All Coming Apart

A smoker outside the Bataclan concert hall:

Other smokers were not so lucky:

“Two people inside the restaurant are neighbours of ours, they live downstairs and after the attack happened they ran out onto the street. They told me that they met a woman whose two friends had gone outside for a smoke during dinner and the gunmen opened fire. They were both killed. My neighbours stayed with us last night as they left their keys in the restaurant when they ran out.”

There seem to be a number of immediate political consequences, one of which appears to be Obama and Cameron joining Putin (and Hollande) against the Islamic State.

Cameron and Obama BEG Putin to join forces in bid to WIPE OUT twisted Islamic State

But also European sovereign states have been ignoring EU instructions and instead doing what their voters want. Daniel Hannan, MEP:

Still, even making allowances for this human tendency, Jean-Claude Juncker’s response to the Paris abomination was extraordinary. At the G20 summit in Turkey, he lashed out at those – the vast majority of Europeans, if polls are to be believed – who think open borders might be weakening the Continent’s security. “My belief is exactly the opposite”, he declared, “and therefore there is no need to review the European refugee policy.”

As usual, he took the opportunity to chide his opponents for their narrow-mindedness. “I would like to invite them to be serious about this and not to give in to these basic reactions. I don’t like it.”

National leaders, unlike Mr Juncker, are elected, and so can’t take such a peevish tone with their voters. One by one, the EU governments are doing what their peoples demand and reimposing border controls. The migrant quota system that Mr Juncker decreed a couple of months back is already falling to pieces.

He notes:

German voters, for example, are turning against Angela Merkel, whom they correctly blame for causing the migration crisis. Others are more alarming: Marine Le Pen must now be reckoned likely to win France’s regional elections in three weeks’ time.

And what of Britain? My guess is that the migration crisis, tinged now by its association with the Paris tragedy, will convince many waverers to vote to leave the EU.

His conclusion:

The European project is collapsing before us. Everyone can see it – except, tragically, the Eurocrats, who are determined to keep integration going at any cost. Tellingly, the declared aim of the recent emergency summit on migration was “Saving Schengen”. Not saving refugees. Not saving lives. Saving Schengen.

While Eurocrats insist that the answer to every problem is “more Europe”, voters are drawing their own conclusions.

And it wasn’t as if the migrant crisis was unforeseen. Daily Mail 11 Aug 2015:

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras last week said the refugee crisis ‘surpasses’ his crisis-hit nation’s resources and called for European Union assistance.

The UN refugee agency’s division for Europe said last week that 124,000 refugees and migrants have landed in Greece since the beginning of the year.

In fact, I seem to remember him warning about it as early as March. I don’t remember him ever getting any assistance.

The EU political class is desperately trying to hold the ‘project’ together. But that’s because it’s all coming apart.

P.S. Another example:

France has invoked emergency powers to sweep aside EU deficit rules and retake control over its economy after the terrorist atrocities in Paris, pledging a massive in increase and security and defence spending whatever the cost.

President Francois Hollande said vital interests of the French nation are at stake and there can be no further justification for narrowly-legalistic deficit rules imposed by Brussels. “The security pact takes precedence over the stability pact. France is at war,” he told the French parliament.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to All Coming Apart

  1. tony says:

    The other day Cecily recommended a very long article about ISIS.

    Thanks for that, it was extremely informative. It is always important to understand your enemy.
    I’m not suggesting this as a substitute for reading the article but I’ll try to quickly paraphrase :

    ISIS and it’s supporters are entirely governed by a narrative laid down in prophesy. Specifically that their sole function in life is to support the Caliphate in the final fight as the apocalypse approaches. And that it will happen very soon. They expect to get to the brink of defeat and when it is almost upon them, they expect the second coming of Jesus(!), who will destroy their enemies as the world ends. Presumably the righteous die happily ever after. Or something like that.

    The physical existence of the Caliphate is vital and is a potential weakness.

    They regard al Qaeda as far too pragmatic and strongly oppose their approach.

    The point is that they cannot be reasoned or compromised with. They must have it all their own way and although they are allowed peace treaties, these must never last for longer than a year.
    I make no apology for pointing out the similarity between ISIS and the global anti-smoking cartel. In each case, the leaders can seem informed, intelligent and even charming but the crusade is all embracing. Science, reason, compassion and empathy are irrelevant except when they can be used to assist with the cause.

    I can’t see an equivalent to the physical Caliphate though. Unless it is Caliphornia.

    • Tony says:

      Clarification: “I make no apology…” should be a separate paragraph. The article does not mention anti-smoking.

    • lysistratatheoriginal says:

      Science, reason, compassion and empathy are irrelevant except when they can be used to assist with the cause.
      Well said, Tony. There is no chance of reasoning with fanatical fundamentalists whether ISIS or anti-smoking.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    If you can get past all the adware popups on the Washington times its a good story

    • nisakiman says:

      I left a comment, but it’s a bit late. Lordy, but there are some smoker-haters in the US! Some of the comments are real classics!

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    25 States say NOOOO! ! PATRIOTS ARE CALLING! !! Kentucky and Tennessee just joined the list. Great job America! Let’s Take America Back!

    25 States halting relocation of Syrian Refugees. Not allowing entry, effective immediately:

    1. Alabama
    2. Arizona
    3. Indiana
    4. Louisiana
    5. Michigan
    6. Texas
    7. Illinois
    8. Massachusetts
    9. Mississippi
    10. Arkansas
    11. Ohio
    12. Florida
    13. North Carolina
    14. Maine
    15. West Virginia
    16. Wisconsin
    17. Georgia
    18. Montana
    19. New Hampshire
    20. South Carolina
    21. Kansas
    22. Nebraska
    23. Kentucky
    24. Tennessee

    • mikef317 says:

      Governors of these states are assholes. The federal government decides who can enter the country. State borders are mostly for tax / financial purposes. States have no right to stop any citizen (or any foreigner granted legal status) from entering their “territory.”

      Nobody “took” American anywhere, so there’s nothing to take back.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Mike they said they will not take in any people from a foreign land that can be classified as probable criminal or terrorist entities. In fact the Mayor libtard of Nashville was just on the news whining not about 10,000 Syrian refugees she wanted but the loss of 2 Billion dollars in federal grant money for the city for taking them in.

        Yes govenors can refuse to take refugees if they so decide. Its the governments problem not the states. So theres a lot of Federal territory where they could dump them if they so chose to,but it wouldn’t be in mainland America. Like say PUERTO RICO which is an American procession and the FEDS could easily dump them there.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Congress already cut 100s of millions from refugee relocation programs since last year alone. Obama is gonna have to crap his own money this time.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          It appear America is going into its historical ISOLATIONALIST MODE when it comes to anymore aliens from abroad. The biggest is terrorist cells,then loss of jobs to these people and then simply because we are sick of them everywhere we go……….

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          Harley, Your interpretation of immigration law is incorrect in this case as the United States Supreme Court has ruled that immigration is a Federal issue and that the states can not interfere with the movement of persons legally admitted to the United States by Federal authorities. The case is 100 years old: William Truax v. Mike Raich – 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          You have to be a citizen to have constitutional rights.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Persons of probable criminal intent or possible harm to others allows govenors to refuse entry of such elements within their states borders even from Federal authority. It becomes a state matter once they come in and states have a right to refuse such entry of undesirables. Especially if they are not citizens to begin with.

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          Harley, That’s not how the Supreme Court ruled in Trauax, nor is it consistent with their rulings on the right to travel as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          You have to be a citizen to have constitutional rights.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Either way 30 states have now said we wont take any and by tomorrow it will be 40.

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          Harley, the case is about the division of powers between the several states and the Federal government not about individual rights. Also, rights are not limited to citizens.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          What they have is human rights and that’s it,they don’t have constitutional protections as US citizens have. That’s the diference even so called political refugees don’t have constitutional rights until they are fully American naturalizes citizens.

  4. Smoking Lamp says:

    On second hand smoke:

    Second thoughts on second-hand smoke: Defending Agriculture (by Gary Baise) at “Farm Futures”
    Studies like this never make the evening news!

    “We find no evidence that legislated U.S. smoking bans were associated with short term reductions in hospital admissions for [heart attack] acute myocardial infarction or other diseases in the elderly, children or working-age adults.”

    This startling conclusion comes from four authors in the Congressional Budget Office, RAND Corporation, Center for Primary Care – Stanford University, and University of Wisconsin. These conclusions come from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the disclaimer declares the conclusions of the study are solely of those of the authors.

    We know state and local governments have virtually banned smoking in public places including workplaces, restaurants and bars. Smoking bans have been implemented in every U.S. community, and we have all been bombarded with studies in medical literature claiming smoking bans lead to healthier communities, affect hospitalization and impact mortality rates.

    This study, undertaken in 2009, reviewed how environmental tobacco smoke (also known as second-hand smoke) is related to health outcomes, the history and effects of smoking bans in the U.S. and around the world. The study does not conclude smoking is good for a person or that secondhand smoke is helpful but it offers a useful perspective and facts.

    Many studies suggest that smoking bans lead to decreases in heart attacks. A heart attack occurs due to the sudden deprivation of circulating blood in the heart.

    The authors claim that previous published studies on health effects of smoking bans in public places only compared outcomes in a single community that had passed a smoking ban with nearby communities which had not passed smoking bans in public places. We have all read and heard from the U.S. Surgeon General that numerous epidemiologic and laboratory studies have linked second-hand smoke to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and lung cancer. In fact, the studies’ authors declare “A smoking ban could plausibly reduce AMI (heart attack) incidents and mortality as early as the first year after a ban if it eliminates even relatively minor exposure.”

    Note the word “plausibly.”

    Some states, such as California, have banned smoking in workplaces, restaurants and bars because the bans were politically popular. Studies have suggested heart attack rates decreased approximately 40% in Helena, MT and 27% in Pueblo, CO following the ban of second-hand smoke. This study, interestingly, points out studies finding increased rates of vehicular deaths following the enactment of smoking bans. The theory being that drivers were smoking more in their vehicles and it is a distraction to their driving. It is believed that bans on second-hand smoke have lead to “impressive public health gains” and that “public smoking bans would demonstrably improve U.S. public health.”

    The authors criticized these conclusions and prior U.S. studies, which they claim were small in scale, examined only a few U.S. regions, and the regions were not representative of typical U.S. communities. The study indicates “It is unknown whether public [smoking] bans effectively reduce exposure to second-hand smoke and whether the reduced exposure leads to clinically significant cardiovascular risk reduction.” The authors also conclude it is “…unclear whether government restrictions affect public health substantially, or simply codify existing workplace practice.”

    The paper details the data sets and sources for health outcomes. It also looked at impact of workplace smoking bans might have on the elderly and children although it was assumed these two data sets would primarily be exposed to workplace second-hand smoke as customers. The study also looked at the effects of private restrictions businesses enacted or enforced prior to government bans and accordingly were excluded from the final conclusions.

    The conclusions of this study were interesting: “Workplace smoking restrictions are unrelated to changes in all-cause mortality or mortality due to other AMI in all age groups.” This study also found “We similarly find no evidence of reduction in [hospital] admissions for other diseases in any age group, though smoking restrictions of all sorts are associated with statistically insignificant increases in asthma…among children.”

    The study also claims that workplace smoking bans “…on heart attack admissions is close to zero…” Studies like this never make the evening news!

  5. garyk30 says:

    Two things on Syrian Refugees
    1. Of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, that is, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people.

    2. TO listen to Obama, you might believe that every one of the hundreds of thousands of migrants clamouring to get into the EU was a Syrian refugee fleeing the horror of Islamic State or tyrannical president Bashar al-Assad.

    But new Eurostat figures show the truth: 80 per cent are from as far afield as Pakistan, Nigeria and Albania – many of them economic migrants simply looking for a better life.
    Only one in every five migrants claiming asylum in Europe is from Syria.

    The EU logged 213,000 arrivals in April, May and June but only 44,000 of them were fleeing the Syrian civil war.

    Campaigners and left-wing Dems have suggested the vast majority of migrants are from the war-torn state.

    ‘This exposes the lie peddled in some quarters that vast numbers of those reaching Europe are from Syria.
    Perhaps the most telling statistic is the ratio of men to women and children in the overall migrant population: 72 percent to 13 percent and 15 percent, respectively, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

    Given the typical profile of economic migrants, this dramatic disproportion suggests that many men are seeking economic opportunity, not sanctuary from violence.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      seeking economic opportunity……… whose expense the taxpayers and others out of work that are already citizens and need any job they can find. Europe seems to finally be getting it,especially France. France cancelled their Brussels agrrement on spending cuts yelling we are at war and will no longer follow austerity measures. Theirs no telling what other things France threw back at the EU in the last 4 days. It means internal disentigration of the EU 4th Reich.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.