McCain Is Losing It And Should Retire From The Senate

John McCain’s scary perfect world

Posted on June 13, 2017 by Sam Rolley

Personal Liberty Poll

Exercise your right to vote.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that President Donald Trump is ruining the U.S.’s reputation as world leader during an interview over the weekend. That he’s criticizing Trump isn’t a surprise. What is a little confusing, however, is that McCain can’t seem to remember anything that’s happened over the past two decades.

The Arizona senator, in an interview with The Guardian, left no question that he believes the former administration better portrayed the U.S. on the world stage.

From the report published Sunday:

Senator John McCain, a prominent Republican voice on foreign policy, was visibly irked when asked by the Guardian what message Trump had sent to the United Kingdom, one of America’s most enduring allies.

“What do you think the message is? The message is that America doesn’t want to lead,” McCain said, while adding of the rest of the world: “They are not sure of American leadership, whether it be in Siberia or whether it be in Antarctica.”

Asked if America’s standing on the global stage was better under Barack Obama, McCain, a fervent critic of the previous administration’s foreign policy, responded: “As far as American leadership is concerned, yes.”

McCain, seemingly just realizing what he really said, is now walking back the remarks.

On Tuesday, McCain told The Daily Caller that he “never said such a thing,” when asked if he truly believed Obama’s foreign policy better than Trump’s.

“A thousand times I said, ‘Look at the world in 2009 and look at it today.’ Of course, I never said [that]. If I did I was joking,” he added, according to The DC.

Thinking that the world had more respect for the United States under President Obama’s leadership than it does today certainly is a joke. But forgetting Obama’s global apology tour followed by the decision to continue failed foreign policy agendas that only further entangled the U.S. in one unending quagmire after another is no laughing matter.

It’s also not at all funny that McCain has been along for the ride the entire time. Despite calling Obama’s foreign policy “feckless” at one point and, at another, giving the former president an “F” in foreign policy, McCain supported many of the administration’s dumbest moves.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did a nice job of summarizing McCain’s support for the Obama foreign agenda during a 2015 POLITICO interview centered on his critiques of Senate hawks like the Arizona lawmaker and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham.

“They supported Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya; they supported President Obama’s bombing of Assad; they also support President Obama’s foreign aid to countries that hate us. So if there is anyone who is most opposed to President Obama’s foreign policy, it’s me. People who call loudest to criticize me are great proponents of President Obama’s foreign policy — they just want to do it ten times over,” he said at the time. 

McCain, remember, has repeatedly criticized Paul over the years, claiming the Kentucky lawmaker has a naïve foreign policy view.

Just this spring, McCain refused to even respond to Paul’s criticism of the Trump administration’s decision to launch attacks on a Syrian airfield following reports Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in the fight against rebels in the country.

“I don’t really react to Senator Paul. We’re just too different, and he doesn’t have any real influence in the United States Senate,” he said in March.

Paul, unfortunately, doesn’t have the influence McCain has enjoyed over the past two decades. But at least he hasn’t been involved in influencing every bad foreign policy decision the U.S. has made since the Clinton administration.

That sounds like an exaggeration—but it isn’t.

In fact, the only criticism for interventionism McCain reserves is when the carnage doesn’t go far enough.

When President Clinton decided the U.S. needed to conduct high altitude bombing over Serbia, McCain complained that the U.S. didn’t send in ground troops.

When President George W. Bush, already dealing with huge troubles in the Middle East, ruled out bombing North Korea, McCain lamented that force was the “only means to prevent North Korea from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.”

During a campaign stop in 2007, McCain told another of his jokes and sang for a crowd, “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann.”

In 2008, as it became apparent that the Iraq War wasn’t working out, McCain was asked what he thought about the prospect of U.S. troop involvement in Iraq for the next fifty years.

“Make it a century,” he replied.

The senator’s biggest criticism of both the Bush and Obama administrations with regard to Iraq was that the U.S. didn’t have enough soldiers there, creating what he calls a power vacuum.

But McCain’s only plan to avoid a power vacuum is a 100-year occupation.

And even after seeing U.S. voters repeatedly lose interest sort of war he would like to see in the Middle East, which would provide massive political complications to sending the necessary number of troops to intervene without risking later chaos, McCain supported every regime change and destabilization effort in the region since Iraq.

Meanwhile, McCain is a leading critic of Russia and one of the biggest proponents of any military maneuver with the potential to aggravate the U.S.’s Cold War foe. In recent years, he’s never passed an opportunity to call for intervention in Ukraine or Syria to stifle Russian objectives. More recently, the Arizona lawmaker accused Sen. Paul of “working for Vladimir Putin” because the Kentucky Republican objected to an attempt to bring Montenegro into NATO, despite the small, corrupt country having no strategic value to the U.S.

What does McCain’s perfect world look like? His combined wishes over the years sound like a plan for the U.S. to lead military occupations that never end in as many theaters as possible. If that’s his definition of good U.S. leadership, there isn’t a single sane person in the country who wants to lead.

But McCain misses the point anyway. He’s had too much “influence” in the Senate for far too long. Too much bad experience and too much exposure to corruption have made it impossible for the aging senator to remember that the president was never intended to lead any other portion of the world in the first place.

Consider what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his 1801 Inaugural address:

I believe this … the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order, as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels, in the forms of kings, to govern him?

Let history answer this question.

Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican principles; our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradations of the others, possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation…

In other words, if folks are concerned about a lack of U.S. influence, whether it be in Siberia or whether it be in Antarctica, we must be doing something right. Maybe if Trump can undo the influence of people like McCain and accomplish the massive reductions in U.S. foreign involvement he promised as a candidate, he really will make America great again.

Vocational Training Provides Hard Working, Driven Workers

The Main Trait That Sets Vocational Students Apart From College Kids

By

 Katie

 -

May 5, 2017

0

219

Share on Facebook

 

Tweet on Twitter

  

Photo: Bureau of Land Management (cc by 2.0)

When I graduated from high school a number of years ago, there were a few – but only a few – rumblings concerning the high cost of college and the need for a more sensible, cost-effective path to a career, such as that offered by apprenticeship. I was curious about this alternative, but found it practically impossible to pursue because drinking the must-go-to-college Kool-Aid was the thing to do.

Times have certainly changed. Today, apprenticeship and vocational forms of higher education are viewed in a much more favorable light.

Yet despite this surge in interest, vocational education still endures a fair amount of skepticism and prejudice, as witnessed by one teacher in a column for The Guardian entitled, “I’m tired of justifying the value of vocational subjects.”

According to the teacher, many of her colleagues give lip service to the idea of vocational education but then turn around and make “derogatory comments” about it, solidifying the stereotype that those who pursue such a path are the dumb students.

As the article goes on to explain, nothing could be further from the truth:

“Traditionally, vocational subjects have attracted students considered to be of low ability, or who are looking for an easy qualification. But my students, past and present, are passionate, committed, and deserve every chance to be successful in whichever subjects they choose. Students who take vocational subjects have a clear idea of the path they wish to take. They know what they want to do once they leave the comfort of compulsory education.”

In other words, students who pursue vocational education often demonstrate initiative and have the grit to swim upstream and buck the smooth, easy path chosen by the rank and file.

Oddly enough, it is those very same attitudes that employers are looking for. They want young people who can take the lead and pursue a goal even in the face of opposition and challenge. They want individuals who solve problems and are discontent to sit back on their heels and plod along in their work.

In response to these desires, the education system pushes more students toward college, assuring them that they must keep up with the Joneses and fork out money for bigger and better colleges if they want to be attractive to employers and realize the American dream.

Sadly, as a recent study in Science Magazine demonstrates, that American dream isn’t what it once was. In fact, today’s young people are less likely to go above and beyond the earnings and success that their parents and grandparents achieved, as shown in the chart below.

Is it possible that the inability of children to exceed the success of their parents is partially due to the fact that we’ve done our best to discourage vocational education? Would we inspire greater interest and ambition in the next generation if we didn’t imply that every student take the college path?

This post The Main Trait That Sets Vocational Students Apart From College Kids was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Annie Holmquist.

We Believe America's Decline Started Right After WWII

The decline of America — 1978 to 2016

Posted on June 15, 2016 by John Myers

“When I was twenty-one, it was a very good year…
But now the days are short, I’m in the autumn of my years
And I think of my life as vintage wine
From fine old kegs
From the brim to the dregs…”

— It Was A Very Good Year, composed by Ervin Drake and popularized by Frank Sinatra.

I was 21 in 1978. It was a very good year for me.

It was also a very good year for America. That was the conclusion of The Guardian on June 19, 2013:

In or around 1978, America’s character changed. For almost half a century, the United States had been a relatively egalitarian, secure, middle-class democracy, with structures in place that supported the aspirations of ordinary people. You might call it the period of the Roosevelt Republic. Wars, strikes, racial tensions and youth rebellion all roiled national life, but a basic deal among Americans still held in belief if not always in fact: work hard, follow the rules, educate your children and you will be rewarded, not just with a decent life and the prospect of a better one for your kids, but with recognition from society, a place at the table.

I consider two other alternatives as the high-level years for the United States; 1946 when the United States had more than 50 percent of the world’s GDP and 1966 when the Dow briefly touched 1,000, a mark which would not be broached again for 15 years.

Fareed Zakaria of CNN fame claims that, “The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism.” In other words, except in the Muslim world, the United States is becoming too insignificant to hate. A weak economy, mounting debts, second rate education, indecisive leadership and an expanding chasm between liberals and conservatives on moral and economic issues are a clear indication that America is in a steep decline which can be slowed but not arrested.

Decline of wealth

• In 1978, the United States was the world’s largest creditor. In 1985 the U.S. had become a debtor nation for the first time since World War I.
• In 1978, U.S. federal debt totaled less than $800 billion. Today it is $19.2 trillion and growing.
• In 1978, U.S. consumer debt was slightly more than $300 billion. Estimates suggest that it will reach $1 trillion this year.
• In 1978, 9 million automobiles were manufactured in the United States. Despite the surge in automobiles around the world the U.S. manufactured 5.7 million cars and trucks in 2015.
• In 1978, there were 18.8 million manufacturing jobs. Today there are slightly more than 12 million manufacturing jobs. Since January 2000, the U.S. has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs, an indication that the reversal in manufacturing that began in the 90s is drastically worsening.

U.S. manufacturing employment, January 1970-December 2014 (millions of jobs)

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015

In many ways Osama bin Laden won with his attack on 9/11. He and a few hundred terrorists did not just take down the Twin Towers; they permanently altered America’s economic landscape. While the U.S. was already in decline, the repercussions of that attack included spying by the federal government on its own citizens and a security apparatus that belies what America once stood for.

Decline of morality

In 1978 I pretty much had the same morals as my parents and grandparents. Nearly 40 years later the moral compass is broken largely because of the progressive liberals like President Barack Obama, who insists on special privileges for any handful of malcontents who cry that their civil rights have been trampled on.

• In 1978, illegal Mexicans were rounded up and deported back to Mexico. In 2016 they are coddled in sanctuary cities like San Francisco. Words like racism are tossed at any and all that complain that the law is being broken by these illegals.
• In 1978, homosexuality was frowned upon. Just five years earlier it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As a result it was kept in the closet. Today it is openly celebrated by Obama. Anyone who does not embrace this “freedom” is labelled homophobic.
• Police, once the bedrock of urban centers, have become hunted by criminals and liberal prosecutors out for political gain.
• In 1978, the United States was called a melting pot as immigrants were eager to assimilate in a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities. Obama has encouraged ethnic division within the United States.
• In 1978 Muhammad Ali beat Leon Spinks in a rematch and became the first man to win the World Heavyweight Championship three separate times. Ali was seen as a man of peace and he transcended boxing. He was for millions the face of Islam. Last Sunday we saw elements of Islam as a lone, armed Muslim killed 50 people and wounded 53 others at a LBGT nightclub.
• In 1978, America was saddled by the ineptitude of President Jimmy Carter. But a man that would put America back on its feet, Ronald Reagan, was in the early stages of running for the presidency.

Obama is the root of America’s problem

The latest edict from the Obama administration, issued jointly by the departments of Education and Health and Human Services, recommends that states instruct young students in-home languages differently than English and encourages them to retain separate cultural attachments.

The policy statement calls for a range of practices, from creating curricula and educational systems that “support children’s home language development,” to urging states to hire more teachers who “speak the language and/or share the cultural background of children who are DLLs [dual language learners] in the community.”

I find it startling that Obama has a current approval rating of 51 percent. The nation is still suffering from his economic policies. In fact, no other post-modern president has failed to deliver at least 3 percent economic growth in any one year.

It is an amazing outcome when you consider that the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at record lows and purchased enormous amounts of debt. The Fed now holds more than five times the amount of securities it held prior to Obama taking office.

The Fed’s balance sheet expanded from $850 billion in 2008 to more than $4.4 trillion today. The questionable value of these securities, as well as the Fed’s various lending programs, has led many to question the financial wherewithal of the Fed.

I am not 100 percent sold on Donald Trump, but like millions of people, I hope he has the vision and strength to help give Americans the national unity and wealth we once enjoyed. I am, however, 100 percent convinced that the presumed nominee for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is more corrupt than former President Richard Nixon but lacks his strengths in diplomacy. Clinton will be a continuation of the ruinous policies, foreign and domestic, of Barack Obama.

In 1978, Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas, and by his side was his politically ambitious wife Hillary. It was one of the few exceptions to what was otherwise a very good year.

Yours in good times and bad,

— John Myers

News Media Is So Blatantly Anti-Israel That Even Their Corrections Show Their Hate For Israel

Anti-Israel Media Bias Taken To New Extremes

By Raphael Poch November 19, 2014 , 10:14 am

3 1

1 0Email 21Share

“Thorns and snares are in the way of the perverse; He who guards himself will be far from them.” (Proverbs 22:5)

Following a lethal terror attack on a Jewish synagogue early Tuesday morning, in which four Rabbis and a police officer were killed and eight worshippers were injured, CNN, the Guardian, and other western media outlets portrayed anti-Israel biased to an unprecedented degree.

Mistaking a Jewish synagogue for a mosque, and failing to mention that the attackers were Palestinian, CNN and the Guardian broke all the rules when it came to reporting. Instead, initial reports from the two agencies stated; “4 Israelis and 2 Palestinians dead in Jerusalem”. This headline would insinuate that an attack was carried out against both Jews and Palestinians while in reality, the two Palestinians carried out the attack and were only shot by police after their brutal murder of innocent worshippers during the morning service.

According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, The Guardian ran a story about the attack which they received from the Reuters News Agency. The wire dispatch which Reuters sent to a number of news sites and media outlets, read; ‘Palestinians kill four in Jerusalem synagogue attack’. The article lead with the sentence: ”Two Palestinians armed with a meat cleaver and a gun killed four people in a Jerusalem synagogue on Tuesday before being shot dead by police….”

The Guardian however, changed their headline to read; “Four worshippers killed in attack on Jerusalem synagogue” and removed any reference to ‘Palestinians from the headline. They wrote; “Two men armed with axes, knives and a pistol have killed four Israelis and wounded several others in a Jerusalem synagogue …” . The headline was later changed to include the identity of the attackers as Palestinians after numerous Palestinian sites did so.

The CBC, a Canadian crown corporation, owned by the very pro-Israel Canadian government, continues to be very anti-Israel in their reporting of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Their original headline read: “Jerusalem police fatally shoot 2 after apparent synagogue attack.” It was later changed to “4 Dead in Jerusalem Synagogue Attack, 1 Canadian Israeli Among Injured”. The news outlet made sure to mention all Canadian ties to the event including Jerusalem synagogue attack: Joyce Morel, Canadian MD, among 1st responders.

CNN however, made the biggest gaffe of all. The news outlet ran a headline that stated “4 Israelis and 2 Palestinians dead in Jerusalem”.

CNN failed to mention that the two Palestinians were the terrorists. Later, after realizing their mistake as a result of public outcry, CNN apologized for the headline, and wrote: “As CNN updated its reporting on the terrorist attack on the synagogue in Jerusalem earlier today, our coverage did not immediately reflect the fact that the two Palestinians killed were the attackers. We erred and regret the mistake.” Even after releasing the public apology, CNN continued to report inaccurate information about the attack including that the attack was perpetrated in a Jerusalem Mosque.

Earlier, CNN reported on the death of two Palestinians with no mention of the terror attack they had committed or the innocent worshipers they has injured and murdered.

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/24630/anti-israel-media-bias-taken-new-extremes/#8r0btu8sZSdfLyuS.99

If Brits Are Joining ISIS, One Has To Assume That Americans Are Also Being Recruited.

UK: Iran Looking to Recruit British Shi'ite Jihadists

by Samuel Westrop
September 3, 2014 at 3:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4669/uk-iran-british-shiites

51

Comment

The horrors perpetrated by ISIS, captured on camera and propagated through social media, are distracting the West from the threat posed by the Iran and its proxies. Iran's attempts to woo British Shi'ites should not be dismissed, but monitored and fought.

Officials of the Iranian regime's network of groups in Britain have called upon British Shi'ites to join the jihad against Sunni Islamist forces in Iraq.
The Ahlul Bayt Islamic Mission [AIM], one of the most prominent Shi'ite organizations in Britain, has published on its website an "Urgent Call," which states:

"We must be ready to sacrifice, leave everything behind us and run for the defense of truth and its supporters, representatives, and relics. The Jihad ul Asghar (minor jihad) must also be accompanied by Jihad ul Akbar (bigger jihad) so that we prepare ourselves spiritually and deserve the honor of defending Islam. Every man must be ready to join the armed forces and every woman must urge the male members of her family to go seek this noble cause and do anything she can to serve this cause … May Allah (SWT) enable us to put our words into actions and to defend Islam and its principles till our last breathe and drop of blood!"

Thus far, only Britain's Sunni Muslims are known to have joined the fighting in Syria and Iraq, where many have already signed up with ISIS.
In June, however, a Shi'ite Muslim living in London told the Guardian, "There are a lot of youth talking about [going out to Iraq] … A lot of people [in the UK] are willing to defend Karbala. And to be honest with you, if my son was of a much older age and he turned around to me and said, 'Look, I want to go and fight,' I'd send him on his way."
It appears that some British Shi'ites are also willing to travel to Syria and Iraq to fight for Iranian-backed groups against ISIS and other Sunni Islamist groups.
AIM is a privately-funded group based in London and is the UK branch of the Ahlul Bayt World Assembly, an Iranian Shi'ite clerical organization. The Ahlul Bayt World Assembly is managed by Muhammad Hassan Akhtari, a leading Iranian cleric and one of the founders of the Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah.
According to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Ahlul Bayt's "activities are directed by the office of the [Iranian] Supreme Leader Khamenei."
Speakers at events organized by AIM regularly include officials tied to the Iranian regime, such as Mohammad Ali Shomali, a prominent Shi'ite cleric who runs the Department of Religions at the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute in Iran.
Senior AIM officials, meanwhile, include Samir Al-Haidari, who also works for the Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute. Al-Haidari, in an interview with an Iranian regime website, voiced support for Khomeini's fatwaordering the murder of the author Salman Rushdie, stating that Khomeini "courageously and bravely defended Islam."
In 2003, Parto-Sokhan, the official publication of the Imam Khomeini Institute (for which Shomali and Haidari both work), ran advertisements that are reported to have recruited an estimated 55,000 young Iranians for the Iranian regime's suicide-bomber brigade, deployed inside Iraq.
More notably, Al-Haidari has also propagated material published by Liwa'a Abu Fadl al-Abbas [LAFA], an Iranian-run "international brigade," comprising foreign Shi'ite fighters.
Other officials within Iranian-aligned groups, such as Shabbir Hassanally, have also promoted LAFA and propagated Shi'ite jihadist videos, which feature such lyrics as "death does not matter – in fact, we search for it."
Evidently, Iran's attempts to recruit Shi'ite jihadists are part of a global effort.
AIM's call to arms made reference to a fatwa issued by the Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, which called on Iraqi Shi'ites to fight the aggression of ISIS terrorists in Iraq.
As reports surfaced that British Shi'ite Muslims were making travel arrangements, however, a British Shi'ite cleric, Fadhil al-Milani, warned British Shi'ites that Sistani's appeal applied only to Iraqis.
Why, then, are the Iranian regime and British groups under its control trying to recruit British Shi'ites when some Shi'ite clerics have forbidden it?
Broadly, the British Shi'ite community is divided between, on the one hand, those who subscribe to Ayatollah Sistani and the Iraqi Shia school of thought, which has discouraged British Shi'ites from joining the fight; and on the other hand, those aligned with the Iranian regime, which is determined to recruit Shi'ite jihadists from across the world.
The line separating these two groups, however, is a blurry one. The author Innes Bowen notes, in her bookInside British Islam, that British Shi'ites devoted to Sistani may still harbor political affiliations with the Iranian regime.
The Iranian authorities, then, rather than alienate sections of the Iranian diaspora by openly contradicting Sistani's rulings, have sought instead to misrepresent Sistani's pronouncements for the benefit of the regime. After Sistani's call for only Iraqi Shi'ites to take up arms, Iranian regime mouthpieces appropriated and distorted the ruling. AIM's appeal, for example, stated: "The call of grand Ayatullah Sistani applies to all believers and not only the Muqaledeen [followers] of his Eminence [Ayatollah Sistani] as the cause he is calling for is for the safety of Islam and the Muslims and our sacred mausoleums."
AIM was not the only British Iranian group to stoke up the flames. On June 23, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi issued a fatwa calling for jihad. Shirazi's statement expressed praise for the Iraqi Shi'ite clergy, but conversely, asdescribed by Al-Monitor, also called for "a general mobilization of all Shi'ites in the world urging them to form armed forces along with the Iraqi army, which implies the promotion of militias."
Shirazi maintains an office in Britain that exists under the guise of a charity named International Islamic Link, which has in the past received taxpayer funding.

Whom shall British Shi'ites heed? Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (left) has called on Iraqi Shi'ites to take up arms against Sunni jihadists, while Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi (right) has called on Shi'ites around the world to form armed forces in Iraq.

Iranian dissidents are not surprised that Iran is attempting to recruit Western Shi'ites. Hossein Abedini, from the National Council of Resistance of Iran, revealed to the Gatestone Institute that, "We have had concrete information in the past that the theocratic regime ruling Iran has been recruiting people from European countries and dispatching them to terrorist camps inside Iran for training."
While few observers could begrudge Shi'ites the desire to stop the ferocious expansion of ISIS, the prospect of an Iranian foreign legion made up of battle-hardened fighters, many of whom will presumably later return to the West, is alarming. There is little assurance that this foreign legion, under the control of the Iranian regime, would simply limit itself to resisting ISIS, and not be utilized by the regime to aid its own violent ambitions, which includes terror attacks in the West.
There has been much discussion in the West of the threat posed by returning Sunni Islamist fighters. That fear is already beginning to be proven correct. Mehdi Nemmouche, a French-Algerian Sunni Islamist recently charged with murdering four people at the Brussels Jewish museum, is reported to have formerly spent a year fighting for ISIS in Syria.
The prospect of returning Shi'ite fighters, then, backed and organized by the Iranian regime, is also frightening -- not just because of Iran's history of targeting Jews across the world, but also owing to the possibility of Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict erupting in the streets of European cities.
Iran analyst Jacob Campbell told the Gatestone Institute that, "In its desperation to keep Iraq and Syria within its sphere of influence, the Iranian regime has resorted to enlisting thousands of foreign fighters from as far afield as India and Afghanistan. Now it is reaching out to the Shia Muslim community in Britain as well. The British government must therefore be doubly vigilant, to prevent the recruitment of Sunnis by ISIS on the one hand, and of Shi'ites by Tehran on the other."
The horrors perpetrated by ISIS, captured on camera and propagated through social media, distract the West from the threat posed by the Iran and its proxies. Iran's attempts to woo British Shi'ites should not be dismissed, but monitored and fought. Iran and ISIS are two sides of the same coin.