of Government in Israel. She is also associate producer and analyst at the Center for Security Policy, located in Washington D.C.

Jeremy Corbyn Campaigns On North Coast Of Wales

CARLIN: Jeremy Corbyn Could Pose An Existential Threat To British Jews

Anti-Semitism

Israel

Jeremy Corbyn

Judaism

Palestinians

Whatever public life Prince Andrew had prior to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal has been all but destroyed, according to one royal expert.
Speaking with <a href="https://people.com/royals/prince-andrews-entire-public-existence-has-been-wiped-out-says-royal-historian-robert-lacey/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People magazine</a>, royal historian Robert Lacey stated that Prince Andrew&#8217;s entire public existence has been &#8220;wiped out&#8221; following his disastrous interview on the BBC in which he attempted to blame his relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein on his sense of honor.
“His entire public existence has been wiped out by his own behavior,” Lacey told the outlet.
As reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-andrew-public-existence-wiped-out-historian">Fox News</a>, Buckingham Palace has made dramatic efforts to minimize Prince Andrew&#8217;s role in public affairs to the point of canceling his 60th birthday and booting him from the palace entirely.
&#8220;Just days after the British royal announced he was &#8216;stepping away&#8217; from public duties for the &#8216;foreseeable future,&#8217; Andrew was forced to pull out of a trip to Bahrain for an international meeting of his Pitch@Palace organization, which promotes entrepreneurs and new ideas in tech,&#8221; reported the outlet. &#8220;Andrew’s office is also set to be moved out of Buckingham Palace and center around Pitch rather than his own official royal work.&#8221;
Lacey said that the actions taken against Prince Andrew show that &#8220;the royals can move very swiftly and very ruthlessly.&#8221;
During the interview on the BBC, Prince Andrew raised more than a few eyebrows when he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prince-andrew-says-his-tendency-to-be-too-honorable-made-him-pal-around-with-jeffrey-epstein">blamed his friendship</a> with Epstein on his “honor,&#8221; a move that was largely hailed by media and royal experts as a disaster.
“The problem was the fact that once he had been convicted I stayed with him,” the Duke of York told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis. “That’s the bit I kick myself for on a daily basis because it was not something that was becoming of a member of the Royal Family and we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down, simple as that.”
Prince Andrew dug himself an even bigger hole when described Epstein’s home as a “convenient place to stay” despite Epstein being a convicted sex offender.
“There is … I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times,” Andrew said. “At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honorable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable, but that’s just the way it is.”
Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed in a 2015 lawsuit that Epstein recruited her to have sex with his powerful friends when she was just 15 years old, alleging that one of her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew occurred when she was just 17. Prince Andrew has denied those charges.
“I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever,” said Andrew. “I stayed with him and that’s [something] I kick myself for on a daily basis because it was not something that was becoming of a member of the royal family and we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down, simple as that.&#8221;

Celebrities At Wimbledon 2015

Royal Expert: Prince Andrew’s ‘Public Existence Has Been Wiped Out’

Jeffrey Epstein

A new sex-ed curriculum recently instituted in some classrooms in the United Kingdom is one of the most blatant examples of institutionalized child sex abuse that we&#8217;ve seen in the West. As <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7490415/Children-young-SIX-given-compulsory-self-touching-lessons.html">the Daily Mail reports</a>, the All About Me program being unveiled in over 240 schools across the country would give very young children &#8220;rules&#8221; for &#8220;touching yourself.&#8221; The Mail offers details about these rules:
<blockquote>Under a section called Touching Myself, teachers are advised to tell children that ‘lots of people like to tickle or stroke themselves as it might feel nice.’ They are also instructed to inform youngsters that this may include touching their ‘private parts’ and, that while some people may say this behaviour is ‘dirty,’ it is in fact ‘very normal.’</blockquote>
It gets worse:
<blockquote>
In the same lesson, children are given scenarios which they must judge to be ‘OK’ or ‘not OK.’
In one, pupils are told that when a girl called Autumn ‘has a bath and is alone she likes to touch herself between her legs. It feels nice.’
</blockquote>
This is for six- and seven-year-olds, remember. Not that it would be any more appropriate for older children.
An <a href="https://www.curdworthprimary.co.uk/our-information/curriculum/all-about-me-sre-programme/">overview</a> of the All About Me program seems to indicate that this lesson plan will be very hands-on, in a literal sense:
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<blockquote>Children will be given the opportunity to explore a variety of diﬀerent touch and feel sensations and allowed to decide which they like and dislike.</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<blockquote>By the end of the lesson, children will understand that just because they like how something feels does not mean that everyone feels the same.</blockquote>
</div>
By year four of the program, things get more specific:
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 5">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<blockquote>Children will consider the rules of when it is appropriate to be naked or semi-naked and when it is appropriate to touch themselves, including self-stimulation.</blockquote>
And in year five, the kids will have graduated to discussions about erections and wet dreams:
<div class="page" title="Page 6">
<div class="section">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<blockquote>Children will be informed of their own personal anatomy and the development of their genitals, including wet dreams, erections, self-stimulation, and menstruation.</blockquote>
A similar program was recently rolled out in <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/amp/news/south-africa/2019-10-30-poll-are-grade-4-pupils-ready-to-learn-about-sex-and-masturbation/">South African schools</a>, instructing kids on the wonders of masturbation, anal sex, and oral sex.
And lest you think we are safe from this madness here in the States, our own compulsory sex-ed curricula are not far removed from what&#8217;s described above. A recent &#8220;<a href="https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sex-education-california-20190510-story.html">framework</a>&#8221; for sex education in California features, among other things, graphic descriptions of sodomy and bondage.
What we&#8217;re witnessing here is not a &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; to the normalization of pedophilia. This is pedophilia. There&#8217;s no more slope. We&#8217;ve reached the bottom, which isn&#8217;t to say that we can&#8217;t pull out a shovel and continue our descent. My point is simply that these &#8220;programs&#8221; are a form of widespread, institutionalized child sexual abuse. The administrators who approve this material are predators, and the teachers who teach it are complicit. The &#8220;I&#8217;m just following orders&#8221; excuse rarely gets you off the moral hook, and it certainly doesn&#8217;t in this case.
<iframe title="Climate Protesters Officially Cross The Line | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 378" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pLPmKtTQoIk?start=1073&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But we should not be surprised by this. It is the inevitable consequence of allowing public schools to teach &#8220;sex-ed&#8221; in the first place. There is, it turns out, no non-creepy way for schools to handle the topic. There is no approach that isn&#8217;t at least inappropriate, and at worst abuse. That&#8217;s because schools have no business delivering lectures on sexuality, no matter what is being said about it. By broaching the subject, they are already treading on ground where they don&#8217;t belong. It&#8217;s no wonder that they marched all the way to this point.
</div>
As far as schools are concerned, sex should be a purely scientific subject. Teach the kids about anatomy. Teach them where babies come from. Teach them the facts of human reproduction. That&#8217;s it. The children don&#8217;t need to hear, and should not hear, the teacher&#8217;s personal views on what kind of touching is appropriate, and what sort of sex positions are enjoyable, and &#8220;when it is appropriate to be naked or semi-naked,&#8221; whether our cultural attitudes towards sexuality are repressive, and so on. None of that constitutes objective scientific information. It is, at best, the subjective view point of the person who came up with the lesson plan. And subjective view points about sexuality have no place — at all — in a school.
This is not a pitch for &#8220;abstinence education.&#8221; Abstinence programs are certainly less creepy and less morally fraught than some of this other stuff, but I don&#8217;t want my child&#8217;s teacher to give him tips on how to avoid having sex any more than I want her giving tips on how to have it. It&#8217;s simply none of her business, either way. She is an unwelcome intruder. Just because I send my kids to school to learn the ABCs and 123s doesn&#8217;t mean I also want them to be indoctrinated into Mrs. Wilson&#8217;s personal philosophy on human sexuality. Actually I don&#8217;t send my kids to school at all — we homeschool — but the point stands.
</div>
If it would be considered a gross infringement for a teacher to stand up and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the middle of algebra class, why is it any less of a gross infringement for a teacher to proclaim the Gospel of Sexual Enlightenment — the Gospel of Freud, basically — in the middle of health class? You might argue that schools &#8220;have to teach it&#8221; because parents refuse to do it themselves. But where does that end? There are many ethical, moral, and spiritual lessons that parents often fail to impart to their children. Should schools then become churches, daycare centers, therapists, spiritual gurus, and sex coaches all rolled into one, just to compensate for lackadaisical parenting? Schools don&#8217;t automatically inherit the right to teach whatever a parent doesn&#8217;t teach.
Besides, parents might &#8220;refuse&#8221; to teach their children how to masturbate because they, as parents, feel (rightly) that such a lesson would be extremely bizarre and inappropriate, and probably warranting a visit from CPS. It might be a teacher&#8217;s opinion that parents should teach those things, but her opinion is irrelevant. It&#8217;s also, in this case, insane. That&#8217;s why schools should stick to the academic basics. Reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. It is not their job, or their right, to go beyond that.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

children in classroom

WALSH: Sex-Ed Program Teaches Six-Year-Olds How To ‘Self-Stimulate.’ This Is Why Sex-Ed Should Be Abolished.

Children

Education

Prince Andrew&#8217;s interview on the BBC over the weekend, in which he blamed his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on his sense of honor, has been largely hailed as a disaster.
According to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-andrews-jeffrey-epstein-interview-considered-a-disaster-by-viewers-the-media">Fox News</a>, the British royal is now facing &#8220;harsh backlash from critics and media personalities&#8221; in the interview&#8217;s wake.
&#8220;Many in the media were quick to deride Prince Andrew for not only defending his friendship with Epstein but for failing to show empathy for the convicted sex offender’s victims,&#8221; reports the outlet.
During the interview, Prince Andrew raised more than a few eyebrows when he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prince-andrew-says-his-tendency-to-be-too-honorable-made-him-pal-around-with-jeffrey-epstein">blamed his friendship</a> with Epstein on his &#8220;honor.&#8221;
“The problem was the fact that once he had been convicted I stayed with him,” the Duke of York told the BBC’s Emily Maitlis. “That’s the bit I kick myself for on a daily basis because it was not something that was becoming of a member of the Royal Family and we try and uphold the highest standards and practices and I let the side down, simple as that.”
Prince Andrew dug himself an even bigger hole when described Epstein&#8217;s home as a &#8220;convenient place to stay&#8221; despite him being a convicted sex offender.
“There is … I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times,” Andrew said. “At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one could have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honorable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably colored by my tendency to be too honorable, but that’s just the way it is.”
Charlie Proctor, editor of the Royal Central website, described the interview as &#8220;a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion.&#8221;
In an appearance on &#8220;Good Morning Britain,&#8221; lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents many of Epstein&#8217;s victims, said Prince Andrew&#8217;s denial about Epstein&#8217;s relationship with underage girls is implausible on its face.
“I don’t see how he could have not known that there were underage girls, minors, because he did visit homes of Mr. Epstein in New York, in Palm Beach, in the Virgin Islands and I happen to know that there were underage girls in all those locations,” <a href="https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1196334743048065024" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said Allred.</a>
Top media lawyer Mark Stephens also told The Guardian that Prince Andrew should have maintained silence.
“This strategy only works if you’ve got a complete and full answer to every possible question, and here there are too many loose ends,” Stephens said. “If he’d kept his silence he’d have been able to remain outside of the case, as he’s a witness and is entitled to diplomatic immunity. He was a private individual and now he’s waived that privacy.”
According to The Guardian, the accounting empire KPMG announced in the wake of Prince Andrew&#8217;s disastrous BBC interview that it will not be &#8220;renewing its sponsorship&#8221; of the royal&#8217;s &#8220;Pitch@Palace,&#8221; which provides a platform for entrepreneurs to accelerate their work. KPMG has issued no comment on the matter.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed in a 2015 lawsuit that Epstein recruited her to have sex with his powerful friends when she was just 15 years old, alleging that one of her sexual encounters with Prince Andrew occurred when she was just 17. Prince Andrew has denied those charges.

Funeral Of The Countess Mountbatten Of Burma

Prince Andrew’s Jeffrey Epstein Interview Considered A Disaster

After candidates on Great Britain’s “The Apprentice” revealed they did not know which years World War II began and ended, prompting criticism of them on social media, a British reality TV star told “Good Morning Britain” that schools should not spend much time on the subject of World War II because it would be bad for children’s mental health.
Freddie Bentley, 22, who has appeared on &#8220;The Circle,&#8221; stated:
<blockquote>It was a hard situation, World War II; I don&#8217;t want anyone to think I&#8217;m being disrespectful in that way whatsoever. However, I will stand by the point that I don’t thank it’s educational in the way that we — there’s so many problems going on in the world like Brexit, that’s not talking school, and climate change, which is a situation that I thought we should be aware of. When I left school, I felt like, it hit me like a ton of bricks, cause I didn’t know anything in general life.</blockquote>
Bentley also stated, according to <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7638687/Instagram-influencer-22-claims-learning-World-War-Two-hit-millennials-MENTAL-HEALTH.html">The Daily Mail</a>, “I remember learning it as a child thinking, ‘Oh my God, it&#8217;s so intense.&#8217;” He added, “I don&#8217;t think encouraging death or telling people how many people died in the world war is going to make it better.” Bentley suggested teaching the students about how to get a mortgage or how to understand Brexit rather than World War II.
<a href="https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tv/good-morning-britain-fans-furiously-20786460">One guest stated</a>, “Millions of people have died; fifty million people died in the second World War, to fight Fascism, to fight tyranny, people who wanted to take away people&#8217;s right to freedom, to the vote, to the franchise. That’s why people should know about the second World War, the first World War, the conflicts that have taken place and the fight for freedom that you and I enjoy.”
Bentley responded, “And I totally get that, but I don’t think it needs to be put in such a young way to such young children, mentally &#8212; their mental health, to be told that this amount of people died for you.&#8221;
The guest replied, “You can’t exaggerate; children need to know that it’s a dangerous world out there. They need to know that crossing the road is sometimes dangerous …&#8221;
Bentley answered, “But mental health is on the rise completely and I don’t think that encouraging death or telling people how many people died in a World War is going to help somebody in the future.”
Bentley’s comments triggered anger on social media; one person wrote, “This man just shows the state of this country. How can you not respect war heroes?”
<a href="https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/01/circle-star-freddie-brushes-off-backlash-arguing-millennials-dont-need-know-wwii-11023910/">Another stated</a>, “I’m sorry for you as I’m sure this will follow you for years. You need to do some learning about the world and not just how it affects you. You sounded incredibly thick and self absorbed and I’m sure that’s not you, but that’s how you look.”
A third commented, “WWII is it worth educating young people? Of course, it is! OMG if you don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s worth remembering the millions of people that fought and died for us.”
Bentley seemed unaffected by the furor he engendered, tweeting, “Good or bad tweets I have walked out with a massive smile on my face! I’m buzzing to have been a guest on GMB &amp; couldn’t be more proud of myself.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Good or bad tweets I have walked out with a massive smile on my face! Im buzzing to have been a guest on GMB &amp; couldn’t be more proud of myself <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/gmb?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#gmb</a> 😊
&mdash; Freddie (@freddiebbentley) <a href="https://twitter.com/freddiebbentley/status/1190187899532255232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Bentley

Millennial Reality TV Star: Teaching Students About World War II Is Bad For Their Mental Health.

Millennials

World War II

Despite repeatedly stating that the United Kingdom would fulfill the democratic decision of the British people and leave the European Union on October 31st, Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to have become the latest victim of the combined weight of internal British political sabotage and a monolithic European bureaucracy.
When Parliament passed the EU Withdrawal (No. 2) Act, known as the “Benn Act,” Boris Johnson’s government was forced to work to stop a “no-deal Brexit” on October 31st. Earlier today, as the latest departure date loomed, European leaders agreed to yet another extension — this time to January 31st, 2020.
EU Council President Donald Tusk ironically dubbed this a “flextension” (because seemingly every Brexit-related failure deserves its own portmanteau), stating that the United Kingdom could leave before this ever-expanding deadline if the British Parliament were to approve a Brexit deal. However, the likelihood of reaching such agreement is absurdly small, given that Parliament has voted to reject every deal put forward by former Prime Minister Theresa May and her successor, Boris Johnson.
In an attempt to break this mind-numbing deadlock, Boris Johnson has been calling for a general election in a bid to consolidate more support in Parliament for some form of departure from the European Union. After calling for a general election for several years, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50205603">scuppered every attempt to actually hold such an election</a>. This leaves the United Kingdom in a perpetual state of inaction and, more importantly, as a continued member of the European Union.
While Brexit might seem complicated, it is actually depressingly simple. The European Union and the British political class are now conspiring to ignore the voice of the British people and, as a result, are rejecting the fundamental premise of democracy itself. It should also be noted that, while they are intentionally failing in their governmental duties, the elite British political class is applying a careful combination of strategies in order to achieve its goal of remaining subjugant to the unchecked, faceless, and widely undemocratic web of European bureaucracy.
The European Union, like any other pseudo-authoritarian system, works along a different timeline than does the voting population. During any form of democratic process, voters are constantly presented with choices which are promised to result in immediate or short-term impact. The Brexit referendum of 2016 was no different. After waiting over three years for any progress, the British population is unsurprisingly frustrated with the continued failure of the political class.
As frustration grows, apathy will also grow regarding the type of Brexit that is achieved. Achieving any form of change becomes more attractive than the continued failure to deliver the original objective. As apathy grows, the voices of those calling for a so-called “people’s vote,” or even the open rejection of Brexit itself, become more legitimate. Such frustration and apathy is being leveraged with the goal of erasing Brexit from the pages of history.
The legacy of British democracy is languishing due to the crushing refusal to respect the voice of the British populace. Every delay to Brexit is another rejection of the foundational expectation of basic democracy, where the result of a vote is implemented as directed by the majority of the population. We should pray that neither apathy nor frustration, fueled by an elitist political class that holds little respect for its duty as elected representatives, results in an ultimate capitulation to the European Union.
If the British government fails to deliver Brexit — whether through a “no-deal” departure or a withdrawal agreement that achieves true sovereignty for the United Kingdom — then democracy will have died in the U.K. It won’t die with violence. It’ll die with an exhausted sigh, as the very spirit of Britain collapses between the determined claws of the European Union.

Boris Johnson

HAWORTH: Brexit Delay Signals The Death Of British Democracy

Brexit

The most meaningful political story in the United States this week wasn&#8217;t unfolding in the United States. One of our potential futures was instead being played out in England, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson was fighting a pitched battle to bring the will of the people to fruition against the entrenched power of a multi-national elite.
Ever since a 2016 referendum in which British voters chose to leave the European Union by a 52% to 48% margin, the voters’ representatives have been doing everything they possibly can not to represent the voters. Prime Minister Teresa May swore that &#8220;Brexit means Brexit,&#8221; then managed to fashion a leave deal so bad that even Brexit supporters thought it worse than staying. After May staggered off in tears, Boris Johnson took over the premiership swearing that the Brits would be out of the EU by the October 31stdeadline — a deadline already once extended.
BoJo made it clear that his willingness to &#8220;crash out&#8221; on Halloween with no deal would help him negotiate a better deal with an EU that does not want to let its grip on British power go. But Parliament — with the help of a largely anti-Brexit press and elite — has so far managed to stymie Johnson&#8217;s strategy and may extend the deadline yet again — maybe forever.
The reason I say this is the most meaningful political story here in the U.S. is because it&#8217;s the first real test of whether the English-speaking peoples can wrest back their power of self-governance. If Brexit fails, the situation here will not look good. If it succeeds, there&#8217;s hope.
As Christopher Caldwell points out in his excellent Brexit piece in this summer’s issue of Claremont Review of Books, Britain&#8217;s entry into the E.U. did not just result in a diminution of British sovereignty over its own affairs, it also transferred power from the people&#8217;s representatives in Parliament to the elite’s representatives on and before the bench. British judges could now invalidate British law that conflicted with laws concocted in Brussels.
&#8220;Quangos [advisory bodies with government-appointed members] and foundations began designing cases — concerning migrants&#8217; rights, gay rights, search-and-seizure — that unraveled the centuries-old fabric woven from the rights and duties of British citizenship. A new fabric began to be woven, based (as are all such systems in Europe) on post-Civil Rights Act American law and on the litigative ethos of the American bar.&#8221;
Here in America, a similar shift has taken power out of the hands of our representatives in congress and put it into unelected administrative bodies like the EPA and the Department of Education. These bodies serve the same &#8220;rights&#8221; oriented obsessions of the elites — and can make rules and enforce rules in a completely unconstitutional and anti-freedom manner that, so far, has had the support of a feckless Supreme Court.
Legislators love this system. They no longer have to study issues and fashion laws that have a specific effect. They no longer have to take real stances that could get them voted out of office. They simply have to pose for the cameras, use big, emotional words, take money from entrenched interests and then announce that they &#8220;did something&#8221; about the big issue of the day. The &#8220;something&#8221; is some 2,000 page collection of vaguely worded gobbledygook that can be interpreted by some drone at the EPA to mean he can do whatever he wants. When the EPA guy then rules that you can&#8217;t go to the bathroom because your toilet is a public waterway, you&#8217;ve got no one to appeal to but the same petty tyrant at the EPA. Your property rights, your rights to due process, not to mention your vote, essentially mean nothing.
Donald Trump has done an excellent job of cutting regulations, but they&#8217;ll bounce right back once the next person, Democrat or Republican, takes his place. The entire system needs to be dismantled, probably at the level of the Supreme Court.
With the election of Donald Trump and with the vote for Brexit, the English-speaking peoples are demanding their age-old representative systems back. If Boris Johnson succeeds in Britain, it will be a hopeful sign. But if the combined power of the elites and their press can prevent the crash out, then Trump, instead of the change we need, may turn out to be just a bump in the road that leads to the end of the republic.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51400/haworth-americans-must-see-brexit-betrayal-warning-ian-haworth">HAWORTH: Americans Must See The Brexit Betrayal As A Warning</a>

KLAVAN: Where Britain Goes, America May Follow

Donald Trump

European Union

Trump Administration

The ongoing saga that is Brexit may seem distant to some of us here in the United States. News of the latest British capitulation to the ever-expanding political monolith that is the European Union sporadically trickles across our airwaves, but soon crumbles beneath the weight of a frantic news cycle. However, what’s currently unfolding in the United Kingdom should require the attention of everyone who values freedom and fears the creeping threat of authoritarianism.
As the most recent departure date from the E.U. of October 31st fast approached, it seemed like the slog towards Brexit was almost complete. Unfortunately, there has been a continued attempt to undermine the referendum result at every stage by a class of globalist political elites, buoyed by a vocal and petulant minority that has refused to accept reality. Sound familiar?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the most recent occupant of the seemingly cursed No. 10 Downing Street, was defeated twice by the House of Commons this week. The first defeat came after opposition members of Parliament (MPs) and Conservative Party rebels <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49580185">voted 327 to </a><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49580185">299</a> in favor of a bill that would block a no-deal Brexit. If passed, Boris Johnson would be forced to “ask” the European Union for yet another deal negotiation extension beyond October 31st. In response, Johnson attempted to push for a new general election, but <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907">MPs turned down his motion</a> — with Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn stating that his party would support Johnson’s call for a new general election once the bill blocking a no-deal Brexit passed.
Now, it is fair to argue that binary referenda aren’t the most effective or positive way of achieving policy changes in a representative democracy. They enable the political evasion of responsibility by punting impactful decisions to the populace, with politicians claiming credit for success and blaming the public for failure. They are also divisive by definition, with the societal impact of Brexit often compared to the vicious aftermath of the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. Regardless, the very foundation of a democratic system is that the decisions made by the voters are respected by those who have been elected as their representatives. The referendum result of June 23rd, 2016 was clear, with 17.4 million people voting to leave the European Union — a gargantuan bureaucracy that has grown far beyond the economic-centric “European Community” that Britons had supported in their last relevant referendum of 1975.
Despite it being a duty bestowed upon the British political class to act in accordance with the will of the people, every method of satisfactory departure from the European Union has been intentionally blockaded by those who have no respect for the referendum result — or for democracy itself. As a final insult, the refusal to hold a general election before officially preventing a no-deal Brexit is simply an attempt to delay Brexit indefinitely.
The reason for this is that “no-deal” is the only remaining way for Britain to leave the E.U. The only deal supported by the E.U. is the disastrous “Withdrawal Agreement” negotiated by former Prime Minister Theresa May, which has been rejected on multiple occasions by the House of Commons. With a no-deal Brexit taken off the table, we are left with two equally unacceptable outcomes.
<ol>
<li>Without facing the threat of crashing out of the E.U., the prime minister will be handed the impossible task of negotiating with the European Union without any meaningful leverage. This will mean that the E.U. can keep the U.K. trapped as the parties fail to negotiate, forcing Britain to beg for extension after extension. Result: U.K. stays in the E.U.</li>
<li>As the deadly combination of impatience and apathy grows among the British public, the government will finally adopt Theresa May’s absurd “Withdrawal Agreement” out of an exhausted desire to “do something” and escape the never-ending chaos of Brexit. Result: U.K. effectively stays in the E.U.</li>
</ol>
Because “no-deal” is the only way that the United Kingdom will ever achieve the result demanded by its 2016 national referendum, it is the final obstacle for hordes of “Remainers” who have decreed a “no-deal” Brexit an apocalyptic disaster that must be avoided at all costs. Combined with the refusal of many politicians who support “no-deal” to respect the intelligence and resilience of the British public by acknowledging the non-disastrous but realistically negative impact of “no-deal,” “no-deal” supporters are seemingly handing the reins of control to the minority. As a result, the only exit from the bureaucratic maze of perpetual servitude to the E.U. is being closed. When this door closes, these politicians may have achieved their desired result, but they will have failed to honor the fundamental principles of democracy.
There are multiple similarities between the societal impact of Brexit and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As we approach another election in 2020, Brexit should stand as a warning to the threats of those in the U.S. who hope to undermine democracy. We must remember that politicians, at their core, are our servants.
If we allow ourselves to forget that elected officials work for us, then we will enable a growing class of opportunistic politicians who seek to tighten their authoritarian grip on our lives. Brexit is forcefully revealing the true nature of many such politicians. With that in mind, if you care about liberty, then you must care about Brexit.

BRITAIN-EU-POLITICS-BREXIT-DEMONSTRATION

HAWORTH: Americans Must See The Brexit Betrayal As A Warning

Democracy

Europe

In a historic move, Queen Elizabeth II found herself at the center of British politics by granting Prime Minister Boris Johnson permission to suspend Parliament. The move prompted fierce backlash in the U.K.
&#8220;At a secretive meeting in Balmoral Castle, the fairy tale royal residence in Scotland, ministers sent by Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked the queen, 93, to suspend Parliament for a month,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-isn-t-meant-get-involved-u-k-politics-boris-n1047296">NBC News</a>. &#8220;The world&#8217;s longest-serving living monarch had little choice but to agree to &#8216;prorogue&#8217; Parliament, the formal name for the suspension. And this has triggered what many across the political spectrum say is an unprecedented constitutional crisis that threatens the values of British democracy.&#8221;
While Queen Elizabeth&#8217;s permission appears to be political in nature, her role as a constitutional monarch essentially means she cannot directly insert herself in the political process by opposing Johnson&#8217;s request.
&#8220;In a democratic system, you can’t expect the unelected head of state — whose whole legitimacy depends on her being outside of the political system — you can’t expect that person to be your guardian of democracy,&#8221; Michael Gordon, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Liverpool, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/world/europe/uk-queen-parliament-boris-johnson.html">The New York Times</a>.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson proposed suspending Parliament until mid-October this week, claiming it will help him enact a &#8220;bold and ambitious domestic legislative agenda.&#8221;
&#8220;The decision to end the current parliamentary session — the longest in close to 400 years and, in recent months, one of the least active — will enable the prime minister to put a fresh domestic program in front of [members of Parliament] for debate and scrutiny while also ensuring that there is good time before and after the European Council for Parliament to further consider Brexit issues,&#8221; 10 Downing Street <a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a28846461/queen-elizabeth-parliament-suspension-brexit-explained/">said in a released statement</a>.
Johnson&#8217;s critics, however, allege that the move seeks to stifle his opponent&#8217;s abilities to block a so-called &#8220;no-deal&#8221; Brexit before the U.K. officially leaves the European Union this fall, in accordance with the 2016 referendum.
&#8220;The normally fractious opposition swiftly united in outrage at Mr. Johnson’s maneuver on Wednesday, which brought protesters onto the streets in London and other cities across the country, while an online petition against the action drew well over a million signatures,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-brexit-parliament-backlash.html">The New York Times</a>. &#8220;The move also strained relations within Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party and prompted claims from critics that the government was trampling the conventions of the country’s unwritten Constitution, undermining its democracy.&#8221;
The move demonstrates the stark difference in governance that exists between the United States and Britain, according to Gavin Phillipson, professor of constitutional law at Bristol University.
&#8220;This shows the contrast between the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress, because nothing like this could happen to the U.S. Congress,&#8221; Phillipson told Newsweek. &#8220;President [Donald] Trump can&#8217;t suspend or interfere with the normal sittings of Congress. This reveals the old royal roots of the British constitution, which still come to the surface.&#8221;
&#8220;Those kinds of royal powers over Parliament demonstrate the way in which Parliament is substantially weaker than the U.S. Congress, which stands completely independent from the executive because of the American constitution&#8217;s conception of the separation of powers,&#8221; he concluded.

Queen Receives Outgoing and Incoming Prime Ministers

Queen Elizabeth Allows Boris Johnson To Suspend Parliament, Prompting Severe Outcry

Two months ago, Britain detained an oil tanker in Gibraltar that was suspected of violating European Union sanctions. The U.S. says the Panamanian-flagged ship, a super oil tanker with around $100 million worth of crude on board, was in fact owned by Iran and aiding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, which was officially designated a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-designation-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-foreign-terrorist-organization/">Foreign Terrorist Organization</a> by the U.S. in April. The ship has now been released and is bound for Greece, or at least that&#8217;s what Iran claims.
The ship was detained after America notified British authorities that the ship was flying under a proxy flag and was in reality owned by Iran and, according to the U.S., involved in &#8220;illicit shipments to Syria from Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),&#8221; as reported by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/17/world/us-warrant-seizure-iran-oil-tanker-gibraltar-intl/index.html">CNN</a>. The US government says that the oil, which was designated for delivery at the Syrian port of Baniyas, would be used to aid dictator Bashar al-Assad in his civil war. Such an action would be a direct violation of E.U. sanction.
At the behest of the American government, the local Royal Gibraltar Police detained the ship on July 4. Iran claimed this action was an act of modern-day piracy. In retaliation, they attempted a reprisal attack on a British ship in the Gulf, but the Royal Navy was able to intervene and force the Iranians to disengage. The Iranians would attempt a similar action against another British tanker, which would prove successful.
For the next two months, Iran pressured Gibraltar’s court system to release their oil tanker. Britain eventually relented, releasing it on August 15 after the Iranian government promised the oil would never make it to Syria.
Prior to the ship setting sail, the U.S. State Department issued a warrant for the detainment of the vessel based on the ship’s connection to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.
The British court ignored the warrant because neither the United Kingdom nor the European Union classify the group as a terrorist organization.
The tanker left port on Aug. 18. Before setting sail, the ship changed its name and ran up an Iranian flag.
The ship claims to be heading to Greece. However, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-greece/greece-says-has-had-no-request-from-iranian-oil-tanker-to-dock-idUSKCN1VA104">Reuters</a> recently reported that Greece has yet to receive any notice that the oil tanker plans on arriving there. This suggests that the ship still intends to carry out its original assignment.
If they do intend to dispose of their cargo in Syria, Greece would be the most logical place to claim to be unloading the oil, allowing them to avoid attracting suspicion until they are within a few miles of Syrian waters and before any navy could possibly respond. Once they are within Syria’s territorial waters, any intervention becomes highly unlikely.
Their intent will become apparent as their course develops. If the ship passes by the Ionian Sea, then Greece would likely be their destination, but if the oil tanker’s course circumvents Crete, then it is likely headed toward Syria.
Editor&#8217;s note: This article has been revised to clarify that the U.S. has accused the tanker of assisting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, rather than being controlled by it.

TOPSHOT-GULF-SHIPPING-OIL-US-IRAN-JAPAN-NORWAY-DIPLOMACY

UK Releases Oil Tanker Accused Of Assisting Iranian Terrorist Group

Foreign Policy

Iran

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

The population of Hong Kong has been out en masse protesting for months. The protestors have seen their rights and liberties slowly chipped away by the Chinese government. This gradual reduction of freedoms has been a decade-long process, but recent legislation was a bridge too far for the people of Hong Kong. The legislative boiling point was an extradition bill that would have allowed Hong Kong residents to be transferred and tried in mainland China courts.
Even though Honk Kong is officially part of China, their history kept the island distinct from the rest of the country, both culturally and legally. Hong Kong was seceded to the British by the previous Chinese dynasty in 1842, and the territory remained a British Colony almost uninterrupted for the next 150 years. The mainly Cantonese native population of the island colony was entitled to the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to all citizens under the British Crown. The citizens enjoyed a much higher income compared to those on the mainland, as it was a major trading port, with the economy running under a laissez-faire capitalist model, while mainland Chinese lived under a system that lacked civil liberties and free markets. China would consolidate and fracture in constant cycles of volatility for the next 100 years. During this time, the Hong Kongese found refuge in the stability of their island, and Hong Kong grew to be culturally and economically independent from the mainland.
According to <a href="https://www.scmp.com/article/48108/thatcher-reveals-dengs-threat-seize-hong-kong-day">The South China Morning Post</a>, in 1982, Deng Xiaoping, the effective dictator of China, told Margaret Thatcher that they would just take the islands by force if Britain did not willingly hand it over. She knew this to be true and was forced to negotiate the handover of Hong Kong. Britain relinquished the territory in 1997, but in the negotiation the U.K. was able to secure the freedoms and liberties that the population had grown to expect. These protections were stipulated in a document known as the &#8220;Sino-British Joint Declaration.&#8221; Rights such as freedom of speech, democracy, and the ability to have a fair and impartial trial were to be preserved for 50 years after the handover, known as the &#8220;One country, two systems&#8221; policy.
The protesters, many of whom used to live under British Dominion, believe these guarantees are being rolled back prematurely. In response they have risen up in protest to stop the regression of their rights. In 2014 the &#8220;Umbrella&#8221; protests occurred in which half a million people rose up against a bill requiring politicians to be approved by the Chinese Communist Party before they were allowed to run for office. The public pressure was so great that it forced the authorities to relent.
The current controversy started from a homicide case in Taiwan. A Hong Kong man was suspected of committing the crime, and the Hong Kong government wanted the accused to be extradited to face trial in Hong Kong. The two entities currently do not have an extradition treaty in place. In response, a bill was proposed in the Hong Kong legislature to allow for an extradition agreement. The controversy arose when it was discovered that the bill&#8217;s provisions would also allow for a suspected criminal to be extradited to mainland China.
The Hong Kong population saw this as a direct threat to their freedoms, as any citizen would be capable of being tried in the mainland. In the People&#8217;s Republic of China, death penalty cases are usually decided in under 20 minutes, and the criminal justice system has a 99.9% conviction rate, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/11/china-scored-99-9-percent-conviction-rate-last-year/">The Washington Post</a>.
The demonstrations began March 31. At first, it was mainly students who protested, and then on June 6 there was a Silent Lawyer&#8217;s March — where a fourth of the city&#8217;s legal professionals marched against the bill. Soon, every level of Hong Kong society joined the protests. On June 9, over 1,000,000 people took to the streets in protest of the extradition bill. The demonstrations have continued for months with hundreds of thousands filling the streets regularly.
On July 9, Carrie Lam, the chief executive of Hong Kong, declared the bill &#8220;dead.&#8221; This did not stop the protests as there is no legal meaning behind saying a bill is &#8220;dead&#8221;; declaring the bill &#8220;withdrawn&#8221; is the actual terminology that would &#8220;kill&#8221; the bill. Once a bill is withdrawn, it must be reintroduced from the beginning of procedure, if the bill is to become law. Carrie Lam has refused multiple times to declare the bill officially withdrawn. This has led many protestors to believe her plan is to quietly pass the proposition when public pressure dies down.
Carrie Lam has sided against the protests in favor of the bill and has branded the protestors &#8220;rioters.&#8221; After significant backlash from the public, Lam apologized for the statement.
Progressively, police actions toward protestors have become increasingly violent, some of which has been documented in videos showing police brutality. Footage shows uniformed police bashing protestors heads in with clubs and shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at demonstrators. One of the main demands of the protest is for an independent investigation into police brutality that allegedly occurred. There have even been cases of the infamous &#8220;Hong Kong Tirades&#8221; orchestrating attacks against protestors — with police aware of the events prior to happening and refusing to intervene.
In the past few days, there was a major sit-in protest in Hong Kong&#8217;s main international airport, which halted all flights at the facility. The Chinese government has also been reportedly moving troops to the Hong Kong border.

Menu