Swiss to Vote on Sunday on Whether to Restrict (Legal) Immigration

In Switzerland, too, there is growing dissatisfaction with unfettered immigration — in this case the entirely legal kid — as Alain Salles reports in Le Monde on an initiative to hold a nation-wide referendum on Sunday, February 9, whether to install quotas on immigration.

Among the problems are 80,000 more immigrants each year (instead of the promised 8,000), a rise in crime, overflowing trains, traffic jams, problems with finding a parking space, trouble finding a home, and the rise of rent prices.

Referring to William Tell's most famous feat, the pro-restriction forces' poster features an apple tree that has grown so much that its roots are strangling the country, while the opposition accuses the former of cutting down the apple tree of Swiss prosperity (see photo).

Switzerland's immigrant problem is different from America's and has to do with neighboring countries' nationals, no paupers they or most of them (French, Germans, Italians, etc), crossing the border to work and/or live there. Nevertheless, it's eye-opening (at least, it should be to leftists, of whatever nationality) that the 2002 agreement with the European Union did not bring a "(re)solution" but seems to have, in the eyes of many, made the problem (a problem) worse or created problems of its own.

In other words, and from an American perspective, the leftists' promise that amnesty — or any other high-falutin' plan of theirs — will  "repair" or solve a problem in need of "reform" and make things better is to be taken, to say the least, with a grain of salt.

L'initiative de l'UDC propose d'instaurer des quotas à l'immigration et de renégocier l'accord conclu avec l'Union européenne sur la libre circulation des biens et des personnes, appliqué depuis 2002. L'atmosphère s'est tendue en Suisse à l'approche du scrutin qui apparaît incertain. Tous les protagonistes annoncent un résultat serré. …

« NOUS NE VOULONS PAS FERMER NOS FRONTIÈRES, MAIS LES CONTRÔLER »

Une victoire du « oui » devient donc possible. Les autres partis, de droite et de gauche, se sont mobilisés, tout comme les milieux économiques, pour dénoncer l'argumentaire de l'UDC, mais le parti de Christoph Blocher est au centre du débat. Ce chef d'entreprise et homme politique controversé est le symbole de tous les combats contre l'Europe en Suisse. Il redoute toujours une « adhésion à l'UE à pattes de velours ».

« Nous ne voulons pas fermer nos frontières, mais nous voulons les contrôler », affirme Claude-Alain Voiblet, vice-président de l'UDC. « Lorsque nous avons signé les accords de libre circulation, on nous avait prédit une immigration de 8 000 personnes par an. Nous sommes à 80 000 par an. Dans le même temps, le nombre de frontaliers qui travaillent en Suisse a presque triplé en dix ans, avec près de 280 000 personnes, sans compter 250 000 sans-papiers et 700 000 étrangers naturalisés. On ne peut pas continuer comme ça », assure cet élu de Lausanne.

… Richard Jacquet, un retraité de 70 ans à la double nationalité française et suisse, n'a pas d'état d'âme. Le 9 février, il votera en faveur de l'initiative : « On est beaucoup trop nombreux. Il n'y a plus de qualité de vie. On ne peut plus rouler en voiture à cause des embouteillages, on ne peut plus stationner, on ne peut plus se loger », poursuit cet ancien policier …

Ils sont nombreux à se plaindre des trains bondés, des embouteillages au milieu des villages situés sur la route entre la France et Lausanne. L'arrivée de ces travailleurs, dans un pays qui répugne à construire des tours, a entraîné des hausses de loyers dans la plupart des villes.

Megabytes: What Do the Letters NSA Stand For, Barack Obama?

Serguei on Megabyte:
• Little Girl: What does NSA mean?
• Barack Obama: We Are Friends [Nous Sommes Amis] !
• Uncle Sam: If grown-ups will believe that, why wouldn't kids do so as well?!

France Unveils French-American Documents from 1976 to 1981

The French foreign ministry's national archive section has made available documents between France and the United States from 1976 to 1981, spanning the Jimmy Carter era to the beginning of the Ronald Regan White House (obrigado para OT).

None Other Than MLK Welcomed Judgment, So Why the #$#%$@# Should We NOT Judge Wendy Davis?!

Wendy Davis should get used to being judged

 quips Benny Huang.

Judging is what voters do every time they step into the voting booth. It’s part of being an elected official and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Here’s how I would judge Wendy Davis. She’s a flaming liberal whose main claim to fame is that she filibustered a common sense abortion bill that would have restricted abortion after the twentieth week, required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and required abortions to be performed in surgical facilities. The bill she objected to so fervently was a reaction to the Kermit Gosnell scandal, in which a licensed “doctor” who specialized in late term abortions, murdered children born alive and maintained a filth-ridden and dangerous facility. Also, her biography as single mom who worked her way through Harvard is a horrendous lie. She found a wealthy husband to pay her way and take care of the kids for part of her college career, then divorced him when her student debt was paid.

In other words, she’s wrong on the issues and her whole life is a sham. Why the heck shouldn’t I judge her on exactly those criteria?

None other than Martin Luther King, Jr. welcomed judgment, so long as it wasn’t racial. Recall the most often repeated line from his “I Have a Dream” speech: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Judging people by the content of their character is fine and should be encouraged. The content of Wendy Davis’s character leaves something to be desired, particularly her bloodthirsty passion for gruesome late term abortions. And that is why we aren’t allowed to judge her.

It isn’t as if liberals don’t judge. Liberals pass (negative) judgments on home-schoolers, FOX News viewers, smokers, global warming “deniers”, and evangelical Christians. They pass judgment on a diverse cast of “bigots,” real or imagined, and publicly shame them in hopes of reforming them. Liberals even judge people for being judgmental! 

So it isn’t judging that perturbs them so much; it’s other people judging according to criteria that liberals don’t like. Generally speaking they don’t like people to judge sexual habits, which somehow includes abortion as well. Abortion is violence but in their minds it’s a “bedroom issue.” Also, they don’t like others to judge them for drug use. Everything else, as far as I can tell, is fair game.

Liberals have become quite adept at twisting the words of Jesus to condemn those who judge. They like to forget that Jesus commanded, “Stop judging by appearance, but judge justly” (John 7:24). One story they prefer is the story of Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning. Jesus wasn’t of course condoning adultery, but raising his voice in opposition to a barbaric execution. Liberals always forget Jesus’s parting words for the adulteress: “Go and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11). You’ll never hear a liberal tell you that Jesus instructed his followers to rebuke sinners (Luke 17:3). And no, it isn’t true that Jesus had prostitutes and tax collectors among his inner circle; he had ex-prostitutes and ex-tax collectors.

Another Bible verse liberals keep in their back pocket is Jesus’s saying on removing the log from one’s own eye. Again, they leave off the final clause: “[T]hen you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). Jesus wasn’t admonishing us not to rebuke our brother when he has done wrong. He was reminding us not to rebuke hypocritically for something of which we are also guilty. Once we have removed the log from our own eye we can and should to judge our brother with clear vision.

But liberals aren’t fooling anyone when they quote hypocritically from that Jesus guy. They have no use for him. To liberals he’s nothing more than a fairy tale wise man, something like Merlin or Ben Kenobi, whose words can be quote-mined for the purpose of using against his followers.

Judgment alone is no sin and no crime. It would be foolish to judge Wendy Davis, or anyone else for that matter, by some superficial standard. But it would be even more foolish not to judge her at all. She’s a politician, for crying out loud, and we’re voters. If we aren’t allowed to pass judgment on our elected officials, whom may we judge? We reserve the right to judge her ‘til the cows come home. If she fails the test of the voters’ judgment this coming November, as she probably will, she’ll have no one but herself to blame.

Bloomberg, De Blasio, et al: Rich people’s scolding is really a form of snobbery masquerading as concern for poor people’s well-being

New York Mayor Bill de … Blasio’s undeniable truism—that Gotham is really two cities—goes a long way toward explaining the nanny-state policies that de Blasio will likely continue 

writes Benny Huang.

As a city councilman, de Blasio had a mixed voting record toward then-Mayor Bloomberg’s restrictions on salt, trans fats, smoking, baby formula, and whatever else he felt like regulating. Nonetheless, de Blasio has made no indication that he will repeal Bloomberg’s legacy and even thanked the outgoing mayor for his accomplishments in the field of “public health.”

In order to understand Bloomberg’s (and likely de Blasio’s) impulse to regulate other people’s bad habits, it’s necessary to understand that powerful people in New York City are mostly rich and feel entitled to make the rules for everyone else. Michael Bloomberg’s personal worth is estimated at about $31 billion, making him the tenth richest person in America. De Blasio is a mere multi-millionaire.

Rich, politically-influential New Yorkers have both the means and the motive to force reform upon their fellow citizens in skid row neighborhoods like East New York and the South Bronx. The affluent really believe that they like poor people despite the fact they are physically repulsed by their presence and thus never associate with them. In their own minds, however, they are staunch supporters of the less fortunate because they use tax dollars to secure indigent citizens’ political allegiance, something we used to call vote-buying in a more candid age.

It’s not poor people who make them cringe. It’s smokers and the obese.

But smoking is undoubtedly the [pastime] of the lower class. A 2010 study from the Center for Disease Control found that 28.9 percent of adults below the poverty line were smokers. The stigma attached to smoking increases the closer one gets to high society.

Bloomberg’s fanatical antismoking crusade has driven up the price of cigarettes and made it illegal to smoke nearly everywhere. Twenty Marlboros will cost you about $12.50 in New York today. Discount brands like Pyramid cost $10.50 per pack, the city-imposed minimum price.

It’s for your own good, the nanny-staters would say. But it isn’t the government’s business to make us stop smoking, or eat our vegetables, or go outside and play. In any case, while the added tax burden has driven some poor smokers to quit, it has also driven others (deeper) into the poor house. Smokers in New York who earn less than $30,000 per year are watching about a quarter of their income go up in smoke. Tobacco taxes are regressive taxes.

Bloomberg’s controversial Big Gulp ban is another example of rich people dictating lifestyle choices to poor people. No one in Bloomberg’s social circle would be caught dead with an oversized plastic cup of fizzy water and corn syrup. It’s just tacky. They prefer Perrier, or a fine Scotch before bed.

Rich New Yorkers recognized (correctly) that the city’s underclass suffers from a bit of a weight problem and resolved to fix it for them. What they really wanted to do was ban gluttony, which is the true scourge, though impossible to eliminate via legislation. So they began by banning sugary drinks larger than sixteen ounces.

Mayor Bloomberg knows exactly which demographic group needs to shed some pounds. As he explained on Face the Nation in March 2013, “It — being overweight is the first time it’s gone from a rich person’s disease to a poor person’s disease. We’ve just got to do something.”

 By “do[ing] something” he means banning Big Gulps. When that doesn’t solve the obesity crisis, and it won’t, the city will move on to banning buffet restaurants, free drink refills, twinkies, ho-hos and whatever else the benevolent government thinks its citizens should not consume.

Take note, however, of which economic class Mayor Bloomberg thinks he is saving from themselves. In his mind he’s doing poor folks a favor when he assumes the role of portion police, but in reality he’s merely showing his prejudice that poor people are disgustingly fat and too stupid to understand why. He must believe that they need the government to ban their bad habits, one after another, until they’re eating organic arugula from Whole Foods.

New York’s failed expedition into governmental nannying is symptomatic of its class structure. Rich people’s scolding is really a form of snobbery masquerading as concern for poor people’s well-being. Rather than admit that the underclass repulses them, wealthy New Yorkers try to strip away their repulsive behavior by force of law. Expect the trend to continue through the de Blasio years.

Worse Than Albania: "It's quicker to get a Swedish colleague back to work if you have an operation in two weeks' time rather than having to wait for a year"

Oh Lord, thank you thank thank you! Thank you for bringing Barack Obama to America, so that Americans — so that those poor American wretches, those clueless clods — will finally have the same kind of outstanding health care as in Europe, notably in that avant-garde region which is Scandinavia, with its Nordic Model, where people are treated with the utmost digni—

Wait a minute.

According to Sweden's The Local (tack till Valerie), the Swedish health care system's rank is worse than Albania's:

One in ten Swedes now has private health insurance, often through their employers, with some recipients stating it makes business sense to be seen quickly rather than languish in national health care queues.

More than half a million Swedes now have private health insurance, showed a new review from industry organization Swedish Insurance (Svensk Försäkring). In eight out of ten cases, the person's employer had offered them the private insurance deal.

"It's quicker to get a colleague back to work if you have an operation in two weeks' time rather than having to wait for a year," privately insured Anna Norlander told Sveriges Radio on Friday. "It's terrible that I, as a young person, don't feel I can trust the health care system to take care of me."

ADVERTISEMENT

The insurance plan guarantees that she can see a specialist within four working days, and get a time for surgery, if needed, within 15.

In December, the queues in the Swedish health care system pushed the country down a European ranking of healthcare.

 … Health system wait times in Sweden were deemed so lengthy that they pulled Sweden down the European ranking despite the country having technically advanced healthcare at its disposal.

"The Swedish score for technically excellent healthcare services is, as ever, dragged down by the seemingly never-ending story of access/waiting time problems," the reported noted, underlining that the national efforts to guarantee patient care had not helped to cut the delays significantly.

In its year-ahead report, industry organization Swedish Insurance said many people now felt they did not know what they could expect from their health care providers.

"There is a lack of certainty about what the individual can expect from public welfare and which needs have to be taken care of in another manner," the report authors noted.

Anzio! Rare Photos From World War II

Fox News links a story from Life Magazine's archives of the 1940s:

On January 22, 1944, six months after the Allied invasion of Sicily, American and British troops swarmed ashore at Anzio, roughly 30 miles south of Rome. The brainchild of Winston Churchill and dubbed Operation Shingle, the attack caught German troops stationed along the Italian coast largely by surprise; but after the initial onslaught, the Germans dug in. The next four months saw some of the fiercest, most prolonged fighting in World War II’s European Theater 

Also: World War II in color

Hostility towards mass immigration arises not just from fears of economic “progress”, but from various instructive experiences

The best response to The Economist's “Europe’s Tea Parties” comes from David Ashton:

Hostility towards mass immigration arises not just from fears of economic “progress”, but from instructive experiences of cultural incompatibility, social disadvantage, imported crime and terrorism and an uninvited threat to national identity. To brush aside such considerations as trivial, intolerant, nostalgic, racist, nasty and even Nazi exposes a faulty and counter-productive analysis, itself blinkered by global-growth criteria.

An economy is not a country. Although bankers may not appreciate this, voters understand it all too well.

Related:
• "Undocumented Worker" — The Left's Preferred Expression for "Illegal Alien" Is False and Misleading 
• No, Liberals, there Is Not a Single "Undocumented Worker" in the United States (or on This Planet)
• Illegal immigration is to immigration what shoplifting is to shopping
• No one talks about legal immigrants who are hard working men and women, who wait for the frustratingly slow process that seems to discriminate against those who want to do it by the book
• If the U.S. were to treat Mexican nationals in the same way that Mexico treats Central American nationals, there would be humanitarian outrage

Europe's Tea Parties? Not So Fast

European versions of the Tea Party are sprouting among, and due to, the continent's troubled economies warns (sic) The Economist. "Warns", because that is mainly a bad thing, according  to the London newspaper.

In May voters across the 28-member European Union will elect 751 deputies to the European Parliament. Polls suggest that the FN could win a plurality of the votes in France. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has similarly high hopes, as does the Freedom Party (PVV) in the Netherlands. Anti-EU populists of the left and right could take between 16% and 25% of the parliament’s seats, up from 12% today. Many of those votes will go to established parties of the Eurosceptic left. But those of the right and far right might take about 9%. And it is they, not the parties of the left, who are scaring the mainstream.

There are numerous problems with this simplistic put-'em-all-in-th'-same-barrel view.

For instance, France's National Front should in no way be assimilated to the Tea Party. As No Pasarán and Le Monde Watch have reported numerous times,  

the Front National's Marine Le Pen criticizes privatization and "extreme" free market policies, holding that France needs "a strong state", while one of her top aides speaks of taking advantage of the fears engendered by globalization and surfing on insecurity and on social suffering. 

When told "that in the U.S. she would sound like a left-wing politician", she went as far as telling the New York Times's Russell Shorto that Barack "Obama is way to the right of us”!

Meanwhile, Adam Shaw is perhaps more on the money when the Fox News reporter says that "the often stale British political system is being rocked by its very own Tea Party."

The UK Independence Party (UKIP), formed in 1993 opposing Britain’s entry into the European Union, failed to make an electoral dent for a long time. However UKIP has built up steam in recent years and is spearheading a seismic shift in the British political spectrum.

In this year’s local elections – the British version of midterms -- UKIP took a stunning 23 percent of the vote, up from the 3.1 percent they won in the 2010 national election. Their leader, Nigel Farage, is buoyed by their recent success.

“We want to take back our country, we want to take back our government, and we want to take back our birthright,” Farage told FoxNews.com in forthright language rarely seen in British politics.

 … It is here where UKIP spied an opportunity, adopting an anti-establishment, populist platform that argues for lower taxation, privatization, smaller government and getting Britain out of the European Union.

 … “The sense of frustration the Tea Party feels about the remoteness about the bureaucratic class of the Washington beltway is similar to our frustration with being dealt with by Brussels,” said Farage.

Many experts agree. Andrew Russell, Head of Politics at the University of Manchester, told FoxNews.com that the comparison between the Tea Party and UKIP is an accurate one, and that he believes that UKIP could take the 2014 elections by storm,

“UKIP will do well in the 2014 European elections. They may even win them in terms of the popular vote. This will increase the pressure on the Conservatives.”

Yet instead of reaching out and finding middle ground, the Tories have snubbed UKIP. In 2006 David Cameron dismissed the newcomers as full of “fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists,” and top Tory Kenneth Clark recently branded them as “a collection of clowns.”

 … As a right-wing libertarian, populist movement, there are many comparisons to be drawn with the Tea Party, yet Farage argues that there are differences too, particularly that UKIP wants to take votes away from the Tories, not to reform them.

It is here that could make them bigger in Britain than the Tea Party in America – UKIP is making inroads as a party, not just through individual candidates.

What remains to be seen is how UKIP will capitalize on their situation, and in that the next year will be vital.

“Like the Tea Party UKIP might have a profound effect on their closest neighbors politically,” Russell told FoxNews.com. “But like the Tea Party they might repel the crucial section of support needed for that party to win.”

Good-Bye, Friend — Georges Lautner, Director of “Les Tontons Flingueurs"

A "prolific French director who specialized in comedy and crime — often in the same movie —" died several weeks ago on the outskirts of Paris, writes the NYT's Bruce Weber. Georges Lautner was 87.

In paying tribute to Mr. Lautner, President François Hollande acknowledged his cultural stature, saying he made “great popular comedies that became cult films of our cinematic heritage.”

From the late 1950s through the 1980s, Mr. Lautner churned out an average of more than a film a year. He made more than 40 over all, often also serving as co-writer; his frequent collaborator was Michel Audiard. 

His movies, generally fast-paced and cleverly plotted, often starred one or more of France’s celebrity actors, including Jean-Paul Belmondo, Alain Delon, Bernard Blier, Miou-Miou and Mireille Darc. And though Mr. Lautner’s films were not as well appreciated critically or internationally as those of the high-minded auteurs who were his contemporaries and countrymen, he made reliably appealing and profitable movies that reached a wide audience in France, many of which remain in frequent circulation on French television. 

Among Mr. Lautner’s best-known films are “Les Tontons Flingueurs” (1963), a sendup of organized crime, known to English-speaking audiences as “Crooks in Clover” or “Monsieur Gangster,” with Mr. Blier and Lino Ventura; “Mort d’un Pourri” (“Death of a Corrupt Man”), a 1977 thriller starring Mr. Delon, Ms. Darc and Stéphane Audran, about the murder of a blackmailer; “Le Professionnel,” a 1981 suspense thriller about the corrupt machinations behind a political assassination, starring Mr. Belmondo in a jaunty, James Bond-like turn as a rogue secret agent; a 1983 comedy about a woman (Miou-Miou, in “a lovely, confident performance,” Vincent Canby wrote in The New York Times) maintaining two separate families, known in English as “My Other ‘Husband’ ”; and “La Cage aux Folles 3: The Wedding” (1985), the final installment of the series about the comically tortuous relationship problems of a gay couple.

Separation and Divorce? Initiated by the Wife? It's Always the Husband's Fault

Xavier Gorce's penguins

 • My wife wants to leave me!

• I am so angry at her!


• You're right: That way, you can avoid being angry against yourself…

François Hollande's effort to recast and revive France’s influence in Africa

The imagery is likely to be the same as it has been for decades 

writes, perhaps somewhat wearily, Alan Cowell in the New York Times

— foreign troops in battle fatigues lugging backpacks and assault rifles, confronting mayhem.

But when French soldiers reinforce their small existing garrison in the Central African Republic in coming weeks, their presence will probably be depicted as a departure from a long tradition of military muscle as the prime instrument of postcolonial power. 

The Central African Republic — its territory larger than metropolitan France, with only a small fraction of its population — has occupied an anomalous place since independence from Paris in 1960, ruled by a procession of despots and even an emperor — Bokassa I — who was accused not just of profligacy but of cannibalism, too. 

But in more recent weeks, it has become the newest focus of an effort by President François Hollande to recast and revive his nation’s influence on a continent where its erstwhile clout has been challenged by the growing ascendancy of China and others eyeing Africa’s natural resources from oil to diamonds.

 … “The challenge of this intervention,” wrote Pierre Haski, a co-founder of the Rue89 news website, “lies in the ‘return’ of France to the dark continent after decades of interference followed by a period of relative indifference or misstatements.” 

“If France succeeds in its Central African mission, it will have recovered a good part of its influence,” he said, “positioning itself as an indispensable partner in those places where it risked becoming a vague memory.”

 … The Mali campaign at the beginning of the year drew France into a struggle against Al Qaeda and its affiliates, as well-financed and ideologically committed Islamist insurgents from the north pressed on the capital, Bamako, meeting no challenge from ineffective government forces. 

In the Central African Republic, by contrast, the overthrow in March of the previous government by rebel militias, many composed of Muslim fighters from Chad and Sudan, has precipitated growing lawlessness among rival warlords, raising the prospect of sectarian war spilling beyond its borders.

It is, of course, easier to deploy than to withdraw, as France discovered in Mali, where it still has 3,000 troops.

"No One Is!" Leftists and Their Calculated Lies Intended to Pacify the Bitter Clingers

The quickest way to find out what liberals have next on their to-do list is usually to pay close attention to what they tell you that they most certainly don’t want to do, and to what they assure you no one is actually proposing

quips Benny Huang.

Normally, you don’t have to look very far to find someone who is proposing, or has proposed, what liberals tell you cannot and never will happen. MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, for example, has assured the public that the second amendment is safe. “No one, anywhere, is talking about doing away with the second amendment, and no one, anywhere, is advocating stripping away gun ownership.”

So quit being hysterical, conservatives. Commentators generally don’t openly advocate for the repeal of the second amendment because that makes it sound as if they oppose fundamental rights spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. What they advocate is violating those rights while pretending that they are not. Rather than repealing the amendment, they just ignore the spirit and the letter thereof.

 Yet I can think of one person who has actually declared her support for repealing the second amendment. It’s the very same Alex Wagner. When Bill Maher asked her what changes she would make to the Constitution, she replied: “I think get rid of the second amendment, the right to bear arms.”

So her assurances that “no one, anywhere” wants to take our guns was a calculated lie intended to pacify the bitter clingers. Why must liberals always employ this form of subterfuge? The answer is that whenever they tell us where this train is heading, people invariably demand to get off. So it’s in their best interest to keep mum and to name-call anyone who has enough prescience to see further down the tracks.

They call us paranoid, they call us wingnuts, they call us racists.

But we’re right.

Read the whole thing, especially the second illustration, in which Benny Huang discusses Sharia law and how we are all to "Rest assured though, [that] no one—and I mean no one—actually wants to bring Sharia to America."

These are but two examples. They told you, of course, that Obamacare would not cover abortions because it was not specifically provided for in the bill, and yet they adamantly refused to include a provision that would have explicitly forbade it. “No one” was suggesting that government fund abortion and yet that is exactly what happened. “No one” was suggesting that anti-bullying laws be used to censor speech that homosexuals find offensive, and yet it’s happening. “No one” is suggesting giving illegal aliens welfare and yet they keep getting it.

My advice to conservatives is to keep up your guard. You’re going to be called a nut for sounding the alarm bells. But you’re not a nut. You just have enough foresight to see the endgame that they so desperately want to keep hidden.

Read also Jed Babbin's So Many Intolerable Lies (Even the U.S. Marines have been corrupted):

Among the lies we’ve become inured to is that women can perform every job a man can, including those of combat infantryman and special operators. We’ve also been told the lie that the injection of women into combat arms has no effect on the warrior culture. The liberals insist that the culture isn’t of any value to combat effectiveness regardless of what the warriors themselves say.

And we have relied on the promises made by all of the military leaders, including the Marines, that they’d never diminish the physical standards that any prospective warrior had to meet simply to allow women into combat arms.

That virtually all women can’t meet the standards to do these jobs is so well-established a fact that only the liberal idiots who control Obama’s Pentagon could deny it. Twelve

 … There are so many lies coming out of the White House that we have become numb to them. But to concede that is to concede the debate. That is what is happening now across our political spectrum.

 … There are many certainties, many facts that have to be defended. And there used to be American institutions that could be relied on to defend those truths at all costs. How far has America fallen that the Marine Corps is breaking promises and implementing lies?

Too far.  No nation can long survive if it bases its continuation on lies.

The French President's Alleged Lover, Julie Gayet, and the Ethics Issues That Have Risen (Oui, Even in France) Over François Hollande's 'Mafia Flat' Trysts

Ever since the magazine Closer revealed that President François Hollande has a mistress (allegations which sent Valérie Trierweiler to a Paris hospital) — thus proving that in the internet age France can no longer hide their leaders' piccadilloes — a number of ethics issues have surfaced, write Le Monde's Gérard Davet and Fabrice Lhomme: Notably reports of a 'tryst in a mafia flat'.

A lot of readers are defending François Hollande with regards to his relationship with the actress Julie Gayet, and I wouldn't be surprised if his (poor) polls go up over the affair (pun intended) — although Closer's own (non-scientific) online poll seems to say quite the opposite. (One Le Monde reader, David_Paris, even sounds downright — quelle horreur — American:  «La séparation "vie privée"-"vie publique" est stupide. S'il trompe la "femme de sa vie", pourquoi ne pourrait-il pas tromper son électorat?») Meanwhile, IBT's Samantha Payne tries to answer the question, Who Is Julie Gayet, Alleged Lover of French President Francois Hollande? (photos).

Everyone in the Élysée is concerned with how much time questions on the matter will take during le président's press conference Tuesday.

L'affaire de la liaison supposée de François Hollande avec l'actrice Julie Gayet soulève de nombreuses questions. Le Monde a enquêté sur les dysfonctionnements à l'Elysée liés à cette affaire.

• A qui appartient l'appartement parisien de la rue du Cirque, dans le 8^e arrondissement ?

… La comédienne Julie Gayet, amie d'Emmanuelle Hauck, travaillait régulièrement dans cet appartement, depuis que ses bureaux de la rue du Faubourg-Saint-Honoré faisaient l'objet de travaux. François Hollande s'est rendu une dizaine de fois dans cet appartement depuis l'automne 2013, d'après des éléments recueillis à l'Elysée par Le Monde. Le président, amateur de deux-roues, a utilisé, comme passager, un scooter appartenant à la flotte de l'Elysée, conduit par un membre de sa sécurité. Un second équipage assurait en outre la protection de M. Hollande.

Lire : Gayet-Hollande : interrogations autour de l'appartement

• Quel est le lien éventuel avec le banditisme corse ?

Il est indirect et fortuit. Il se trouve qu'Emmanuelle Hauck, née à Bastia, a vécu avec l'acteur Michel Ferracci, apparu notamment dans la série « Mafiosa », diffusée depuis 2006 sur Canal+. Or M. Ferracci a été condamné, au mois de novembre 2013, à dix-huit mois de prison avec sursis pour abus de confiance dans l'affaire du cercle Wagram. Il fut directeur des jeux de cet établissement, théâtre de détournements de fonds au profit de membres du gang corse de la Brise de mer.

  … après sa rupture avec Michel Ferracci, Emmanuelle Hauck était devenue la compagne de François Masini, au profil éminemment sulfureux. François Masini a été tué par balle, sur une route de Haute-Corse, le 31 mai 2013. …

• Le service de sécurité du président a-t-il été défaillant ?

François Hollande est constamment protégé. Il a notamment à ses côtés deux hommes, des policiers de confiance qu'il a personnellement choisis.   Ceux-ci l'escortent dans tous ses déplacements privés. C'était le cas lors de ses visites rue du Cirque. Mais ces policiers n'ont pas enquêté sur le passé de la locataire de l'appartement, ni sur ses liens avec des individus au profil sulfureux. Ils n'ont pas su, non plus, repérer les paparazzi qui traquent François Hollande. Ceux-ci auraient loué un appartement à proximité pour les besoins de leur reportage.

Cela faisait de longs mois, déjà, que la rumeur parisienne propageait l'existence supposée d'une liaison entre M. Hollande et M^me Gayet. …

• Que savaient exactement François Hollande et Manuel Valls ?

François Hollande, d'après l'Elysée, n'a jamais eu connaissance des liens entre la locataire de l'appartement, Emmanuelle Hauck, et certaines personnes réputées proches du banditisme corse. Ainsi, fait observer l'entourage de M. Hollande, le nom de Ferraci n'apparaît pas sur l'interphone de l'appartement. Le président n'avait connaissance que de l'identité de la locataire du logement, M^me Hauck, amie de longue date de M^me Gayet.

Lire l'analyse : Scénario catastrophe pour le président avant sa conférence de presse …

• Le magazine Closer a-t-il pu être instrumentalisé par des rivaux de M. Hollande ?

C'est une interrogation majeure, à l'Elysée, où l'on se penche sur le processus mis en œuvre à l'occasion du reportage de l'hebdomadaire people. A Paris, ces derniers mois, les rumeurs sur la liaison supposée du président ont été relatées par plusieurs relais sarkozystes de premier plan.
Or François Hollande a toujours considéré Nicolas Sarkozy comme son principal rival, en vue d'une future réelection, en 2017. Il lui a toujours prêté aussi un fort pouvoir de nuisance, lié à son passé Place Beauvau et à ses amitiés avec des responsables policiers de premier plan. En effet, l'ancien locataire de l'Elysée a conservé de puissants soutiens au sein de la police, dont une partie des effectifs resteraient acquis à M. Sarkozy.

Your Rights With Police In One Infographic

Course, these would not apply in Europe.
From Conservative Byte (via Instapundit)

Contrary to what peaceniks claimed, battles still rage in Iraq, and that in the absence of an "occupation" by foreign troops

It‘s been two years since Americans troops departed Iraq 

writes Benny Huang who served a tour in Iraq

and the nation is still burning. The yearly death toll has been calculated and it’s nothing short of horrifying. In total, 7,818 civilians and 1,050 members of the security forces lost their lives in 2013, making it the most violent in five years.

The nearly nine year war our military fought in Iraq is now fading away in our national rear-view mirror. Our boys and girls are no longer in that oily third world hell hole and we’re glad for it. Most of us, I suspect, would rather not ponder too long a war that so deeply divided this nation. So we just don’t talk about it.

Though Americans have shifted their attention away from Iraq, the country is still roiling with car bombs and drive-by shootings. Our news media no longer covers it in horrific detail but it’s still happening.

At the risk of sounding insensitive or smug, there’s something I have to get off of my chest: I told you so.

Removing American soldiers from the equation did nothing to reduce violence. To the contrary, the infusion of troops during the surge was what brought violence down to manageable levels. Since leaving, those numbers have crept up again. 

The conventional wisdom concerning the insurgency in Iraq was that it would dry up as soon as our troops left. The insurgents were, after all, merely fighting to evict foreign occupiers from their homeland.

There are a number of problems with this analysis. The first is that the Iraqi insurgency wasn’t entirely Iraqi by nationality. Although it was impossible to determine the exact proportion of foreign fighters, there were indicators. Nearly all of al-Qaeda’s top leadership in Iraq was non-Iraqi, including the Egyptian kingpin Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ninety percent of suicide bombers were non-Iraqi. This was not an entirely homegrown movement designed to get foreign invaders out of “their” country.

 … Apparently our presence was not the only reason they were fighting. If that were the case there would be no more bloodshed in Iraq two years after final American withdrawal.

The facile thinking of eight years ago predicted peace in Iraq as soon as coalition forces departed. The party line was that America brought war to Iraq and war would continue until America decided to end it. The faster we came home the faster the bleeding would stop.

William Pfaff, writing at the Korea Herald, summed up that school of thought particularly well. “The insurgents are fighting because of the occupation, and the occupation forces are fighting because there is resistance.” … Fred Kaplan, liberal puke at Slate Magazine, the preferred internet news source of liberal pukes everywhere, sounded a similar sentiment. …

The occupation is gone. What are they “insurging” against now? Could it be that achieving the first step in their plan—expelling the coalition—only emboldened them to push on toward their ultimate goals?

No single concept animated the anti-Iraq War movement more than the assumption that our presence is what made Iraq a hostile place. This assumption framed the entire debate. Those who wanted to beat a hasty retreat counted themselves as peaceniks while portraying their opponents as war-mongers. They seemed incapable of understanding that we all wanted peace. Simply leaving however, was no guarantee that peace would automatically bloom across Iraq.

Time has demonstrated that the insurgency did not merely exist to battle us. Our fighting men and women have gone home and there is still no peace to be found between the Tigris and the Euphrates. I could have predicted that eight years ago. I did predict it eight years ago, in fact. I knew that all things come to an end, even occupations. One day the coalition would leave and the people they were trying to counter would just keep on fighting. Nothing would change in Iraq unless we defeated those forces, which we obviously failed to do.

In that regard, I was prescient. But in another way, I was naïve in my expectations. I mistakenly believed that once people saw the folly of the anti-Iraq War’s central premise—that the insurgency only existed because our troops were there—that they would entertain earnest second thoughts. People might begin to understand that their friends and neighbors who argued in favor of the Iraq War were not doing so because they hated peace or anything as juvenile as that. Who hates peace? They argued in favor of the Iraq War because defeating the bad guys was the best way to achieve peace.

 In the end, we handed the baton to the Iraqis, of which I am glad. It’s their fight now. Let’s not forget, however, that a fight still exists even in the absence of a foreign occupation.

Almost 90 percent of police officers believe casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present during shooting incidents

If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them

 reports The Detroit News's George Hunter the city's Police Chief as saying (thanks to Clash Daily).

Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but [James Craig] on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.

“When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,” Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

 Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.

 “Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

 “I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

 … According to a March 2013 anonymous poll of 15,000 officers by the law enforcement website policeone.com., almost 90 percent of the respondents believed casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present during shooting incidents, while more than 80 percent supported arming teachers who were trained with firearms.

Even Newsweek: "There is a grayness in France that the heavy hand of socialism casts"

It’s a stretch, but what is happening today in France is being compared to the revocation of 1685

quips Janine di Giovanni in Newsweek (merci à Damian, who bewails the fact that "The tone of the article is shock and sadness, 'Oh how sad that socialism has ruined France' ").

In that year, Louis XIV, the Sun King who built the Palace of Versailles, revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had protected French Protestants – the Huguenots. Trying to unite his kingdom by a common religion, the king closed churches and persecuted the Huguenots. As a result, nearly 700,000 of them fled France, seeking asylum in England, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa and other countries.

The Huguenots, nearly a million strong before 1685, were thought of as the worker bees of France. They left without money, but took with them their many and various skills. They left France with a noticeable brain drain. 

Since the arrival of Socialist President François Hollande in 2012, income tax and social security contributions in France have skyrocketed. The top tax rate is 75 percent, and a great many pay in excess of 70 percent.

As a result, there has been a frantic bolt for the border by the very people who create economic growth – business leaders, innovators, creative thinkers, and top executives. They are all leaving France to develop their talents elsewhere.

And it’s a tragedy for such a historically rich country. As they say, the problem with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur. Where is the Richard Branson of France? Where is the Bill Gates?

At this point Hervé jumps in to make a point:

I haven't read the whole piece yet, but this made me barf:

As they say, the problem with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur.

I thought only GW Bush would be stupid enought to come up with that... But hey, she's a journalist.

I will read the rest though. But as you say, what's Newsweek's point? As I recall, they were in a state of trans when the Afromarxist was elected. Somehow it wouldn't work in France but it would in the US? I guess English speaking journalists don't have a word for bullshit.

Back to Newsweek:

 Pierre Moscovici, the much-loathed minister of finance … was looking very happy with himself. Does he realize Rome is burning? 

Granted, there is much to be grateful for in France. An economy that boasts successful infrastructure such as its high-speed rail service, the TGV, and Airbus, as well as international businesses like the luxury goods conglomerate LMVH, all of which define French excellence. It has the best agricultural industry in Europe. Its tourism industry is one of the best in the world.

But the past two years have seen a steady, noticeable decline in France. There is a grayness that the heavy hand of socialism casts. It is increasingly difficult to start a small business when you cannot fire useless employees and hire fresh new talent. Like the Huguenots, young graduates see no future and plan their escape to London.

  … Part of this is the fault of the suffocating nanny state. … With the end of the reign of Gaullist (conservative) Nicolas Sarkozy (the French hated his flashy bling-bling approach) the French ushered in the rotund, staid Hollande.

Almost immediately, taxes began to rise. 

I did not mind, initially, paying higher taxes than in Britain in exchange for excellent health care, and for masterful state-subsidized schools like the one my son attends (L’Ecole Alsacienne – founded by some of the few remaining Huguenots at the end of the 19th century). 

 

As a new mother, I was surprised at the many state benefits to be had if you filled out all the forms: Diapers were free; nannies were tax-deductible; free nurseries existed in every neighborhood. State social workers arrived at my door to help me “organize my nursery.” My son’s school lunch consists of three courses, plus a cheese plate.

 …  When I began to look around, I saw people taking wild advantage of the system. I had friends who belonged to trade unions, which allowed them to take entire summers off and collect 55 percent unemployment pay.

 … But all this handing out of money left the state bankrupt. 

Also, France, being a nation of navel-gazers à la Jean-Paul Sartre, refuses to look outward, toward the global village. Who cares about the BRICS – the emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – when we have Paris? It is a tunnel-vision philosophy that will kill France

 … From a chief legal counsel at a major French company: “France is dying a slow death. Socialism is killing it. It’s like a rich old family being unable to give up the servants. Think Downton Abbey.”

 … To wake up, France has to rid itself of the old guard, and reinvent itself. 

François Hollande made his first trip to China only when he became head of state in 2012 – and he’s 58 years old. The government is so inward looking and the state fonctionnaires who run it are so divorced from reality that it has become a country in denial.

  … politicians like Hollande have to let the people breathe. Creativity and prosperity can only come about when citizens can build, create, and thrive

Finally, Damian returns to answer Hervé's comment and make another point or two about the ("We Are All Socialists Now") Newsweek article:

I guess English speaking journalists don't have a word for bullshit.

Actually most news services do have such a word. They call it "the news". …

Notice that the writer doesn't linger on hard facts or statistical evidence of decline. No it's all talk with her "friends". So. If only her "friends" had better attitudes or weren't cheats -- or if she had a better set of "friends" altogether -- French socialism might work fine!  I mean, FREE DIAPERS!

Europe with European versions of the Tea Party
the continent's troubled economies warns (sic) The Economist.

In May voters across the 28-member European Union will elect 751 deputies to the European Parliament. Polls suggest that the FN could win a plurality of the votes in France. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has similarly high hopes, as does the Freedom Party (PVV) in the Netherlands. Anti-EU populists of the left and right could take between 16% and 25% of the parliament’s seats, up from 12% today. Many of those votes will go to established parties of the Eurosceptic left. But those of the right and far right might take about 9%. And it is they, not the parties of the left, who are scaring the mainstream.

There are numerous problems with this simplistic put-'em-all-in-th'-same-barrel view.

For instance, France's National Front should in no way be assimilated to the Tea Party. As No Pasarán and Le Monde Watch have reported numerous times,  

the Front National's Marine Le Pen criticizes privatization and "extreme" free market policies, holding that France needs "a strong state", while one of her top aides speaks of taking advantage of the fears engendered by globalization and surfing on insecurity and on social suffering. 

When told "that in the U.S. she would sound like a left-wing politician", she went as far as telling the New York Times's Russell Shorto that Barack "Obama is way to the right of us”!

Meanwhile, Adam Shaw is perhaps more on the money when the Fox News reporter says that "the often stale British political system is being rocked by its very own Tea Party."

The UK Independence Party (UKIP), formed in 1993 opposing Britain’s entry into the European Union, failed to make an electoral dent for a long time. However UKIP has built up steam in recent years and is spearheading a seismic shift in the British political spectrum.

In this year’s local elections – the British version of midterms -- UKIP took a stunning 23 percent of the vote, up from the 3.1 percent they won in the 2010 national election. Their leader, Nigel Farage, is buoyed by their recent success.

“We want to take back our country, we want to take back our government, and we want to take back our birthright,” Farage told FoxNews.com in forthright language rarely seen in British politics.

 … It is here where UKIP spied an opportunity, adopting an anti-establishment, populist platform that argues for lower taxation, privatization, smaller government and getting Britain out of the European Union.

 … “The sense of frustration the Tea Party feels about the remoteness about the bureaucratic class of the Washington beltway is similar to our frustration with being dealt with by Brussels,” said Farage.

Many experts agree. Andrew Russell, Head of Politics at the University of Manchester, told FoxNews.com that the comparison between the Tea Party and UKIP is an accurate one, and that he believes that UKIP could take the 2014 elections by storm,

“UKIP will do well in the 2014 European elections. They may even win them in terms of the popular vote. This will increase the pressure on the Conservatives.”

Yet instead of reaching out and finding middle ground, the Tories have snubbed UKIP. In 2006 David Cameron dismissed the newcomers as full of “fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists,” and top Tory Kenneth Clark recently branded them as “a collection of clowns.”

 … As a right-wing libertarian, populist movement, there are many comparisons to be drawn with the Tea Party, yet Farage argues that there are differences too, particularly that UKIP wants to take votes away from the Tories, not to reform them.

It is here that could make them bigger in Britain than the Tea Party in America – UKIP is making inroads as a party, not just through individual candidates.

What remains to be seen is how UKIP will capitalize on their situation, and in that the next year will be vital.

“Like the Tea Party UKIP might have a profound effect on their closest neighbors politically,” Russell told FoxNews.com. “But like the Tea Party they might repel the crucial section of support needed for that party to win.”

French Leader Proposes an International Coalition to Stand Up to Totalitarian States

PARIS — A coalition between the United States, Great Britain, France and Soviet Russia was advocated by Former Premier Léon Blum [on Dec. 26, 1938] in a speech before the French Socialist Congress

reports the International Herald Tribune in its 75 Years Ago section,

as the sole means of preventing the totalitarian states — Germany and Italy — from obtaining domination of the world. France, declared the Socialist leader, should act as the link to bring together the democratic Anglo-Saxon powers in a common bloc with the Soviet Union, he said.