Reminiscent of the IRA’s 1972 Bloody Friday, three terror attacks today in the global jihad:

Tunisia attack: multiple deaths reported at Sousse beach resort – live updates

At least 27 people have died after an attack on the Imperial Marhaba hotel

The three attacks today, in Tunisia, Kuwait and France come just days after Islamic State (Isis) spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani used an audio message to urge jihadists to turn the holy month of Ramadan into “a time of “calamity for the infidels … Shias and apostate Muslims”.

While the report states “there is no evidence that the attacks were coordinated”, ISIS claimed responsibility for the Tunisia attack.

Additionally, the man arrested in France,

father-of-three Yassine Salhi who is understood to have been known to security services since at least 2006 – has already been arrested at the scene, telling police officers that he is a member of the Islamic State terror group.

Likewise, ISIS claims deadly mosque attack in Kuwait, where a suicide bomber killed 25 at the Shi’ite Muslim mosque,

The Islamic State militant group claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement posted on social media and said it targeted a “temple of the rejectionists” – a term it usually uses to refer to Shi’ite Muslims, whom it regards as heretics.

French president Hollande has already declared the attack at the American-owned Air Products factory a terrorist attack,

The murder is believed to have been accompanied by several explosions on the site cause by a terrorist igniting small ‘gas bombs’ that injured dozens of factory workers. It is thought the explosions may have intended to blow up the entire factory site but failed.
. . .
The victim’s head (which MailOnline has chosen to disguise in this image) was found staked on a gate at the factory’s entrance. Two homemade Islamist flags – one white and one black, both with Arabic inscriptions – were found alongside it.

Breitbart reports that Air Products said all of its employees were accounted for, while

According to French TV reports the decapitated man is understood to be the manager of a local delivery service.

The U.S. State department had no comments on the attacks as of the writing of this post.

Related: Former PM Ehud Barak: We could defeat ISIS in a matter of two days (h/t Michael Walsh)

He stated that it is his belief that the Islamic State “is not strong” and with an appropriate response, it would be possible to suppress and destroy ISIS within a matter of days.

“I think that ISIS is successful to a certain extent because they are not facing a concentrated effort to destroy the organization,” said Barak, adding “Technically they aren’t that strong- they are made up of only about 30-40 thousand people.”

UPDATE
Three attacks, three hours, three continents, one bloody Friday.

By Steve Eggleston

Unless you’ve been in a cave the last 2 days, you know that the Supreme Court once again rewrote what Justice Antonin Scalia has taken to calling SCOTUSCare to judicially extend tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance to the poor and middle class purchasing insurance on federally-established insurance exchanges. Much has been made over said subsidies, with the Congressional Republicans preemtively saying that had the letter of the law been applied and said subsidies on the federally-established exchanges been struck down, they would rush in to “temporarily” allow those subsidies to happen through 2017.

However, the case itself was never about the subsidies themselves, but rather the penalt…er…taxes that those subsidies allowed to be applied. Indeed, both the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and the dissent written by Scalia admit that it is all about the tax, and in Roberts’ case, preserving what he transformed from a penalty to a tax.

As Scalia points out, the phrase “Exchange established by the State” appears innumerable times throughout the law. Indeed, it expressly defined the word “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”.

The goal of limiting the subsidies to those in states where the state set up the exchange rather than the federal government was to put political pressure on the states to be the proverbial bagmen for the federal government by offloading the cost of the exchanges from the federal government to the states. That the Democrats failed in their attempt to blackmail the states into becoming their bagmen (a wise fiscal decision, as those states that set up, or tried to set up, their own exchanges are finding to their peril) is not something for the IRS, or six Lawgivers-In-Black, to “correct”, especially when the Republicans said that they would do the “correcting” on at least a temporary basis.

The elimination of said subsidies in states with federally-established exchanges would, in a plain-text reading of the law, also eliminate the threat of the individual non-insurance tax for every couple, virtually every multi-member family, and most single people making between 100% and 400% of the poverty level in those states as the cost of the second-cheapest “silver” insurance plan would rise to above 8% of their income. Similarly, the two types of employer non-insurance tax are predicated on at least one “full-time” employee (that is, one who worked at least 130 hours in a given month) getting subsidized coverage, with the elimination of the subsidy eliminating the liability of those employers operating solely in those states.

Roberts, in defending his 2012 declaration that the individual tax is indeed a tax, admits that result would cause great financial harm to the overall SCOTUSCare scheme. Again, the role of a judge, even a Supreme Court Chief Justice, is not to save the other branches of federal government from bad financial bets through judicial rewrites of law, especially since Congressional Republicans vowed to do just that.

I guess we could count ourselves “fortunate” that my darker prediction of Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black finding a way to keep the taxes fully-intact while striking down the subsidies didn’t happen. On the other hand, given the Congressional Republicans were going to fully-cave (though supposedly temporarily) on the issue of subsidies, I doubt that allowing them to keep the fig leaf of Kabuki Theatre Opposition will much matter. It will simply take a bit longer for them to do the expansion of SCOTUSCare that they previously did for Social Security (thrice) and Medicare.

You might have noticed lately a rush to remove the Confederate Flag from public & private spaces on the grounds that Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof was shown in photo waving the Confederate flag.

The argument is removing of the Confederate flag from any place of honor becomes a simple matter of honoring those murdered at a Charleston Bible study by a man who visibly waved it.

Well one of those who vocally supported said removal Mr. DeRay McKesson was at a protest in Charleston lately.   WISTV covered it:

Images of a flag burning incident at Marion Square in downtown Charleston over the weekend has ignited controversy across social media platforms.

DeRay McKesson, a civil rights activist with WeTheProtesters.org, posted photos and video on his Twitter page Sunday showing a group of people in Marion Square burning the American and Confederate flags.

WeTheProtesters lists McKesson as a member of its planning team, and the Founder and Co-Editor of the Ferguson Protester Newsletter.

and Mr. McKesson put out some tweets from it

I found that photo fascinating because apparently not only does Mr. McKesson’s group seems to not only have the same opinion of the US flag as Mr. Roof

dylann-roof-spitting-american-flag-640x479

But they apparently believe in directly mimicking his actions:

dylan-roof-website-photo-flag-burning (1)So I have a question for all of those on TV that have been self righteously telling us that because Young Mr. Roof waved the Confederate flag that flag must go, Gone with the Wind must go, and even games about the civil war must all go to honor those he murdered.

Since Mr. Roof’s mass murder suddenly made any association with the Confederate Flag beyond the pale of respectability should we not also consider the group We the Protesters and Mr. McKesson also beyond the pale since they not only copied the exact actions of this mass murder but did so proudly and in public just outside the building where one of the victims was lying in state?

Because their actions suggest this observation from Sweetness & light is exactly correct:

Well, we know that Dylann Roof would have approved of the burning of the American flag. (Since he did so himself.) But that’s probably just one of the many similarities he shares with Mr. Mckesson.

I’d love to see the media members who have given Mr. McKesson credibility answer that question and have all those who have expressed support for his group answer this question but I suspect that will not happen anywhere this side of the 2nd coming.

Update: It goes without saying that those actions are protected by the first amendment the question isn’t if said actions should be illegal, it’s if said actions mean the group should be embraced by the media and the left.

********************************************************************

If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.