Friday, March 25, 2016

How Garry Shandling became the godfather of spoof sitcoms


The comedian, actor and talk-show host Garry Shandling died yesterday of a heart attack at the age of 66. Here Jonathan Bernstein salutes Shandling's pioneering role as the father of the spoof sitcom and arguably, the man who inspired The Office


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
25 March 2016

Peter Tolan, left, and Garry Shandling pose with their Emmy awards for outstanding writing for a comedy series award for The Larry Sanders Show at the 50th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles
Peter Tolan, left, and Garry Shandling pose with their Emmy awards for outstanding writing for a comedy series award for The Larry Sanders Show at the 50th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles CREDIT: AP
In the 1980s, the BBC was haphazard in its scheduling of American imports. Sometimes shows would appear in the dead of night, sometimes in early evening, only to vanish mid-run, never to be seen again. The cult sitcom, It’s Garry Shandling’s Show, which BBC Two aired in 1986, suffered a typical fate. But for the small, devoted audience who made the effort to follow its unpredictable movements, the rewards were monumental.

Most UK viewers were unaware Chicago-born Shandling had been, by the age of 27, a seasoned sitcom writer with Sanford & Son and Welcome Back Kotter among his credits. We didn’t know about his regular stint as guest host when Johnny Carson took one of his hiatuses from The Tonight Show. Shandling was considered a shoo-in to make over the job on a permanent basis when Carson finally bowed out.
We just knew Shandling from his playing an exaggerated, self-parodying version of himself as the neurotic, narcissistic star of a sitcom about being in a sitcom. The tone of the show was set by its cheery title song: “This is the theme to Garry’s show, the opening theme to Garry’s show, this is the music that they play when they run the credits…”
Shandling's spoof version of himself evolved into a seperate but ultimately very similar standalone character – Larry Sanders – who was the central role in 1992’s HBO comedy The Larry Sanders Show. Sanders was still neurotic, still worried about his hair and still desperate for the audience’s love. But by now, Shandling, who had rejected several offers for his own talk show and was intimately familiar with what the profession did to the soul of its most famous practitioners, was determined to dig deeper into this comic persona by playing Sanders.
Shandling’s creation was an emotionally stunted, capricious, charismatic monster, only fully alive when sitting behind his desk: the only sustainable relationship in his life with the audience that guffawed at his jokes.
During the series' six-year run, Shandling was relentless in portraying Sanders in as candid and unflattering fashion as possible while always showing his vulnerability and pain. The show, which had hit a creative resurgence during a story arc in which Sanders feared being replaced by the younger, more demographically desirable Jon Stewart, ended prematurely due to a legal dispute between Shandling and producer Brad Grey.
While the cultural references that pepper every episode of The Larry Sanders Show may have dated, the anxiety and ambivalence Shandling brought to the character remain hugely influential. Certainly, it’s hard to imagine Ricky Gervais penning as much as a comma without prolonged exposure to a Sanders box-set. (Gervais interviewed Shandling for a 2006 Channel 4 special in which Shandling’s disdain for Gervais was so palpable it was virtually a third participant.)
Shandling’s post-Sanders work – the unloved What Planet Are You From?; supporting parts in buddy Warren Beatty’s movies; turning up as Senator Stern in Marvel's Iron Man 2 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier – didn’t diminish his stature, so much as they increased the appetite for Shandling’s eventual third act.
During an appearance earlier this year on Jerry Seinfeld’s web series Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee, Shandling revealed that he had been struggling with health issues, specifically a hyper parathyroid gland that had gone undiagnosed. He died yesterday at age 66 from a massive heart attack.
Following his death yesterday, among the massed ranks of comedy luminaries eulogising Shandling, his protégé, Trainwreck and Knocked Up director Judd Apatow, found a pitch perfect way to address the loss: “Garry would see the ridiculousness of me being asked to sum up his life five minutes after being told of his passing. It is a perfect, ridiculous Larry Sanders moment.”

Garry Shandling Was an Artist of Subtle Sadness

March 24, 2016
Garry Shandling, who died Thursday at 66, was one of TV’s master underplayers. On The Larry Sanders Show, the HBO sitcom on which Shandling played a second-tier talk-show host, Shandling was perpetually the least dynamic performer onscreen. On-air, his hypeman (Jeffrey Tambor) was subservient, but off- he was fueled by jealousy and hunger for the spotlight. All the while, frenetically encouraging producer (Rip Torn) made every episode a roiling psychodrama. And then, of course, there were all those stars: Actual 1990s celebrities, like Sharon Stone and David Duchovny, who used Sanders’s talk show as a backdrop for their own manias and who didn’t stop their acts once the talk-show cameras stopped rolling.
That’s precisely what made Shandling’s Larry Sanders Show so extraordinary. As an actor, he didn’t just play a host; he inhabited the role, unassumingly allowing chaos to reign all around him as he simply smirked. Sanders was, on his show, about as dull a man as one could imagine, the epitome of a certain Leno-ish vacuous charm. Backstage, he was consumed by neuroses about his weight, his place in the talk-show pecking order, and his turbulent love life, but always in a manner less volcanic than anything else about him. His emotions weren’t loud. Sanders was as complicated as anyone in his orbit of painfully human performers; he’d just trained himself to keep his nerve endings tamped down. His guests’ feelings may not have been more interesting than his own, but they were where the money was. It was a brilliant depiction of repression, and made one of TV’s most-coveted jobs seem like a plight.
It’s hard, when writing about Shandling and Sanders, not to confuse the two very similar names. Part of that comes from the names’ purposeful assonance, sure, but Shandling also allowed his public little sense of him beyond Sanders. He was a remote presence when hosting awards shows (nothing like the ultra-empathic Girl Scout Cookie salesmen or selfie-snappers of today) and limited his major work to Sanders and the earlier It’s Garry Shandling’s Show. In recent years, he worked relatively infrequently; recently, he made cameos as a U.S. Senator in Marvel’s superhero movies, but his last credited TV appearance was in 2006. He’d already had his perfect role, on a show that made a point of emphasizing the differences between life on- and offstage, but also played up the pathologies that didn’t change. Sanders had a tumultuous inner life that his audience could never see—but only because, onstage, he gave them next-to-nothing at all.
The Larry Sanders Show was the perfect show for the 1990s; Shandling’s default comic move of defaulting to irony caught the wave of the culture in the way few shows are lucky enough to do. But its central performance, one around which fizzier aspects rotate gleefully and obscuring the sadness, ought to be more-widely-known today. The emptiness at the heart of stardom hasn’t gone anywhere since the ’90s—indeed, it’s only grown more entrenched in the realm of cliché—but rarely has it been rendered quite so artfully.

Today's Laugh Track: Norm MacDonald on 'The Larry Sanders Show'

Obama’s ideological holiday in Havana


 March 24, 2016
The split screen told the story: on one side, images of the terror bombing in Brussels; on the other, Barack Obama doing the wave with Raúl Castro at a baseball game in Havana.
On one side, the real world of rising global terrorism. On the other, the Obama fantasy world in which romancing a geopolitically insignificant Cuba —without an ounce of democracy or human rights yielded in return — is considered a seminal achievement of American diplomacy.
Cuba wasn’t so much a legacy trip as a vanity trip, vindicating the dorm-room enthusiasms of one’s student days when the Sandinistas were cool, revolution was king and every other friend had a dog named Che.
When Brussels intervened, some argued that Obama should have cut short his trip and come back home. I disagree. You don’t let three suicide bombers control the itinerary of the American president. Moreover, Obama’s next stop, Argentina, is actually important and had just elected a friendly government that broke from its long and corrupt Peronist past.
Nonetheless, Obama could have done without the baseball. What kind of message does it send to be yukking it up with Raúl even as Belgian authorities are picking body parts off the floor of the Brussels airport?
Obama came into office believing that we had vastly exaggerated the threat of terrorism and allowed it to pervert both our values and our foreign policy. He declared a unilateral end to the global war on terror and has downplayed the threat ever since. He frequently reminds aides, reports Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, that more Americans die annually of bathtub accidents.
It’s now been seven years. The real world has stubbornly refused to accommodate Obama’s pacific dreams. The Islamic State has grown from JV team to worldwide threat, operating from Libya to Afghanistan, Sinai to Belgium. It is well into the infiltration phase of its European campaign, with 500 trained and hardened cadres in place among the estimated 5,000 jihadists returned from the Middle East. The increasing tempo and sophistication of its operations suggest that it may be poised for a continent-wide guerrilla campaign.
In the face of this, Obama remains inert, unmoved, displaying a neglect and insouciance that borders on denial. His nonreaction to the Belgian massacre — his 34-minute speech in Havana devoted 51 seconds to Brussels — left the world as stunned as it was after the Paris massacre, when Obama did nothing. Worse, at his now notorious November news conference in Turkey, his only show of passion regarding Paris was to berate Islamophobes.
David Axelrod called Obama’s response “tone-deaf.” But that misses the point. This is more than a mere mistake of presentation. Remember his reaction to the beheading of the American journalist James Foley? Obama made a statement expressing his sympathies — and then jumped onto his golf cart for a round of 18.
He later told Chuck Todd that this was a mistake. “Part of this job is also the theater of it,” he explained, “it’s not something that always comes naturally to me.” As if postponing a bucolic recreation was a required piece of political playacting rather than a president’s natural reaction — a mixture of shock and sorrow — to the terrible death of a citizen he could not save.
It’s not as if Obama is so super cool that he never shows emotion. Just a few months ago, he teared up when speaking about the Sandy Hook school shooting. That was the work of a psychotic. But when speaking about the work of Islamist terrorists, he offers flat perfunctory words.
I cannot fathom why. Perhaps having long seen himself uniquely qualified by background and history to make peace between Islam and the West, to now recognize how badly things have gone on his watch is to admit both failure and the impossible grandiosity of his original pretensions.
Whatever the reason, he seems genuinely unmoved by a menace the rest of the world views, correctly, with horror and increasing apprehension. He’s been in office seven years, yet seems utterly fixed on his campaign promises and pre-presidential obsessions: shutting down Gitmo, rapprochement with Iran, engagement with tyrants (hence Havana), making the oceans recede (hence the Paris climate trip). Next we’ll see yet another useless Washington “summit” on yet another Obama idee fixe : eliminating nuclear materials.
With the world on fire, the American president goes on ideological holiday. As was said of the Bourbons: “They have learned nothing and have forgotten nothing.”

NEW EVIDENCE: IRAN’S ROLE IN 9/11



Recently disclosed documents reveal a disturbing tale.



March 25, 2016


Supreme Leader Khamenei (center) with IRGC Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari (right)
Many scholars, politicians and policy analysts argue that the Shia and Sunni branches of the religion of Islam are in competition, politically. As a result, they argue.  These two sects do not cooperate with each other.
In addition, they claim that the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Shiite religious-political establishment, would never coordinate with its rivals, the Sunni radical groups, due to their animosity towards each other.
This kind of binary analysis is simply naïve, unsophisticated, and fails to address the complexities and nuances of the socio-political and socio-religious landscapes of the Middle East and Islamic countries.
It is crucial to point out that although both Shiite militias and Sunni radical groups compete in the region, they do stand with each other when their interests converge. One of their ideological and strategic convergences is attacking the “Great Satan,” the US, or its ally Israel.
For example, although Hamas is a Sunni group, the Shiite radical government of Iran has continuously financed, trained, and delivered arms to its fighters and leaders.
Another prominent example that has been ignored by the liberals is the link between Iran and Al Qaeda.
For a long time, Iran has been a shelter for Al Qaeda leaders. But more recently, strong judicial and intelligence evidence shows that the Islamic Republic had a significant role and connection with Al Qaeda in conducting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which killed thousands of innocents Americans.
Recently released documents from a federal court in the US reveal that Iran and the Shiite radical group Hezbollah had a “firsthand” role in the perpetration of 9/11.
U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York ordered the Islamic Republic to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
According to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,  "In the Havlish (previous) proceeding, this Court held that 'Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 terrorists' specific terrorist travel operation' and [that] facilitation of Al Qaeda's operatives' travel to training in camps in Afghanistan was 'essential for the success of the 9/11 operation …. The second way in which Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 attacks was that a terrorist agent of Iran and Hezbollah helped coordinate travel by future Saudi hijackers [.]'"
But the major questions to address are: while Obama’s administration continues its appeasement policy with the ruling authoritarian clerics of Iran, how can anyone hold Iranian leaders accountable for 9/11 or push the Iranian government to pay the damages? Should we continue rapprochement with this regime? President Obama will most likely not agree to even pay damages to the victims from Iran’s frozen assets. He will avoid anything that might upset the Iranian government and its Supreme Leader.
On the other hand, the Supreme autocrat of Iran is increasing his anti-Americanism as the White House continues to placate him. Although Khamenei is receiving billions of dollars due to the sanctions relief thanks to the Obama administration, his last speech was full of anti-American sentiments. In his hometown of Mashahad, where Khamenei gives a speech every year on the Persian New Year, he lashed out at the US and declared that the United States remains the preeminent enemy of the Islamic Republic. Khamenei even ridiculed President Obama for giving a message to the Iranian youth this week, on the Persian New Year. He also called Obama’s arrangement of haft-sin sofreh [a traditional Nowruz food] a way to deceive the Iranian youth.
Furthermore, by increasing his anti-Americanism, the Islamic Supreme Leader of Iran is preparing the path to pull out of the nuclear deal after United Nations Security Council’s sanctions are lifted against the country.
Finally, instead of releasing billions of dollars to the terrorist government of Iran, the U.S. President should address the concerns of the 9/11 victims by holding the Iranian government accountable. For the Iranian leaders, the more the US compromises, the weaker it is getting in the eyes of the Islamic Republic.
 Tags: 9/11, Iran, Jihad

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Today's Tune: Brian Fallon - A Wonderful Life (Live)

Brian Fallon: The Examined Life


By Tom Lanham  |  March 22, 2016

NME
“The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates once sagely noted. And sometimes we enter into such self-reflection of our own volition. Other times, we’re forced into it by circumstances simply beyond our control. Gaslight Anthem bandleader Brian Fallon, for instance, was caroming through a pell-mell existence with his band, in an endless cycle of album releases, then attendant touring, with no spare time for any observations that went deeper than the glossy rock-star surface. But three years ago, everything changed. And he was forced to take a long, hard look at himself, which led to his new solo set, Painkillers, his most brutally honest yet altogether anthemic and uplifting work to date.
In retrospect, the catalyst is crystal clear: Three years ago, the 36-year-old singer/guitarist divorced his wife Hollie after a decade together. In response, he penned a reactionary record, 2014’s Get Hurt, Gaslight’s fifth. Amid the disc’s meat-and-potatoes power chords that have been the New Jersey group’s stock in trade since its definitive sophomore outing in 2008, The ’59 Sound, there were forlorn, ego-bruised entries like “Dark Places,” “Break Your Heart,” and the self-explanatory “This is Where We Part.” They echoed the first initial sting of spousal separation, but didn’t delve into any serious emotional pain. That would come later.
“Get Hurt was more of a knee-jerk response, so I don’t think that there was that much reflection involved in it,” Fallon believes. “And I tried not to make the whole record about [the divorce], but you can’t shy away from what’s on your mind, as a writer or as an artist of any kind—I don’t think you can escape the immediacy of what’s in your subconscious, because it’s got to get out. So I was just trying to kick it all out and get it out of my system.” He spent most of the Get Hurt tour feeling numb and vacant, like a passenger, he says. Inside, he was slowing down, starting to muse on his extraordinary existence and then coming to terms with the finality of where he’d ended up. There was no going back.
“It’s like if you get an injury, like you break a leg or something,” says the artist, who wasn’t used to being alone. “Something like that really allows you to look around and take stock of where you’ve been. And I think in that period of injury—and kind of figuring out what to do now—I definitely looked back on the things that had happened and my career. And I was like, ‘Hey, you know, this is a good thing, and I’m pretty fortunate to have been to places and seen and done the things that I have.’ And it took me back to why I started writing music in the first place, and not necessarily what was the immediate next project that had to be completed.”
In fact, Fallon admits, he didn’t compose a single number for several months after returning from that tour to his mausoleum-spooky new bachelor pad, which had no art or posters hanging on its walls—an embarrassing fact that he would eventually address on one of Painkillers’ most propulsive cuts, the Dylan-jangling “Red Lights”: “In all good faith and sentiment I can’t believe somehow/ That I haven’t died of grief or something since you left this town/ I’m all undecorated, cigarettes, standard white apartment walls.”
“I definitely was just sitting there, thinking,” he adds. “For the first time in my life, I was in a room by myself, but I didn’t have that ‘Woe is me’ feeling, and I didn’t allow myself to complain about it. I was like, ‘Wow. Okay. We’re here now. I don’t know how we got here, but we’re here. This is the new deal, so you’ve got to get used to it.’ I decided that that was my chair, and I was going to sit in it and go with it.”
Painkillers was worth all the turmoil and ongoing analysis. From the twangy title track to the punk-folk hybrids “Rosemary,” “Nobody Wins” and the New Orleans-flavored “Mojo Hand” and the customary closing ballad “Open All Night,” it’s easily one of the best records of the year so far. Bouncing jarringly through serious subjects like guilt, recrimination and self-doubt, it stands as an epitaph on a once-thriving relationship, best exemplified in this telling passage from “Rosemary”: “And there’s a hole in me now/ Like the windshield was taken out/ And everybody’s hurt, and mine ain’t the worst/ But it’s mine and I’m feeling it now.” And it shines a spotlight on a songwriter not only in love with his craft—and the musical history that preceded him—but one reaching the hallowed upper echelons of his boyhood idols. Call it the vocalist’s own personal Full Moon Fever, on which he collaborated with pop-savvy producer Butch Walker (in a real ‘Why didn’t anybody think of this team-up before?’ kind of moment) and a new backing band—bassist Catherine Popper, Mark Stepro on drums, and Walker himself on piano, guitar and backing vocals. Also dropping by the sessions: Gaslight’s Alex Rosamilla on keyboards and Fallon’s partner in the acoustic duo The Horrible Crowes, guitarist Ian Perkins. He’s found his own keen-eared Jeff Lynne for future collaboration.
Fallon even began seeing a therapist once a week to combat his anxiety, depression and ensuing writer’s block. Soon, his existential crisis didn’t seem so dire anymore. In essence, he was considering the rest of his life, and he wanted to be not just content, but happy. “You bought the ticket, you’re in the movie, so you’ve got to finish it out, and you can finish it on a high note, or on a low note,” he explains. “So I thought, ‘Let me take this as an opportunity to figure out what exactly I’m doing—and not doing—right.’ So I took a lot of stock. And once you start looking within yourself for what’s wrong with you—not what’s wrong with the rest of the world—that’s when you’re seeing everything. Everything else that maybe you ignored or just didn’t realize.” So the prime question became: how could he change to make not only his life, but the universe around him, better?
This led to the record’s picture-perfect opening track, the stomping, celebratory “Wonderful Life,” and “Maybe there’s more than the treasures we secured that become heavy chains to sink us in tidal waves/ I want a life on fire, going mad with desire/ I don’t want to survive, I want a wonderful life.” Fallon’s charismatic, sandpapery rasp has never sounded more defiant, his working-class lyrics never so everyman-relevant. But Painkillers practically claims the sound as his own, thanks in part to Walker, who sharpened Fallon’s hooks into taloned points and pushed him into new sonic territory often bordering on alt-country—turf he’d already explored the Get Hurt pedal steel lament “Sweet Morphine,” one of his personal catalog favorites.
It all started post-juggernaut, Fallon recalls, when he and his exhausted bandmates all agreed that Gaslight Anthem should take a breather. Initially confused about how to proceed, he simply chose to get back to work, writing music. That was his identity, and all he knew. Raised on a diet of (and even befriended by) Bruce Springsteen, he used to throw in random lyrics like “No surrender, my Bobby Jean” that namechecked his hero (on Painkillers, he tips the poetic hat to Leonard Cohen and Van Morrison). Then, once he accompanied The Boss onstage in London, the Red Bank, N.J.-bred rocker grew tired of the inevitable journalistic comparisons that arose. So he shied away from obvious homages, outside of a telling cover of Tom Petty’s jagged “You Got Lucky” on 2012’s Brendan O’Brien-helmed Handwritten. But he realized that he’d been overreacting.
Left to his own devices, Fallon began adorning his digs with posters of Pearl Jam and old movies, whatever caught his fancy on eBay. Then he pulled out all of his old favorite albums, including Springsteen’s first three albums, plus his more gothic, skeletal later work, like Devils and Dustand The Ghost of Tom Joad. Some Bob Seger was thrown in for good measure, plus the entire Beatles collection—he wanted to study the non-singles tracks that he’d never gotten familiar with. “It wasn’t really for anybody else—it was just for me,” he says. “I was reminding myself where I was coming from, and refocusing on where I’d been. And it was a nice reminder.” He laughs. “It really was like sitting in an old chair. It was like, ‘Alright, this is you. This is who you are. You’re a fan of rock and roll music, that’s your thing. So go back and tell people that.’” That’s how thePainkillers concept occurred to him, he says—they were the crowd-pleasing rock anthems that had always made him feel good, no matter how bad his day had been going. So he was going to pen a few of his own.
The composer was also expanding his horizons via literature.Once he learned that, say, Dylan read a certain crucial text, he would track it down and read it, too—as he did with Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath since Springsteen wrote about it in Tom Joad. “Jon Landau, Bruce’s manager, said that Bruce will take anything and just absorb it and make it his own, and then kind of spit it out,” he marvels. “And I took that to heart. I thought, ‘That’s cool. Just take in everything and spit it out, and it’ll come out as you. Because it is you.’”
At first, Fallon thought he might disappear into another Crowes-like side project. With Popper, he had formed a playful Dylan-inspired combo called Molly and the Zombies, just to perform an Asbury Park Christmas concert with The Bouncing Souls. That’s where his rustic new solo cut “Smoke” originated, he says, before he brought it to Walker, who dissembled it into the jug-band stomper it is on Painkillers. At Walker’s urging, he co-wrote the ‘60s-ethereal chimer “Steve McQueen” with Semisonic/Trip Shakespeare founder Dan Wilson—in only 40 minutes, he proudly points out. The conversation was simple. Wilson asked him what he was into, he replied Mustangs and Steve McQueen, “And Dan said, ‘That’s really cool—why don’t you write a song about that?’” he chuckles.
Of course, self-assessment can sometimes go too far, possibly descend into egomaniacal navel gazing. But Fallon swears that will never happen to him. He’s just too damned insecure, you see. “I feel like if you talk to me for a week straight, you’ll be like, ‘That guy’s a dummy!’” he concludes. “But there are these moments of arriving at this stuff, these lightning bolts that get shot into my head, where I feel grateful for them. Because I still don’t know how they come out—I just stumble upon them. It’s almost like they…they just appear on the page.”

HASHTAG: WE ARE NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN!


By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
March 23, 2016


Rescue workers treat injured people after the bombing at the Maelbeek underground station in Brussels on Tuesday. (RTL Belgium via Reuters)


Immigration is the new "No Nukes/Save the Whales" movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: "Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. ... We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant."

Trump's reference to London's no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was "unhinged," Sen. John McCain called him "foolish," and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump's remarks went "against everything we stand for and believe in." (Based on Trump's crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what "we" believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London's police said, "Mr. Trump could not be more wrong," and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump's comments "utter nonsense."

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: 'TRUMP'S NOT WRONG -- WE CAN'T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS': Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So 'Radicalised' They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: 'THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON': Policemen Back Trump's Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: 'TRUMP IS RIGHT!' Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. "There is something going on, Maria," he said. "Go to Brussels. ... There is something going on and it's not good, where they want Sharia law ... There is something bad going on."

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: "Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels." News is no longer about communicating information; it's about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he's right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, "Better dead than rude."

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, "deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium's beloved beer and chocolate." Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don't think he was knocking Belgium's beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week's bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, "We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live."

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, "I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning ..." Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: "Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism."

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster -- something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn't natural at all. It's the direct result of government policy.

It's as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it's not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America -- a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls "Hitler's revenge."

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don't kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are ... Muslims.

What we've learned from Hitler is not: Don't attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are ... Muslims.

And what we've learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again ... Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms -- because the one and only lesson we've learned from Hitler is: DON'T DISCRIMINATE!


COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER 

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

When it comes to terror, isn’t it time we started listening seriously to Trump?


By PIERS MORGAN FOR MAILONLINE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
22 March 2016


I interviewed Trump  this morning on my UK morning TV show GMB where he gave his views on the attacks and what should be done to stop ISIS
I interviewed Trump this morning on my UK morning TV show GMB where he gave his views on the attacks and what should be done to stop ISIS


How many more?

That’s all I could think this morning as news broke of yet another ISIS terror attack, this time in Brussels.

How many more innocent men, women and children are going to be blown to pieces by these murderous bastards?

How many more airports, train stations, sports stadiums, restaurants or concert halls will be obliterated in a hail of suicide bombs and bullets?

How many more world leaders will wring their hands on national television afterwards and spout pointless platitudes about the ‘poor brave victims’ and ‘heroic emergency services’?

How many taunting, gleeful claims of responsibility will the despicable perpetrators of these evil crimes be able to issue?

I’m sick of this, aren’t you?

Sick of feeling sick about such endless, senseless barbarism.

And the worst thing about it is that I see no end.

The inherent problem which causes it, chaotic war-torn instability in the Middle East, is getting worse, not better; just as the financial and military resource of the enemy is growing greater, not reducing.

Yet just as the world is crying out for strong decisive leadership, there is none.

America has a demob happy President Obama eeking out his last few months in office. A man whose infamous ‘leading from behind’ philosophy to foreign policy has been partly responsible for the war in Syria raging uncontrollably for five years – allowing fundamentalism to ferment.

Obama has zero interest in doing anything tangible to really deal with ISIS. This is now parked in the tray marked ‘next president’s problem.’

Europe, meanwhile, is splintering at the seams, ravaged by an unprecedented migration crisis that nobody seems to have a clue how to handle.

German chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let a million migrants into its country is already seen to be an utter disaster.

France, reeling from two horrendous attacks in Paris, is understandably highly fearful of yet more terror coming its way.

Belgium officials effectively conceded today that they have no real way to protect themselves against the ISIS threat. A fact surely born out by the fact that today’s onslaught in Brussels happened right when the city most expected it, following the capture of Paris attacks suspect Saleh Abdeslam three days ago.

Britain, surely a target anytime soon, is on red alert but its warring politicians are too distracted by the upcoming EU referendum in June to pay anything more than lame lip service to terrorism.

So nobody seems to be doing anything concrete to stop ISIS, or even suggesting a new way to do so given the spectacular lack of success to date.

Well almost nobody.

By coincidence, I had an interview scheduled today with the world’s most controversial man, Donald Trump, for my UK show, Good Morning Britain.

It was set up a couple of weeks ago, but the timing was eerily prescient.

Here is one man who definitely has a plan to deal with ISIS terrorism. Several plans in fact.

The problem is that people don’t like them. Well, a lot of people don’t anyway.

Trump, current front-runner for the Republican nomination, wants to hit ISIS ‘so hard they never recover’.

(As he told me: ‘You've got to take them out and you've got to take them out harshly and you've got to take them out fast.’)

He also wants a short-term ban on Muslims entering the U.S. until, as he puts it, ‘we figure out what the hell is going on?’

And he wants to torture suspects like Abdeslam with techniques like water-boarding to try and extract information about future attacks.

Oh, and he wants to build a giant wall to stop illegal immigrants pouring over the Mexican border into America. 

George Clooney hit out at Trump yesterday, as he endorsed Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton for the presidency, saying: ‘If you listen to the loudest voices out there today, you'd think we're a country that hates Mexicans, hates Muslims, and thinks that committing war crimes is the best way to make America great again.’

I spoke to Trump for 40 minutes. He was, as you’d expect, bombastic, defiant and self-congratulatory. Why wouldn’t he be? He’s ripped up every political rulebook to take this presidential race by storm, a scenario that is hardly going to deflate the ego of New York’s most cock-sure billionaire tycoon.

But he also spoke in more detail about his plans to combat ISIS and I found myself nodding more than I expected.

Trump told me countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to an ISIS fighter in Syria.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.

Is he so wrong?

He told me America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.

Is he so wrong?

He told me he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalized Islamic terror.

Is he so wrong? 

I didn’t feel I was talking to a lunatic, as many seem to view Trump.

I saw a guy, a non-politician unfettered by PC language restraints, who is genuinely furious at the devastation which ISIS is wreaking, and seriously concerned for the security of his fellow Americans and indeed, the citizens of Europe.

(Remember, Trump’s from New York and felt the horror of 9/11 very personally and very deeply like all New Yorkers.)

His plans for tackling this extraordinarily dangerous threat to the world have been widely condemned as ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’.

But although I publicly criticised him for the Muslim short-term ban suggestion, I’ve known Trump for ten years and I don’t believe he’s a racist.

I think he’s someone who has spent his life responding to metaphorical punches on his nose by punching even harder back. 

And right now, he firmly believes that ISIS will murder countless more Americans and Europeans if somebody somewhere doesn’t stand up and punch them hard in the face.
Someone prepared to stop spewing politically-correct niceties after these attacks, hoping nobody gets offended, and actually DO something.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, right now ISIS is winning this war and will continuing committing utter carnage on our streets on an ever graver and more barbaric scale until they are stopped.

I don’t have the answers to how to do that.

But I don’t hear any good ideas coming from any world leaders at the moment either, and it’s their highly paid jobs to work it out.

Instead, I see a global paralysis driven by fear, confusion and woeful lack of leadership.

And it will only get worse.

Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognise the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it.

They may not win him the Politically Correct Pontificator of the Year award. But how many more scenes like this morning’s appalling images from Brussels are we going to tolerate before we try a non-PC option to beat these disgusting excuses for human beings?

At the end of our interview, I asked Donald Trump to send a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us.

‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I'm just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they're not reporting it, they're absolutely not reporting it and that's a big problem.’

Is he so wrong? 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504893/PIERS-MORGAN-comes-terror-isn-t-time-started-listening-seriously-Trump.html#ixzz43iyGu7J0 


Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook