Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Why Democrats Hate the Internet


int If you believe Hillary Clinton, her email scandal happened because she couldn’t figure out how to do what every American of working age knows how to do; juggle a work and personal email account.


The Clinton vaporware bridge to the 21st century turned out to be a private email server that kept out the media, but not foreign spy agencies. When Hillary finally had to turn over some emails, she printed out tens of thousands of pages of them as if this were still the 20th century.


But like the rest of her party, Hillary is very much a 20th century regulator, not a 21st century innovator.


Despite claiming to have invented the internet, the Democratic Party isn’t very good at technology and doesn’t like technology. Everything from the Healthcare.gov debacle to the VA death lists happened because this administration was completely incompetent when it came to implementing anything more complicated than a hashtag. The success rate for exchanges managed by its state allies isn’t much better. The only databases it seems able to handle are for its incessant election fundraising emails.


Democrats not only didn’t invent the internet, but they’ve been trying to kill it ever since it existed. The latest attempt to hijack the internet under the guise of net neutrality follows multiple attempts to implement CDA laws censoring it back in the Clinton days. Obama’s rhetoric over reclassifying the internet is a carbon copy of Clinton’s own rhetoric over the Telecommunications Act.


Obama and Clinton are not innovators, at best they’re marketers, at heart they’re regulators. They don’t want ‘open’ anything. Regulators seek to define and classify everything before freezing it into place. It’s the same control freak impulse at the heart of Hillary’s private email server. They want to enforce a comprehensive ruleset without regard to functionality that privileges their own communications.


It’s a short leap from Hillary’s private email server to Obama’s private internet. Both want their own communications to be unseen, witness the way that the White House deals with Freedom of Information requests, but they want oversight of what everyone else can and does say online.


Innovators disrupt. Regulators control. The left’s hysteria over companies like Uber and Airbnb is typical of the regulator mentality. The left’s propaganda operations have boomed thanks to the internet, but rather than celebrating open technology, it responds by trying to closely regulate the internet instead.


The American left understands that it cannot market itself as progressive without embracing technology, but culturally it is a reactionary movement whose embrace of organic food, no vaccines and paranoia about technology causing Global Warming reveals a deep unease about the technology it claims to love.


Democrats like technology the way that they like science in general, as an inspiring progressive idea, not as the messy uncertain reality that it really is. But applying their logic of “settled science”, in which a thing is assumed to work because their ideology says it should, to technology leads to disaster. Technology is a real life test of ideas. Its science is only settled when it can be objectively said to work.


Healthcare.gov was an example of the GIGO principle that governs information technology and life.


If you put garbage in, your output will be garbage. ObamaCare was a garbage law. The policies it offers are garbage and its website, produced through the same corrupt and dysfunctional processes as the rest of it, was also garbage. The left has to deny that its productive output is garbage because recognizing that would mean having to admit that its ideological input was garbage.


If you try to set up a website for a law whose actual functioning no one understood designed in part by bureaucrats who were better at writing mandates than making things that work and by an assortment of corporations that got the job because of who their executives knew in the White House, the other end was bound to be a giant pile of garbage that worked as well as the law it was based on.


That’s why Democrats hate technology. Real science doesn’t give you the results you want. It doesn’t care about your consensus or how you massaged the numbers. It gives you the results you deserve.


Garbage in, garbage out.


Obama wasted billions on Green Energy because his people couldn’t be bothered to examine the vested claims of special interests. His people insisted that Ebola wasn’t an infectious disease because that would interfere with immigration policy. Science and technology don’t come first. They’re just there to serve the same empty marketing function as the ‘smart’ part of his smart power which led to ISIS.


Green Energy and ObamaCare had to work because they were shiny and progressive. The messy reality of the technology or the business models for making them work didn’t matter to Obama.


Progressives mistake this brand of ignorant technophilia for being on the side of progress, when really it’s just the flip side of technophobia. The technophobe raised in a push button world in which things just work doesn’t necessarily fear technology; instead he fears the messy details that interfere with his need for instant gratification.


The new lefty Luddite loves gadgets; he just hates the limitations that make them work. He wants results without effort or error. He wants energy without pollution, consensus without experiment and products without industry. The same narcissism that causes him to reject the fact that he has to give something to get something in human affairs leads him to also reject the same principle in technology.


He wants everything his way. He thinks that makes him an innovator, when it actually makes him a regulator. Innovators understand that every effort comes with risk. Regulators seek to eliminate risk by killing innovation. The progressive Luddite believes that he can have innovation without risk. But that’s just the classic progressive fallacy of confusing regulation with innovation and control with results.


Selling regulation as innovation is just marketing. And that’s all that progressives like Obama are. Their openness is pure marketing. Their need to control everything is the regulatory reality underneath.


Bill Clinton’s idea of innovation was censoring the internet. His wife’s idea was setting up a private email server with terrible security to shut down information transparency. Obama’s idea of innovation is regulating the internet while golfing with the CEO of the cable monopoly being used as an excuse for those regulations.


This isn’t the party that invented the internet. It is the party that’s killing it.


The innovator knows that reality is messy. He lands a probe on a comet while wearing a tacky shirt. The regulator however can only see the shirt. Technology only interests him as a means of controlling people. The shirt matters as much as the comet because both are ways of influencing people.


The left wants technology only as a means of achieving its utopian visions. The technology itself is push button; it means nothing except as a means to an end. The regulator is not thrilled by the incredible ingenuity it takes to link together the world, just as the comet means nothing to him. The technology either serves his political goals or it does not. It lives under his regulations or it does not.


To the left, skill and ingenuity are just forms of unchecked privilege. The only achievement that matters is power over people. The revolutionary exploits technology, but his revolution is that of the regulator, his machine is collective; its ultimate design is to end ingenuity and abort progress. His communication is not a dialogue, it is a diatribe, and his vision of the internet is only meant to be open until he can close it.


The technological vision of the Democrats is just the same old central planning in a shinier case.


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here .


Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube and LIKE it on Facebook.



Obama Administration Insults Memory of Armenian Holocaust


arm gen Next month, Armenians worldwide will mark the centennial of the Armenian Holocaust that saw 1.5 million of their people perish barbarically at the hands of the Ottoman Turks in a jihad that is continuing today under the Islamic State. This destruction of the Armenians in Anatolia, where they had lived for several thousand years, was also the event that gave Hitler reason to believe he could get away with exterminating Jews, Poles and Gypsies.


“Who still remembers today the annihilation of the Armenians?” the Nazi leader reportedly said.


The trauma of 1915 left deep scars on the Armenian psyche, similar to those the Nazi Holocaust made on that of the world’s Jews. As a result, one would think the Obama administration would show an increased sensitivity regarding the killing of Armenians, especially by Muslim enemies, and more especially in view of the approaching Armenian Holocaust’s centenary in April. But only last month, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland urged Armenian authorities to make “a humanitarian gesture” and release two Azeri terrorists who had crossed the border from Azerbaijan and murdered two people, one a 17-year-old. A third Armenian, a woman, was badly wounded.


“Such humanitarian gestures have been shown to reduce tensions and build trust between the sides. So that’s what she (Nuland) was referring to,” said a state department spokeswoman later at a press briefing, in explaining the assistant secretary’s controversial remarks.


Nuland was in Azerbaijan, the second stop of her tour of the Caucuses Mountains, when she made the “humanitarian gesture” comment, having previously visited Georgia. In Azerbaijan, Nuland also said she would take up the matter of releasing the two imprisoned Azeris when she visited Armenia, her next and last stop. Armenia and Azerbaijan are both former Soviet republics in the southern Caucuses Mountains, who now face each other over a closed, hostile border. Armed clashes occur there now almost daily and deaths have occurred. The military confrontation between the two Caucasian nations has recently become so heated, it is feared armed conflict could break out.


The cause of the enmity between Christian Armenia and Azerbaijan, a Turkic-speaking, Muslim-majority country, was an undeclared war fought from 1988 to 1994 over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave inside of Azerbaijan that sought secession and reunification with Armenia in the dying days of the Soviet empire. The Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, perceiving themselves as victims of the Soviet Union’s nationalities policy, believed they were righting a historical wrong. In 1921, the Bolsheviks had first awarded the enclave to Armenia but later reversed that decision, giving it to Azerbaijan, even though the population, according to an early Soviet census, was 95 percent Armenian. Stalin was reportedly responsible for this fateful, and disastrous, decision reversal.


During the conflict, both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing. According to authors Caroline Cox and John Eibner, Azeris cleared 40,000 Armenians out of Kirovabad, Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, in 1988 in response to Nagorno-Karabakh’s secession drive. Another Azeri pogrom against Armenians, in which 32 were killed, preceded this in Sumgait, followed by another in Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital.


“The Armenians were not quick to retaliate to the Sumgait massacre,” wrote Cox and Eibner in their 1993-published book Ethnic Cleansing In Progress: War In Nagorno-Karabakh. “But Armenian restraint crumbled in response to the Kirovabad pogrom and the anti-Armenian demonstrations in Baku.”


In the war itself, the outnumbered Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, with assistance from neighboring Armenia, not only won their independence, defeating the Azeri forces, they also conquered some adjoining Azeri territory, which they still hold today. With the victory, Nagorno-Karabakh renamed itself Artsakh (its ancient name when an Armenian kingdom), and became an independent state, recognised internationally, however, by few others. These diplomatic difficulties have also prevented Artsakh from joining Armenia, although the two are closely entwined.


Until now, Artsakh has refused to return the Azeri territory it occupies until it can be guaranteed that it will not be used to stage attacks on its land. In this respect, Nagorno-Karabakh has adopted a position similar to Israel’s regarding the Arab territories it captured in 1967: it will trade land for peace.


Azerbaijan’s ally, Turkey, which is located on Armenia’s western border, became so incensed when the Artsakh forces were winning that it threatened to attack Armenia, although it was not officially a combatant. Apparently, Turkey is not content with having murdered 1.5 million Armenians a hundred years ago and wants to continue this homicidal tradition in this century. A Turkish military assault on Armenia would be like Germany attacking Israel today.


However, a warning from the Kremlin that a Turkish attack on Armenia would mean war with Russia caused Turkey to climb down, thus averting a regional conflict. In the end, to save face, all Turkey could do was seal its border with Armenia as well. This closure has lasted now 22 years, severely disrupting the Armenian economy. And incredibly, while trying its best to strangle Armenia, Turkey has hypocritically complained about Israel’s blockade of Gaza.


So it is against this background of war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and ancient hatreds that Nuland called upon Armenian authorities to make a “humanitarian gesture” and release the murderers. The two Azeri terrorists were found guilty in a Republic of Artsakh court after an “open and transparent trial,” and received prison sentences of life and 22 years respectively. One of the charges that formed the conviction was “murder committed by an organised group motivated by ethnic hatred.” Artsakh security forces killed a third Azeri terrorist belonging to the group. None of the three, Azerbaijan claims, are members of its military.


Although Artsakh is recognised by four American state governments, the most recent being California in 2014, the federal government continues to deny it diplomatic recognition. As a result, Nuland did not talk with Artsakh authorities when in Armenia. Instead, she met with the Armenian foreign minister and visited the Armenian Holocaust memorial in Yerevan. But Nuland’s talks with Armenian officials concerning the two Azeri terrorists yielded no results.


This was to be expected. Armenians well remember the terrible injustice and humiliation inflicted on them when the Hungarian government released early from prison an Azeri military officer, Rami Safarov, who had killed Armenian officer, Lt. Gurgen Markarian, in his sleep with an axe in 2004 in Budapest. Both were attending a North Atlantic Treaty Organization-sponsored event at the time. Safarov was released after he had served only six years of a 30 year sentence for reasons that have yet to be discerned, outraging both Armenians and Hungarians.


“With their joint actions the authorities of Hungary and Azerbaijan have opened the door for the recurrence of such crimes,” Armenia’s then president, Serge Sarkisian, stated prophetically. “With this decision they send a clear message to the butchers. The slaughterers hereafter are well aware of the impunity they can enjoy for murder driven by ethnic or religious hatred.”


Safarov returned home to Azerbaijan on a “special flight” and received a hero’s welcome. For his foul murder, the government rewarded him with a pardon, eight years back pay, an apartment and a promotion of two ranks, similar to honours Palestinians bestow on their terrorists for killing Israelis. Also like the Palestinians, one Azeri member of the national legislature called Safarov “a national hero.” Which shows the level of Azeri hatred and civilizational development when an axe murderer is accorded this status.


The reason the Obama administration requested on Azerbaijan’s behalf that the two Azeri murderers be released was probably not a humanitarian one, as it maintains. Like some Arab countries, Azerbaijan is very oil rich, while Armenia has no oil. American companies also have investments in the large Azeri oil industry. Equally important, Azerbaijan serves as a hub for the Caspian Sea-Central Asian energy pipelines. As well, both Israel and the United States view Azerbaijan as an ally in the regional showdown with Iran. So it is most likely that upholding these business and strategic interests with Azerbaijan was the real reason behind Nuland’s pushing for the terrorists’ release.


This situation resembles the controversial early release by Great Britain of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a Libyan also known as the Lockerbie Bomber, who was responsible for 259 deaths when a Pan Am flight was destroyed by a terrorist bomb over Scotland in 1988. It was later revealed that the British oil company, British Petroleum, had lobbied for his release, which greatly helped it obtain a $900 million oil exploration contract from Muamarr Gaddafi.


But Armenia is not Great Britain. The murder of Lt. Markarian in Budapest and the two civilians in Artsakh are symbolic of the hatred and homicidal fate the surrounding Turkic populations have in store for the Armenian people, much like the Arabs have for Israel. Also like Israel, Armenians cannot allow the lives of their people to be sold cheaply. They have already suffered one holocaust. Granting early release to the two Azeri terrorists would send a wrong, and very dangerous, message, one that would likely be interpreted as weakness in one of the world’s rougher neighbourhoods where only strength is respected.


Besides, some Armenians view Nuland’s request as hypocritical. Would the United States, for example, release Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to Russia as “a humanitarian gesture” to better relations with an Islamic country or with Putin, they ask? Or free early other imprisoned foreign terrorists with American blood on their hands?


If the State Department truly wants “to reduce tensions and build trust” in the region, it should first tell Azerbaijan and Turkey to lift their blockades and open their borders with Armenia, ending the crippling of the Armenian economy. This is the humanitarian gesture it should be pursuing and not the release of two murderers.


The border openings would not only be a good start to solving the other outstanding regional issues, it would also serve to lessen the Armenian fear that their Muslim neighbours simply want to finish the extermination project they started in 1915. It would also constitute a very fitting gesture of friendship and reconciliation, especially by Turkey, to Armenians worldwide on the centenary of the horrific event that serves as the well-spring of so much of their pain.


But instead of a adopting a principled position that would help lessen that pain, the Obama administration appears to have taken one of unprincipled pragmatism.


*


Don’t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow Raymond Ibrahim discuss his book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians :


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here .


Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube and LIKE it on Facebook.



The Problem at Immigration and Customs Enforcement


800px-US_Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement_arrest Organizations, whether in the public sector or private sector, tend to issue press releases for many purposes, but most often it is for public relations.


Federal agencies including ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) routinely issue press releases that tout their successes to convince the public that the money that is appropriated by Congress has been well-spent.


I plan to periodically write commentaries to dissect significant ICE press releases shed light on the truth behind those press releases. The most effective weapon we have in our arsenal to make our government accountable, is the ability to ask the best questions we can. Questions are most impactful when they are based on knowledge and, indeed, it has been said that you can more readily determine the intelligence of a person by the questions he/she asks rather that the answers that the person provides.


Considering the number of illegal aliens present in the United States today, especially aliens engaged in criminal and gang-related crimes and the availability of heroin and cocaine on the streets of towns and cities across the United States, it is obvious that “border security” is a more outlandish oxymoron than the late George Carlin’s “Jumbo shrimp” or my personal favorite, “Heroic play!” (How on earth can you be a “hero” when you are playing?)


I routinely review the press releases that the DOJ, DHS, ICE and CBP post. Because these press releases are usually little more than propaganda I have come to refer to my visits to their websites as “dumpster diving!”


Occasionally law enforcement officers dig through the trash cans left at the curb by individuals or organizations that are under investigation, to seek evidence. Similarly, reviewing these press releases may open a window into the operations of these law enforcement agencies and into the strategies that the administration employs to mislead us.


On March 9, 2015 ICE issued a press release, “2,059 convicted criminals arrested in ICE nationwide operation.” The press release we are examining today focused on the sixth and latest installment of “Operation Cross Check.” Over a four day period that began on March 1, 2015 and ended on March 5, 2015 reportedly resulted in the arrest of 2,059 criminal aliens from 94 countries. Among the countries noted in the press release were Jamaica, Poland, Finland and Mexico.


Reportedly the five previous operations under the aegis of “Operation Cross Check” netted 13, 214 arrests.


On the surface the press release certainly paints a picture of achievement. I absolutely laud the agents at ICE who made those arrests and took some truly dangerous aliens off the streets, thereby protecting the residents of the communities in which these criminals lived and operated. We must not blame the valiant but extremely frustrated law enforcement personnel of ICE or other law enforcement agencies for the failures of leadership of their respective agencies. There is an old Yiddish expression that says, “When the fish goes bad, it smells from the head!”


Those agents understand, perhaps better then anyone, how important their jobs, that they are most often not really allowed to do effectively, are to our nation and our citizens. On a personal note, I will never forget the feelings of satisfaction I enjoyed after I arrested aliens who had engaged in violent crimes, engaged in the drug trade or were involved in terrorism-related crimes. I recall many nights driving over the Brooklyn Bridge on my way home in the middle of the night, having lodged a criminal in jail, seeing the darkened windows of the apartment houses and private homes on my way home, thinking that while my fellow New Yorkers slept my colleagues and I from the INS and other law enforcement agencies had made New York that much safer.


However, before you break out the bottle of champagne and call your friends over to celebrate the “achievements” being reported in the ICE news release we are examining today, we will see, shortly, that this one step forward was preceded by many steps backwards!


This is why it is vital to read between the lines and compare what is claimed in these optimistic press releases and how assertions of success square with cold, hard reality.


Sometimes the authors of the press releases that could be filed under the “Fiction Section” find that just as they cannot exceed the speed of light, as Einstein postulated, they also cannot outrun the speed of their own B.S!


The news release that we are examining provides and incredible example of how, to twist a phrase, “They can write, but they cannot hide!” As Founding Father John Adams famously remarked, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”


Consider that just three days after issuing that optimistic press release about the arrest of more than 2,000 criminal aliens, on March 12, 2015 that Yahoo News posted an Associated Press report, “15 immigrants protected from deportation arrested in sweep.”


Here are key excerpts from this report:



WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal agents in a sweep targeting the most dangerous criminal immigrants arrested 15 people who have been allowed to remain in the U.S. under President Barack Obama’s executive action intended to protect children who came to the U.S. years ago with their parents, The Associated Press has learned.



It was not immediately clear when 13 of the immigrants were convicted or what their crimes were. They were arrested by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. The answers to those questions could undermine the integrity of the government’s program, since eligibility is reserved for ambitious, young immigrants enrolled in school or who graduated and who would benefit American society.


None of the names of the immigrants was disclosed. One of the young immigrants arrested hadn’t been convicted of a crime, but was arrested after being found armed with a gun, the official said.


Homeland Security spokeswoman Marsha Catron said eight other people arrested during the sweep had received the protective status at one point, including three who had it revoked. Catron did not provide additional details.


Under the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, more than 675,000 young immigrants since August 2012 have been granted a work permit and reprieve from deportation.


“With few fraud detection measures and effective background checks in place, it’s no surprise that ICE arrested over a dozen DACA recipients last week, most of whom had already been convicted of a crime,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. “I and other members of the House Judiciary Committee have expressed concern about this for years.”


Goodlatte, R-Va., and other Republicans have long decried Obama’s executive immigration as a form of backdoor amnesty that circumvents Congress.


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the case “sheds light on what appears to be a haphazard and risky vetting process by an administration that is very interested in finding creative and possibly unconstitutional ways for people to stay in the country.”


Catron said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “is examining these cases to determine the appropriate course of action, which may include a denial or termination of deferred action.”


The sweep also captured five immigrants with protective applications pending and 19 others who had already been denied protection from deportation under the program.


Earlier this week ICE Director Sarah Saldana said the operation focused on “the worst of the worst criminals.”


“This was a targeted enforcement operation, aimed specifically at enhancing public safety,” Saldana said. “It exemplifies our core mission, by taking dangerous criminals off the streets and removing them from the country we are addressing a very significant security and public safety vulnerability.”



In November, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced new deportation priorities as part of Obama’s planned expansion of programs to shield millions of immigrants from deportation.



What is truly significant about the AP news report was noted by both Representative Bob Goodlatte, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Chuck Grassley the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is that they noted a lack of integrity to the adjudications process of applications at USCIS. This lack of integrity and the lack of deterrence against fraud, an issue hammered by the 9/11 Commission have been the focus of many of my articles and my testimony before a number of Congressional hearings at which I have testified. To provide an example of one of my recent articles about my concerns, on March 9, 2015 The Daily Caller published my commentary, “Congress Has Fully Funded The DHS — America’s Biggest Document Mill.”


It is vital to bear in mind that these failures would undermine the integrity of any massive amnesty program such as Comprehensive Immigration Reform which, in turn would undermine national security.


Also, it is important to note that while the administration claims that some of these “protected” aliens had their status revoked, it is apparent that nothing had initially been done to locate them based on the revocation of their DACA applications. This failure to seek to arrest aliens who file applications that are subsequently denied encourages fraud. There is no negative consequences for an alien who files and application that is ultimately denied.


Getting back to the press release, while there has been much emphasis placed on securing the U.S./Mexican border, there is no information as to how all of these criminal aliens from nearly 100 countries entered the United States. It is likely that many of them did not enter without inspections by running that border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico.


However, no information was provided as to how many of these criminal aliens may have entered by having been admitted at a port of entry with a visa or under the auspices of the wrong-headed and dangerous Visa Waiver Program.


These other failures of the immigration system motived my February 5, 2015 article for FrontPage Magazine, The ‘Secure Our Border First Act’ Deception »Why it’s no solution to the immigration crisis.


The press release focused on four examples of criminal aliens who had been arrested. These four had been arrested in Georgia, Connecticut, Illinois and Colorado. This again raises the issue of the so-called four “border states.” As I have noted repeatedly, the United States has 50 border states and when aliens run our borders they do not do so the way that Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and the other Apollo astronauts went to the moon. These aliens are not content to simply set foot on our side of the border, grab a few rocks, plant a flag and head for home- they quickly put the U.S. border behind them (literally) and head for cities across our vast nation.


The first question that needs to be asked is, “How did these aliens enter the United States in the first place?” If they were able to enter the United States via the inspections process it would be important to know if any measures have been taken to evaluate the effectiveness of the screening process conducted by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Inspectors and determine if perhaps the admissions process could do a more effective job of preventing the entry of criminal aliens in the first place. For example, perhaps it could be shown that the Visa Waiver Program made it too easy for criminal aliens to enter the United States.


It has been said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” If DHS could do a better job of preventing the entry of criminal aliens and terrorists in the first place, America and Americans would be far better off.


There is an important point that must also be made at this time- while we are constantly told that Comprehensive Immigration Reform would be favored by “Latino voters” a term that demonstrates an disgusting and wrong-headed form of racial profiling, the reality is that these aliens who were taken into custody during “Operation Cross Check” did not all come from Mexico or even Latin America. This assertion that the way to appeal to Latino voters is to provide lawful status and official identity documents to unknown millions of illegal aliens from countries across the planet who snuck into the country creates the outrageous illusion that Americans of Latino ethnicity favor lawlessness and that anyone who has an apparent Latino name is an illegal alien or has relatives who are illegal aliens.


This is not only a statement of bigotry and racism but impugns the integrity and sacrifices of millions of American citizens who may well be multi-generational Americans whose family members may have made tremendous sacrifices, indeed, perhaps, the “ultimate sacrifice” in defense of our nation.


The press release noted that many of these aliens had been convicted of committing felonies. They had spent time in prison- yet there was no mention made as to where these aliens were arrested. “Were they taken into custody by ICE agents in the prison or were they released onto the street and subsequently arrested by ICE at their homes, places of employment or somewhere else?”


If they were not arrested in the prison where they had been confined, the obvious followup question is, “Why were they released from prison and turned loose and not held for ICE agents to take them into custody?”


As a follow-up to the previous question, the press release noted that more than 1,000 of these criminal aliens had multiple criminal convictions. The obvious question is, “Were these multiple convictions the result of the same arrest or were they arrested and convicted more than once?” The point here is that if an individual, for example, is arrested simultaneously for possession of a firearm and possession of drugs, he/she would have multiple charges and convictions. However, if an individual was arrested, successfully prosecuted and then, released from prison onto the street, only to be arrested at a later date for an additional crime(s), the question that must be asked is, “Why did ICE not take that alien into custody after the first arrest and conviction upon completing whatever jail sentence might have been imposed?”


The press release noted that five of these aliens were wanted fugitives who had failed to depart from the United States as ordered. It is truly doubtful that they missed their flights at the airport!


This raises the question, “Why were these criminal aliens released from custody by ICE in the first place, only to have to be sought and arrested again by ICE?” In fact, when asking about who may have released aliens from custody, the issue that must be raised is the administration’s outrageous policy of releasing aliens, including criminal aliens from custody, blaming the sequestration of funding by Congress.


At the beginning of my commentary I made note of the administration taking “many steps backwards.” The release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens on the flimsy and patently absurd claim that this was the fault of the Congress and funding sequestration, represents those many steps backwards to which I referred. Indeed, each and every criminal alien needlessly released equals a giant step backwards for public safety and deterrence to dissuade additional criminal aliens from seeking to enter the United States to ply their “trades” in towns and cities across our nation, thereby victimizing ever so many innocent victims including, most often, members of the various ethnic immigrant communities.


On February 27, 2013 I discussed the issue of the administration’s release of criminal aliens when I was a guest on “Your World With Neil Cavuto.” A video of this segment was posted on the Fox News website under the title, “Release of many illegal immigrants as automatic cuts loom; Former INS special agent weighs in.”


During my brief discussion with Neil, I had predicted that after the administration released criminal aliens ICE would, at some future time, mount a massive field operation to recapture these same aliens, and issue a press release touting the arrest of aliens who had previously been in custody.


Furthermore, On March 31, 2014 The Daily Caller published the disconcerting article, “Report: Obama administration released 68,000 convicted criminal aliens last year.”


This brings up the question, “Were any of these aliens, whose arrests were touted in the ICE news release, among those released under the administration’s lame excuse of funding sequestration?”


The term “Catch & Release” became a well-known expression to describe how, for years, the Border Patrol apprehended illegal aliens, turned them lose and while the Border Patrol took credit for those arrests, fewer than 10% of those released showed up at immigration offices and at immigration courts when ordered to do so. (Those who did show up usually had some sort of claims of entitlement to lawful status.)


What is not generally known by the American public as that this same program of “Catch and Release” has passed for “business as usual” for the interior enforcement program, such as it is, where ICE is concerned and was actually commonplace at the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service).


In reviewing the nature of the crimes some of these aliens engaged in, it is obvious that at least some of them had a history of committing sex offenses and other crimes of violence- hardly “victimless crimes.” When criminal aliens are released from prison and put out on the street, public safety is compromised.


The followup to this question is, “Were any people injured or assaulted by any of these criminal aliens who had been turned lose onto the streets either by local or state law enforcement agencies including prisons or even by ICE before ICE agents arrested them again?”


Recently, Congress saw fit to fully fund DHS claiming that they had to continue to fund the agency to protect America and Americans. The obvious question you should, by now, be able to answer for yourself, “Are we really getting our money’s worth from this dysfunctional agency that clearly suffers from so many serious problems and deficiencies that have caused me to refer to DHS as the “Department of Homeland Surrender.


America and Americans are bleeding both red (blood) and green (money) as a result of the failures of the DHS and the outrageous policies of the administration and we must make our government accountable. This all begins by knowing the right questions to ask and demanding honest answers.


Often the mere act of asking questions, especially insightful, fact-based questions, serves to put our politicians on notice that we are not as dumb or compliant as they hoped were were!


My folks raised me to believe that I would determine how I would be treated by demonstrating what I was willing to accept from those I had to deal with. We the People must make certain that we send a clear and unambiguous message to those we elect to represent us.


*


Don’t miss Michael Cutler on The Glazov Gang discuss Sleeper Agents Hiding:


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here .


Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube and LIKE it on Facebook.



On Disgrace and Honor: Hannah Arendt, Stefan Zweig, and Central European Despair


were “…those very stringencies sometimes telescope events into dreamlike absurdity.” William T. Vollmann, “Europe Central”


In 1943, when the news started to be confirmed of the Nazis’ implementation of what the ossified bureaucratic language called the “Endlösung” (The Final Solution) – the extermination of all European Jews –, Hannah Arendt published an essay in the émigré journal Aufbau (printed in New York) on Stefan Zweig and the bygone world of yesterday, namely the world of dreams and illusions of German culture’s bourgeois cosmopolitanism. Zweig had been a darling of that world, one of its most influential and admired voices. It was a world replete with neuroses, psychological mysteries, splendid pleasures, and no less bewildering anxieties. It was the world of Egon Schiele and Oskar Kokoschka, of Sigmund Freud and Gustav Mahler, of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Kraus, of Robert Musil and Franz Kafka, of Elias Canetti and Alma Mahler. A universe in which heresies were not only tolerated, but downright encouraged.


Self-banished from this world of which nothing else but its geographic location remained, Stefan Zweig, born in Vienna in November 1881, committed suicide together with his wife in Petropolis, Brazil, in February 1942. He was convinced that Nazism would triumph and that the bourgeois civilization founded on respect for the individual and his liberties, a civilization which he had loved without reservation, was destined to perish. He could not envision being able to live in a world of totalitarian savagery.


Throughout those very same years, Hannah Arendt had started working on issues which led to the writing of her masterpiece, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” including the ramifications and implications of modern anti-Semitism. It was at that time that she outlined the classification of the modern Jewish condition, namely its two alternatives: the pariah and the parvenu. For her and Zweig – with whom she obviously identified to a great extent, just as she had with her favorite, Rahel Varnhagen (“my closest friend, though she has been dead for some hundred years”) –, asserting their pariah status, becoming aware of it and embracing it, was essential. Not as a religious option, but as a political acknowledgement, in the profound sense of the word, that of a real situation.


In her famous 1963 letter to Gershom Scholem, Hannah Arendt states as clearly as possible: “I am myself Jewish” – therefore an undisputable and undeniable fact. Yet this fact does not compel me in line with reflex solidarities, with supposedly inevitable alignments. My honor is an individual one, not that of a group. But in order to save my honor, I will oppose the dishonoring of a people only because they are that people.


Just like Hannah Arendt, Zweig experienced the tragedy of what the former, in her book “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” called the superfluous populations – those huge masses of refugees unwanted by anyone, uprooted, banished, persecuted, people deprived of state passports, abandoned by the political communities where they had been born, raised, and educated. For the author of “The World of Yesterday,” the situation was simply unbearable. Similarly, in 1943 Hannah Arendt wrote an article about the refugees. Martin Heidegger had once written about Die Heimatlosigkeit des neuzeitlichen Menschen (the stateless condition of the contemporary man). The concept was taken further by some of his students, including Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse. We must emphasize that we are not discussing Heidegger’s proclivities towards National Socialism here, but his philosophical work. The philosopher’s intuition had prefigured the existential – and then the global – condition of the Jew.


The thinker herself had experienced, in a camp in France, the oppression characteristic of this maximally downgraded social status, what Arthur Koestler, himself a paradigmatic refugee, dubbed “the scum of the Earth”. Hannah Arendt reminds the parvenus of the following words written by Balzac: “On ne parvient pas deux fois.” Both categories are removed from under the protective power of the law, but the parvenus hope to somehow get an exemption from the lethal outcome. Pondering on the fate of Zweig, Walter Benjamin[1] (her good friend), and so many other noble spirits in those dark times (“Men in Dark Times”), Hannah Arendt writes the following:



“Those few refugees who insist upon telling the truth, even to the point of ‘indecency,’ get in exchange for their unpopularity one priceless advantage: history is no longer a closed book to them and politics is no longer the privilege of gentiles.” (Hannah Arendt, “We Refugees,” in The Jewish Writings, Edited by Jerome Kohn and Ron H. Feldman, Schocken Books, 2007, p. 274).



This is the very reason for Hannah Arendt’s unfaltering admiration for Rahel Varnhagen: the courage to be herself, to remain independent, without denying her identity. The essay on Stefan Zweig begins with the description of a dream by Rachel Varnhagen, the famous hostess of one of the great German literary salons in the first half of the 19th century. A dream in which Rahel is in heaven with her close friends Bettina von Arnim and Caroline von Humboldt. The keyword in that dream is disgrace. As Hannah Arendt adds: “Disgrace and honor are political concepts, categories of public life”. (From the essay “Stefan Zweig: Jews in the World of Yesterday”, ibidem, p. 317).


Her great objection concerning Zweig is precisely the hesitation to define himself as a political subject: “Not one of his reactions during all this period was the result of political convictions; they were all dictated by his hypersensitivity to social humiliation.” Zweig spent his life consumed between “the pleasure of fame and the curse of humiliation,” issues that he himself raised with that “coldness of genuine despair.” Foreshadowing not only “The Origins,” but also the explosive “Report on the Banality of Evil” (“Eichmann in Jerusalem”[2]), Hannah Arendt deems fleeing from politics a cause of the failure to foresee the disaster that followed:



“Had the Jews of Western and Central European countries displayed even a modicum of concern for the political realities of their times, they would have had reason enough not to feel secure.”



In this regard – although he was a citizen of the world, or perhaps even because of it –, one can safely assume that “There is no better document of the Jewish situation in this period than the opening chapters of Zweig’s book.”


At the end of this disturbing essay, Hannah Arendt quotes from one of Zweig’s last articles. Once more, the writer puts himself forward as an example of European consciousness – that of a Europe torn, mutilated, maimed –, but argues strongly that yesterday cannot be separated from today “as if a man had been hurled down from a great height as the result of a violent blow.”


This is the way in which Zweig came to discover, and especially embrace, that same Jewishness which Hannah Arendt considered a matter of course, a factual truth:



“Since he had wanted all his life to live in peace with the political and social standards of his time, he was unable to fight against a world in whose eyes it was and is a disgrace to be a Jew. […] For honor never will be won by the cult of success or fame, by cultivation of one’s own self, nor even by personal dignity. From the ‘disgrace’ of being a Jew there is but one escape – to fight for the honor of the Jewish people as a whole.”



This is the main reason why Hannah Arendt never hesitated to criticize things that she believed objectionable, yet without ever calling into question, after 1948, the non-negotiable right to existence of the state of Israel, which she saw as a chance for the Jewish people to enter into a genuine modern political contract.


Vladimir Tismaneanu is a professor of politics at the University of Maryland (College Park) and author of numerous books, including most recently “The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century.” Marius Stan is a Romanian political scientist, author of books in Romanian and Polish, and currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bucharest. This essay was translated from Romanian into English by Monica Got .


Notes:


[1] See The Times Literary Supplement for Anthony Phelan’s review (“Uncarnal,” 25 February 2015) of Howard Eiland and Michael W. Jennings’s book Walter Benjamin: A Critical Life, Belknap Press, 2014.


[2] See also The Times Literary Supplement for Lawrence Douglas’s review (“A very deliberate banality,” 25 February 2015) of Bettina Stangneth’s book Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer, Knopf, 2014.


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here .


Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube and LIKE it on Facebook.



Facebook and the big Indian blockade


NEW DELHI: Facebook blocked 5,832 pieces of content in India on government request between July and December last year. In its Global Government Requests report released on Monday, it confirmed some of the content restricted was antireligious and those likely to cause unrest.


“We restricted access in India to content reported primarily by law enforcers and the India Computer Emergency Response Team within the ministry of communications and IT,” the report said.


India stands second after the US in a list of countries for the number of government requests to Facebook during this period. The company didn’t specify the nature of requests but a BJP official said most of them dealt with concerns over national security. In the first half of 2014 too, India held the same rank.


Between July and December 2014, India made 5,473 requests referencing 7,281 accounts. US topped with 14,274 requests, referencing 21,731 accounts but Facebook reported no content curbs. Facebook produced “some data” (basic subscriber details) in 44.7% of Indian requests. The percentage for the US stood at 79.1%. The third largest number of requests, 2,366, came from the UK referencing 2,890 accounts and three restrictions. India is Fa cebook’s second-largest market after US and Canada with 118 million monthly active users and 300 million Net users.



Explaining the curbs, BJP IT cell convener Arvind Gupta said the number of requests and content restricted is a function of the number of users. “Facebook users in the country have grown.India is the second biggest market for Facebook. These numbers should be seen in this context,” he said, adding, “About 30% of requests from India are responded to.” Fact is, the US has no curbs that FB reported despite making the maximum requests.


In a co-written blog, Facebook’s head of global policy management Monika Bickert wrote that globally, content restricted for violating local law had increased by 11% over the first half of 2014. In his Facebook post co-founder Mark Zuckerberg said they must respond to government requests because if they don’t and if that results in service being blocked, user “voices would be muted”.


The consolidated figures barely represent the real picture, experts say . “We’d like more information…on content taken down, who those requests come from, their decision-making process.Transparency is important at government and company level if we have to fight censorship,” says Mishi Choudhary, legal director, Software Freedom Law Center.


Sunil Abraham of Bengaluru’s Centre for Internet and Society, too, says there’s much the report hides. “The India data doesn’t clarify if the content curbs come from the Centre, states, police, courts or authorities under Sec 69A (IT Act),” he said.


Source: Time of India



Jonathon Taylor: 'Cometh the hour, cometh Saint Patrick as Boro rise to big occasion'


It was billed as one of the biggest matches of the season - and how Aitor Karanka's promotion-chasing heroes rose to the occasion.


Cometh the hour, cometh Saint Patrick as Bamford slaughtered his former Rams teammates and left their promotion hopes in tatters.


But this was another hugely impressive showing from Boro, who now have six points from six in their so-called, much-publicised "Week of Destiny".


Make no mistake - this was no easy walk in the park against a Derby side that have seemingly hit the panic button as they fear another ticket in the jittery play-off lottery.


VIEW GALLERY


But in contrast, Boro put in another away day masterclass . Like they have done on so many occasions this season.


Derby edged the possession and territory in the first half, but it was Boro who always packed the harder punch.


Had Jelle Vossen's 40-yard effort have been an inch the other side of the post, Boro would have had this match wrapped up with plenty to spare.


Dimi Konstantopoulos was a spectator for much of the match - and credit goes to not only the defence in front of him, but all 10 players who grafted and covered every blade of grass.


Patrick Bamford celebrates


With the natives growing increasingly restless, Saint Patrick timed his goal to perfection on the hour mark.


The former Derby loanee ran on to Lee Tomlin's cute ball, and with his first touch took goalkeeper Lee Grant out of the game, and his second sent more than 2,000 travelling Teessiders into dreamland.


It was nervy, it was tense, it was beautiful.


Boro are finding top gear at the perfect moment. Now on to Bournemouth as Karanka's men dare to dream.



Steve McClaren backs Boro to clinch promotion after Derby County victory


Steve McClaren believes Boro should go on and clinch promotion back to the Premier League after beating his Derby County side 1-0 at the iPro Stadium.


Patrick Bamford came back to haunt his former club with the winner, and the result leaves the Rams without a victory in five matches.


The result means Boro completed a league double over Derby, and the Teessiders now sit second behind Watford on goal difference, and five points clear of McClaren's side.


After falling to the Teessiders, ex-manager McClaren admitted he expects Boro to go on and clinch promotion after the morale-boosting victory.


"That's what (Patrick) is capable of doing and when you look, that was the difference between the two sides.


Action Images / Lee Smith


"That's what we didn't have. We've had it for the majority of the season but we haven't got it at the minute. We need that to win games.


"Of course, Boro should now (go and clinch promotion).


"It will be an interesting game at Bournemouth (on Saturday) but everyone has tough games to go.


"When you look at the fixtures, there'll be plenty more twists and turns and we have to make sure we perform against Wolves (on Friday).


VIEW GALLERY


"There's nothing to panic about, we have to stay calm. The goal is always the top six - either automatic or play-offs - and that's how we've viewed it all season."


In the so-called "Week of Destiny", Boro now have six points from six after also beating Ipswich 4-1 at the Riverside on Saturday.


It was a very different game against the Rams with the hosts shading much of the possession and territory, but it was Boro who packed the heavier punch in the final third.


Jelle Vossen came within an inch of putting Boro in front in the first half, with his 40-yard effort hitting the post and boucning into the hands of Derby keeper Lee Grant.



But it was Bamford who will grab the headlines - in a match McClaren believes was pretty even throughout.


"It was a disappointing result. It was always going to be a one-goal game, they defended very well but I couldn't ask any more of the players," McClaren added.


"We just lacked that final cutting edge in the final third. They had the one quality moment in the box and you lose a game on that, but I can't fault the players.


" I think on Saturday and today they've been magnificent but I think everyone including the fans is suffering at the moment.


"Things aren't going for us in a lot of ways but this is a test of the team, a test of our character and with eight games to go there's everything to play for. There'll be plenty more twists and turns, don't worry about that."



Aitor Karanka: 'I can't speak highly enough of my players, they were brilliant'


Aitor Karanka described his team's 1-0 victory at Derby as a “massive” win.


Boro moved back into the automatic promotion places after beating the Rams at the iPro Stadium.


Patrick Bamford, who was ill 24 hours before the fixture, scored the only goal of a tense, scrappy game to open up a five point lead over the Rams.


Teed up by Lee Tomlin, the former Derby loan player executed a superb finish, rounding keeper Lee Grant before sliding the ball into the net in one sublime piece of play.


After beating Ipswich on Saturday and now Derby, Boro go into another six-pointer at Bournemouth in excellent spirits.


VIEW GALLERY


Watford are top of the Championship table with 72 points, edging out Boro only by virtue of a superior goal difference, while Bournemouth are two points worse off than Karanka's team.


“It was a massive win against one of the best teams in the division I can't speak highly enough about my players, they were brilliant,” said the Boro head coach after the game.


In the first half Jelle Vossen hit the post for the visitors who, at the other end of the pitch, defended magnificently.


Bamford's goal proved crucial but, as Karanka revealed, he almost missed the game.


He said: “Patrick was feeling unwell the night before the game but he said he wanted to play and once again he's been so important to the team.”


Meanwhile, Karanka declined to comment on reports in the Spanish press that claimed defender Damia Abella had attended a court hearing in Spain in relation to a trial into allegations of match-fixing in a match between Espanyol and Osasuna



Picture gallery and Jonathan Taylor's five observations on Boro's win at Derby


VIEW GALLERY


What a result!


Patrick Bamford's cool strike in the second half ensured Boro picked up a huge three points at the iPro Stadium.


Here's the thoughts of Gazette writer Jonathan Taylor:


1) Week of Destiny? Boro aren't feeling the nerves as they delivered a hammer blow to one of their main promotion rivals. That's six points from six for Boro - and next up is Bournemouth. The scenes of sheer ecstasy on the final whistle showed how much this one meant. Massive.


2) Aitor Karanka kept Boro fans guessing whether it was Lee Tomlin or Patrick Bamford who was to play the wide role - and even played a few mind games before the match. In the pre-match attacking drills Bamford was clearly set up on the right flank, but during the match the Chelsea loanee played centrally and led the line superb.


3) Boro can handle the big-match atmosphere. In recent weeks Boro could be accused of failing to deal with the hostile atmospheres of Hillsborough and The City Ground. But the iPro Stadium was rocking - and Boro rose to the occasion.


4) Under Karanka, Boro's blueprint is to be hard to beat, rock solid defensively and then hit teams on the counter attack. That's exactly what happened at Derby. Jonathan Woodgate was rock solid alongside Ben Gibson, while Tomas Kalas and George Friend were excellent on the flanks. If you don't concede then you can't lose - and nobody knows that more than Karanka.


5) Boro have delivered a statement of intent. They are in this promotion race to stay, on an evening that Bournemouth and Norwich also dropped points. It's all getting very exciting.



Jonathan Taylor rates Boro's players after the superb 1-0 win at Derby


Boro clinched a crucial 1-0 away victory at promotion rivals Derby County as their very own Saint Patrick stole the headlines.


Bamford was the matchwinner as he shrugged off a barrage of abuse from the home fans to score the pivotal goal that sunk his former Rams teammates.


See how Gazette writer Jonathan Taylor rated Boro's players and give us your verdict after Boro stunned former boss Steve McClaren and delivered a crushing promotion blow.


Dimi Konstantopoulos - A safe pair of hands all night, confidently claiming long crosses and corners all night long. Not really tested in terms of shots. 7


Tomas Kalas - Boro's Mr.Reliable, shifting out to right-back and nullifying the threat of Jamie Ward. 7


Jonathan Woodgate - Another superb match for the experienced defender, and was never troubled. 8


Ben Gibson - Another solid partnership with Woodgate to keep Boro's trap door tight. 8


George Friend - Crucial first half interception to deny Tom Ince, and was a menace in attack. Showed his defensive qualities in a top drawer display. 9


Grant Leadbitter - Flew into tackles and gave Boro a platform in midfield, despite being outnumbered. 8


Adam Clayton - Makes the simple things seem so easy, and is Boro's lynchpin in midfield. Will be pleased with his display. 7


Albert Adomah - First half shot saved and put in a real shift in the second half. 7Lee Tomlin - Selflessly played out on the left flank and created Bamford's goal. His eye for a pass can't be understated in this Boro display. 8


Patrick Bamford - Received a barrage of abuse on his return to Derby but worked tirelessly. His goal was a piece of artistry, wonderful touch and finish past Lee Grant. 9


Jelle Vossen - Superb 40-yard effort rattled the post and never stopped running. 8


Substitutes:


Adam Forshaw (on for Vossen, 80) - Came on for the last 10 minutes and followed his instructions to the letter. 6


Adam Reach (on for Tomlin 85) - Should have had a penalty. N/A


Emilio Nsue (on for Adomah 90) - N/A






  • Dimi Konstantopoulos


    0




  • Tomas Kalas


    0




  • George Friend


    0




  • Jonathan Woodgate


    0




  • Ben Gibson


    0




  • Adam Clayton


    0




  • Grant Leadbitter


    0




  • Jelle Vossen


    0




  • Patrick Bamford


    0




  • Lee Tomlin


    0




  • Albert Adomah


    0



  • Substitutes


  • Adam Forshaw


    0




  • Adam Reach


    0




  • Emilio Nsue


    0



  • Submission / Results





Derby County 0 Boro 1: Full time match report


CLICK STATS TAB ABOVE FOR MATCH OVERVIEW (desktop website only)


Battling Boro made it two wins on the bounce in their so called “Week of Destiny” with what could be a pivotal performance at Derby.


Boro dug deep to win on a night when Bournemouth slipped with a draw at Derby.


The result put them joint top with Watford – 2-0 winners at Wigan – and opened a five point gap over Derby and Norwich.


Once again Patrick Bamford was the match-winner – especially sweet as a former Derby player and revenge for some rough treatment he was subject to.


He broke free to steer home a Lee Tomlin ball in the second half to cap a superb battling display by all the team.


They had to dig deep at times as Derby had long spells of possession but they failed to trouble the goal while Boro had rattled the post with a superb long range Jelle Vossen chip.


Boro made two changes from the team that started the 4-1 win over Ipswich as Jonathan Woodgate, on as a sub for injured Daniel Ayala on Saturday, lined-up from the off and Lee Tomlin came in for Adam Reach.


There was a high tempo start in a crackling atmosphere from a sell-out crowd as two early Derby probes were dealt with then two Boro balls down the right towards Albert Adomah were put out for throws.


Boro threatened on four minutes as Patrick Bamford chested down an Adam Clayton chip – to booing – then sent Adomah carving down the right and into the box but his low cross in was cleared.


Then a crisp square passing move from right to left sent George Friend charging forward before the ball was put out for a throw.


Derby twice put quick balls forward to edge of the box but Friend tidied up the first and Woodgate let the second bounce through for Dimi Konstantopoulos to collect.


Then on 12 minutes another long ball was collected and played back by Woodgate but the keeper had to be sharp off his line to clear before Russell could charge in to pounce.


Then on 15 minutes Derby went close as Christie wriggled down the right and sent a ball skidding to the far post and when Ben Gibson failed to cut it out Ward stretched to just turn it over.


Boro responded with a good effort two minutes later as a Tomas Kalas ball into the box sparked a scramble and first Adomah then Jelle Vossen had shots charged down before the rebound fell to Lee Tomlin and his effort was deflected over for a corner.


There was a scare on 22 minutes as sluggish Clayton was robbed by Ward 30 yards out but as he carved forward Kalas tracked him and put in a timely tackle as he tried to cut into the box.


Then Bryson tried to fire a cross into a crowded box and it took a deflection but squirted straight into the arms of alert Konstantopoulos.


Derby pressed again on 25 minutes as Hughes emerged from a scrum in the centre-circle with the ball and surged forward and tricked into the box but Friend neatly dispossessed him.


Then after a long scrappy spell as Boro worked hard to keep the home side at bay Derby got frustrated and debutant Hanson blazed high over from distance.


There was a scare on 32 minutes as a high ball bounced into the Boro box and Ince looked favourite to collect but Friend snaked out a leg to scoop it off his toes as it dropped.


Boro launched a scrappy attack on 37 minutes but a loose Bamford ball forced Grant Leadbitter into a thundering tackle to salvage the situation before the move fizzled out on the edge of the box.


And Boro almost scored a spectacular opener on 40 yards as Derby keeper Grant came out of his box to clear as Bamford charged onto a long ball and scuffed it to Vossen who tried a first time 40 yard chip that dipped goalwards and came back off the post into the relived shot-stopper's arms.


Derby fans were screaming for a penalty on 44 minutes as Ince tried to trick into the box and Friend twisted and turned with him to block him off before bundling him over but the ref waved play on.


HALF-TIME: DERBY 0 BORO 0


There was a frantic start to the second half as Boro launched a series of probes that forced the Derby defence into some frantic and nervous clearances.


There was a heart-in-mouth moment on 48 minutes as Leadbitter went into a tackle and went down in pain and with the ref stood over him anxiously Derby refused to put the ball out so he could get treatment leading to a heated scuffle between the players.


After the incident Vossen and Derby's Christie on 49 minutes.


Boro had a good move on 52 minutes as Adomah streamed down the right then squared and Bamford twisted and turned just outside the box to hold the ball up before laying it for Clayton to try to pick out the run of Vossen but the ball was cut out.


On 57 minutes Derby's Hughes was booked for a hefty sliding tackle on Vossen.


On 59 minutes Derby had Bryson booked too for a foul on Bamford.


Boro went close on the hour as Adomah burst past his man and down the right then fizzed in a low cross and a defender may have got enough of a touch to divert it slightly before Bamford stretched to stab it just wide.


On 63 minutes Clayton was booked for a foul on Hughes.


And Boro took the lead on 64 minutes with a superb goal almost inevitably scored by PATRICK BAMFORD.


Tomlin cut out a stray pass just inside the Derby half and darted towards the box before slotting a neat ball into the feet of the in-form striker who deftly touched it wide of the advancing keeper then steered it calmly into the net.


On 70 minutes Derby made a double change with Lingard and Hendrick coming on for Ward and Hanson.


Boro almost had another on 75 minutes as Leadbitter curled in a corner and Vossen peeled off his man to send a stretching shot fizzing past the far side.


On 76 minutes Derby put on Thomas for Christie.


Frustrated Derby were knocking an increasing number of long balls but Gibson, Kalas and Woodgate were heading them away with ease, then a free-kick was floated into the box for Konstantopoulos to collect comfortably.


On 80 minutes Boro put on Adam Forshaw for exhausted Vossen who had put in a productive shift.


On 82 minutes Derby threatened as Bryson drilled in a 20 yard free-kick from the left of the box that sent Konstantopoulos full length to punch clear.


Then on 84 minutes, with Derby throwing everything forward, Lingard shot wide on the turn from the edge of the box.


On 85 minutes Adam Reach came on for Tomlin.


Then Lingard chipped in from the right for Russell to fire a weak 20 yard shot straight into the arms of Konstantopoulos.


With two minutes left Reach burst into the box and was brought down by a Forsyth sliding tackle but the ref waved penalty claims away.


Hard-working Adomah had gone down with cramp and was replaced by Emilio Nsue on 90 minutes.


In stoppage time Boro were forced into some desperate defending with high balls being nervously headed away and Derby pumping them back in increasingly aimlessly.


In the 93 minute Reach was booked for chopping down Bryson after failing to keep the ball down by the corner flag.


Deep in stoppage time Boro broke away as a ball out of defence bounced over Keogh on the halfway line and Bamford spun him and raced towards the box but the defender raced back and just did enough to force the striker to fire wide.


With almost the last action Ince whipped in a cross for Thomas to nip behind the Boro defence and glance a header but the keeper was well placed to collect.


BORO: Konstantopoulos, Kalas, Woodgate ( c) Gibson, Friend, Leadbitter, Clayton, Adomah (Nsue 90), Tomlin, Vossen (Forshaw 80), Bamford. Subs: Ripley, Omeruo, Reach, Whitehead, Kike.


DERBY: Grant, Christie (Thomas 76), Keogh (c ), Albentosa, Forsyth, Hanson (Lingard 70), Bryson, Hughes, Ince, Ward (Hendrick 70), Russell . Subs: Dawkins, Roos, Shotton, Warnock


Ref: Andy D'Urso (Essex)


Att: 31,939 (2,400)



Recap: Derby County v Boro at the iPro Stadium


Boro were licking their wounds after back-to-back away defeats at Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest, but Saturday’s mauling of Ipswich has done much to settle the nerves on Teesside.


But Boro will have to improve on the road, winless in their last four away matches (three defeats) dating back to the FA Cup defeat at Arsenal.


Derby go into tonight’s match in fourth place, two points behind Boro after a disappointing run of form.


Steve McClaren’s side will be desperate for the points failing to win in their last four and have tasted victory only twice in their last nine matches in all competitions.



Boro defender Damia Abella appears in court over match fixing allegations


Boro defender Damia Abella has appeared in court in Spain over allegations linked to match-fixing.


Reports claim the right back appeared at the Osasuna Palace of Justice as part of the Espanyol-Osasuna match-fixing trial and has also been charged.


The 32-year-old Spaniard, who joined Boro from Osasuna last year, was quoted by the Spanish media as he left the court.


Abella was reported as saying: “Thank you for the respect you are showing towards me. I’m not going answer any questions because I don’t think that I should.


“I’m sure we’ll find a time in the future to talk about and comment on anything necessary.”


Spanish newspaper Marca reported that the Catalan player travelled from England after being summoned by Judge Fermín Otamendi as a result of the investigation into ‘Osasuna-gate’, involving both alleged match-fixing and misappropriation of the Navarre club’s funds to the tune of €2.4m.


Abella has so far played six times for Middlesbrough after being signed on a free transfer. He made his debut in the 1-0 defeat against Leeds United at Elland Road last August.


He has been out of action since early in the season after suffering a serious knee injury.



Boro defender Damia Abella 'charged over match fixing' claim reports in Spanish media


Boro defender Damia Abella has appeared in court in Spain over allegations linked to match-fixing.


Reports claim the right back appeared at the Osasuna Palace of Justice as part of the Espanyol-Osasuna match-fixing trial and has also been charged.


The 32-year-old Spaniard, who joined Boro from Osasuna last year, was quoted by the Spanish media as he left the court.


Abella was reported as saying: “Thank you for the respect you are showing towards me. I’m not going answer any questions because I don’t think that I should.


“I’m sure we’ll find a time in the future to talk about and comment on anything necessary.”


Spanish newspaper Marca reported that the Catalan player travelled from England after being summoned by Judge Fermín Otamendi as a result of the investigation into ‘Osasuna-gate’, involving both alleged match-fixing and misappropriation of the Navarre club’s funds to the tune of €2.4m.


Abella has so far played six times for Middlesbrough after being signed on a free transfer. He made his debut in the 1-0 defeat against Leeds United at Elland Road last August.


He has been out of action since early in the season after suffering a serious knee injury.



Tees Valley Mohawks lose - but won't give up on play-off bid


Tees Valley Mohawks still need three more wins to book their place in the play-offs - but coach Steve Butler believes they can do it.


A depleted Mohawks side lost 92-69 away to last year’s treble winners, Reading Rockets, in their latest EBL National League Division One outing.


And that means it will be a nailbiting end to the regular season for Butler’s men.


“We now really have to finish the season well and win at least three out of our five games to have any chance of reaching the post-season play-offs,” said Butler.


“But it’s something I believe we can do and we certainly wont be giving up and thinking our season is over.”


Americans Bryan Hockaday and Charles Rhodes were missing due to commitments with Durham University in the BUCS final eight weekend, while other players had work commitments and Lloyd Samuels went down an eye infection the day before the game, leaving Mohawks with only six players on the coach to Reading.


The Rockets made a flying start with a 10-0 run in the first quarter but, as Mohawks settled, Romonn Nelson and Jonny Foulds started to find their range.


The session ended with Mohawks 26-18 down but when play resumed they cut the gap to just two points as Reading struggled to cope with Rob Donaldson and Nelson.


However a strong finish to the quarter by home captain Danny Carter put the hosts’ lead back up to 46-38.


Mohawks started the second half slowly as Reading went on an 8-0 run and the home side maintained their double digit lead lead throughout the quarter.


As Butler’s men struggled to find their range, Reading extended their lead above the 20-point mark.


The fourth quarter saw Mohawks play better with Alex Moore making some great moves under the basket while Donaldson continued his good form, scoring 20 points. He was well supported by Romonn Nelson who weighed in with 18.


Carter grabbed 26 points and 10 rebounds to earn the MVP award as Reading tightened their grip on the game.


“Even though I am disappointed, we battled throughout the game and I’m pleased with our efforts,” reflected Butler.


“When you travel with six guys it is very rare a team would win - we did it against Bradford but at Reading was a little bit too much.”


Mohawks II lost 79-42 at home to Newcastle Under Lyme Knights at Teesside University’s Olympia Building in their final Division Three (North) game of the season.


Logan Hollowman top scored with 14 points.



Netanyahu says no Palestinian state if reelected

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday there would be no Palestinian state if he were reelected, in a last-ditch effort to woo right-wing voters on the eve of a general election.

Polling stations are to open at 5 a.m. GMT on Tuesday for Israel’s second snap general election in three years in a ballot experts agree is likely to be a referendum on the Netanyahu years.


With his right-wing Likud trailing the center-left Zionist Union in the latest opinion polls, Netanyahu said that if his rivals were elected security would be compromised and they would give up total Israeli control over Jerusalem.


“We will continue to build to fortify Jerusalem so its division will not be possible and it will remain united forever,” he said on a tour of Har Homa, a settlement neighborhood of annexed East Jerusalem.


Netanyahu, who is seeking a third consecutive term, vowed he would never allow the Palestinians to establish a capital in the city’s eastern sector and pledged to build “thousands” of settler homes.


The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as capital of their future state, and continued settlement building has incensed the international community, which sees it as an obstacle to peace.


Throughout his campaign, Netanyahu has repeatedly accused Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and former peace negotiator Tzipi Livni of being ready to abandon Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its indivisible capital.


But Netanyahu’s most strident statement came when he was asked by the right-wing NRG website if it was true that there would be no Palestinian state established if he was reelected.


“Indeed,” said Netanyahu, who in 2009 had endorsed the idea of two states living side by side.


He later told public radio the two-state solution was now irrelevant, saying the “reality has changed” and “any territory which would be handed over would be taken over by radical Islamists.”


Security and Jerusalem


Netanyahu has based his campaign solidly on security issues, notably the Iranian nuclear threat, giving short shrift to the focus on economic issues in center-left campaigning.


“If Tzipi and Bougie set up the next government, Hamastan 2 will be established on these hills here,” he said in Har Homa, using the nickname of his key challenger, Labor leader Herzog.


“Hamastan” is a derogatory term used by Israeli politicians to refer to the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled by the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas since 2007.


Herzog has dismissed Netanyahu’s jibes.


On Sunday he pledged to “safeguard” Jerusalem “in actions, not just words, more than any other leader,” and on Monday insisted Jerusalem would remain forever Israel’s “undivided capital.”


Former prime minister and Labour leader Ehud Barak came out in support of Herzog, calling him “experienced and responsible” and someone who could be relied upon to ensure Israel’s safety.


Polls put Zionist Union ahead


Despite Netanyahu’s vitriol, the Zionist Union is tipped to come out on top in the election.


Final opinion polls published late last week put the Zionist Union ahead with 25-26 seats with Netanyahu’s Likud taking 20-22 in the 120-seat Knesset.


But experts have warned about their reliability of the polls, pointing to the 2013 election when they completely failed to predict the level of support for centrist newcomer Yesh Atid.


“In all previous elections we had considerable differences between the predictions of the public opinion polls and (the results),” said Professor Avraham Diskin, a political scientist from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University.


“Yesh Atid didn’t get more than 10 or 11 seats in the public opinion polls and finally got twice as many — 19 seats.”


The leader of the party which secures most votes does not necessarily become the next premier — as in 2009 when the centrist Kadima party then headed by Livni effectively won the vote but lost the election in a race which brought Netanyahu to power for a second term.


“In 2009, (Likud) had a 100-percent chance of forming a government while the leader of the largest party, Tzipi Livni, had no chance whatsoever — and therefore she was not nominated,” Diskin said.


Under Israel’s complex electoral system, the task of forming a government does not automatically fall to the party with the largest number of votes, but to the MP or party leader with the best chance of cobbling together a coalition with a parliamentary majority of 61.


Meanwhile, Netanyahu has also made overtures to center-right Kulanu party, seen as the kingmaker, offering the finance portfolio to its leader Moshe Kahlon who dismissed this as “spin.”



The 'end of an era'? Loyal fans of The Europa restaurant discuss closure rumours on Facebook


Could it really be the end of an era?


Mystery surrounds the future of one of Teesside’s best known restaurants amid concerns The Europa in Middlesbrough hasn’t been open for over a week.


The Borough Road restaurant - famous for its late night parmos - has been the final port of call on town centre nights out for decades.


But loyal customers have been frustrated in their attempts to either eat in or order a takeaway since the beginning of this month.


Some have now joined forces to set up a ‘Re-open The Europa’ Facebook group.


One man said he has been eating at the restaurant since the 1980s and meets up with former work colleagues there every month.


He said: “The pork parmesans are superb and the staff are always really welcoming and friendly.


“It’s always such a nice meal and it’s something we look forward to.”


Recent posts to The Europa’s Facebook page have gone unanswered.


@loveparmo


The Europa's parmo

Colin Mcmenamin wrote: “Have been told today that they have closed down for good. Hope it’s not true, but looking more likely...Gutted if they have, best parmos in the UK!”


Steve Dixon added: “End of an era.”


The Europa was voted the best place on Teesside to buy a parmo in a Gazette poll conducted in 2011.


Speaking at the time, owner Dominic Plutino said: “It’s very nice but, to be honest, I’m not surprised! I thought we should win as everybody knows us.


“There’s a slight difference to our sauce to everybody else’s - but I won’t tell you what it is.”


The Europa pictured earlier on Tuesday


Businesses on Borough Road told The Gazette today they had heard rumours the restaurant had closed but were unaware of the reasons why.


The restaurant’s shutters were down this evening and we’ve been unable to contact the business for a comment.


:: Were you a fan of The Europa? Send your memories to news@gazettemedia.co.uk



Boxing legend Sugar Ray's visit to Middlesbrough is a knockout success


Boxing superstar Sugar Ray Leonard proved to be a knockout success for a second time as he returned to Teesside.


The six-time world champion chatted with fans at an invitation-only charity night at the Dickens Inn, in Southfield Road, Middlesbrough.


The St Patrick’s Day event took place in the Gold Room at the pub and featured big screen footage of Leonard’s greatest fights and a question-and-answer session.


Dickens Inn proprietor Tony Spensley got to know to Sugar Ray, 58, after attending his classic fights against Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler in the 1980s.


The event was the second visit to Middlesbrough in a year for the US fighter, widely seen as one of the greatest of all time.


Last year he made a special guest appearance at at sportsman’s evening at TFM Soundworks.



Killer Christian Darko loses appeal against conviction for savage murder of pensioner Rose Doughty


A man who was jailed for life for stabbing and strangling his elderly neighbour to death today lost a Court of Appeal bid to overturn his conviction.


Christian Darko, 42, of Fosdyke Green, Netherfields, Middlesbrough, killed 72-year-old Rose Doughty at her home in a flat above his in November 2013.


Darko admitted the grandmother’s manslaughter, but was convicted of murder and jailed at Teesside Crown Court last May.


He took his case to the Court of Appeal in London, but was told by three top judges that there was ‘nothing’ in his ‘unarguable’ case.


Rose Doughty Rose Doughty


Lord Justice Laws, Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing and Judge David Radford also upheld the 27-year minimum term which Darko will serve before applying for release.


“This was a callous, savage and horrifying murder of a vulnerable elderly lady,” said Lord Justice Laws.


The court heard Mrs Doughty had lived in the flat for more than 20 years and Darko lived below her.


He was a frequent visitor to her flat and had been there on November 22 to ask for money to top up his electricity.


She had refused and instead allowed him to charge his phone and given him a flask of hot water and tea bags.


The following day, he returned to her flat and killed her.


Her body was found by her grand-daughter in the hallway. She had been strangled and stabbed at least three times.


Darko admitted he was responsible for her death, but claimed that responsibility was diminished by his learning disability.


However, the prosecution refused to accept his plea to diminished responsibility manslaughter and he was found guilty of murder.


Appealing, he argued that he had been incorrectly advised not to give evidence at his trial.


The jury had also not been warned of his fragile mental state, he said, and medical evidence was not complete because a report was not available at the trial.


Rejecting the appeal bid, Lord Justice Laws said there was ‘nothing’ in the arguments and said the 27-year minimum was appropriate.


Darko can only be freed after serving his minimum term if the Parole Board is sure he is safe.