RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the postmortems of the terrorist car attacks in Jerusalem, it is easy to see the writing on the wall.

Ibrahim al-Akary, the terrorist who on Wednesday ran over crowds of people waiting to cross the street and catch the Jerusalem Light Rail, was the brother of one of the terrorist murderers freed in exchange for IDF hostage Gilad Schalit. He had placed the photograph on his Facebook page of Moataz Hejazi, the terrorist killed by police after shooting Yehuda Glick outside the Begin Heritage Center last Wednesday.

A few days before Abdur Rahman Slodi got into his car and mowed down three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun and a dozen other pedestrians two weeks ago, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas exhorted the Palestinians to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, by all means possible.
Slodi had served time in prison for terrorist offenses and was active on social media where he expressed murderous hatred for Jews and a desire to kill them.

So yes, the writing was on the wall. But unfortunately, the writing is on all the walls, or Facebook walls. It is not at all clear how Israeli security services could have known to distinguish these men from the thousands of other Palestinians and Jerusalem Arabs who hate Israel, support the murder of Jews and identify with various terrorist organizations.

On Thursday security forces arrested several people in villages around Hebron with suspected ties to Akary. So he may not have been acting on his own. But all the same, neither he nor Slodi seem to have been directed to carry out their attacks by a cell commander who himself was directed by a higher level terrorist operative. Rather, in all likelihood, something triggered both men to carry out attacks in a wholly independent or semi-independent manner.
The question is, what was the trigger and how was it pulled?

Who dun it?????

Bombs exploded in the Gaza Strip early Friday, damaging fences and cars at the homes of senior members of the Fatah movement, which recently reached an agreement with Hamas to govern the Palestinian territory.

There were no immediate reports of casualties and no claim of responsibility for the attack, but Fatah spokesman Fayez Abu Aita immediately blamed Hamas for the bombings. The Islamist political and militant movement has ruled the enclave since 2007 and is a longtime rival of Hamas.
Mr. Aita said an unspecified number of devices had been planted in front of the homes of members of his party, including one that damaged his vehicle.

Local media reported a dozen explosions. Eleven targeted the homes of senior members in Fatah and a 12th was planted at a stage where Fatah had planned to hold a ceremony honoring the death of former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, the reports said.

Earlier this year, Fatah and Hamas, the two main rival factions in Palestinian politics, agreed to govern the Gaza Strip together, but the 50-day war between Hamas and Israel—as well as friction between the two groups—has slowed the planned integration of government ministries.

Tom Steyer became a billionaire by investing in fossil fuels, among other things, and maybe he should return to his roots. He may need the money after blowing at least $74 million trying to persuade voters to oppose Republicans who disagree with him on climate change.

If you want proof that money doesn’t buy elections, Mr. Steyer and his fellow green comrades are it. The San Francisco investor gave most of his money to his NextGen Climate Action Super Pac, which spent almost exclusively for Democrats. Environmental groups including NextGen spent $85 million to support President Obama ’s green agenda, especially his regulations targeting coal for extinction.

They didn’t even get a lousy T-shirt, and they aren’t taking it well. “Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get out the vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” declared Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune.

Venting can be healthy, but self-deception isn’t. Mr. Brune should really blame the economic reality that the U.S. boom in fossil-fuel production is creating high-paying jobs and reducing energy costs across the economy. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s green agenda has created few jobs and raised costs for millions of Americans.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips on how the Democrats outspent the Republicans in the midterms and why they have nothing to show for it. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Voters in Pacific Heights or Manhattan may not mind paying more for their self-styled political virtue, but the average Debbie in Dubuque would rather not. The mistake too many Democrats made was listening to Mr. Steyer instead of Debbie.

This year’s environmental debate boiled down to Democratic support for Mr. Obama’s climate rules and green subsidies against full-throated Republican support for energy production of all sorts, including coal, oil and natural-gas fracking, more pipelines and greater fossil-fuel exports. These GOP candidates won nearly everywhere.

“But what good came of it at last?”Quoth little Peterkin.”Why, that I cannot tell,” said he,”But ’twas a famous victory.”

Robert Southey (1774-1843)The Battle of Blenheim

Elections have consequences and postmortems are revealing. They say as much about the person uttering them, as they do about what is being said. In saying to the nation on Wednesday, “I heard you,” Mr. Obama struck a conciliatory chord. However, when he added, “But for the two-thirds who didn’t vote yesterday, I hear you, too,” he was dismissive of those who did vote and exuded a phony sense of clairvoyance regarding those who did not. It suggested that the Country supported him and his policies by a two-to-one margin, despite Tuesday’s election.

Republicans should be pleased with the election, but they shouldn’t run wild; though Scott Walker’s win in Wisconsin was hugely important. The claim that Republican success was a “Tsunami” was too glib. It is a fitting metaphor in the “Twitter” world we inhabit, but misleading and divisive. Elections do have consequences, as Barack Obama famously sermonized in January 2009, but so do words. Mr. Obama concluded that paragraph with a fateful two-word sentence, which spoke to his unilateralism and, in my opinion, ultimate destruction, “I won.” In so saying, he removed any hope of compromise to help fiscally solve the nation’s economic problems.

Mr. Obama epitomizes what Joseph Epstein terms a “virtucrat” – one who derives “a grand sense of one’s self through one’s alleged virtuousness. Such people feel self-assured based on the moral certainty of their own goodness. However, in the world of governance, compromise is the essential ingredient. There are many on the right who feel much the same way – Ted Cruz comes to mind. They make effective legislators, but are not so good at governing.

The depth and breadth of Republican success on Tuesday could be seen, not only in the re-taking of the Senate, but in state houses across the Country. In my little corner of “very blue” Southeastern Connecticut, Republicans did well. Of the region’s fifteen seats in the state Senate and House, eight were captured by Republicans. Previously, they had two seats.

Two of New York’s grandest and most important landmark buildings – The Metropolitan Museum of Art and The New York Public Library – have now been trashed by commercial food and tchochke vendors. According to their mandate, The Landmarks Preservation Commission is charged with being “responsible for protecting New York City’s architecturally, historically and culturally significant buildings and sites by granting them landmark status, and regulating them once they’re designated.” The officers of the commission deserve impeachment for their dereliction of duty in what are undoubtedly, the two most significant examples of great civic architecture and cultural purpose in our city.

The New York Times has finally noticed what’s happened in front of the Metropolitan Museum but what they failed to report in their Nov 6th coverage of the 20 food carts that despoil the facade is that the carts remain in place long after the museum has closed and the neighborhood has reverted to being strictly residential. There are no comparable examples of multiple carts with glaring neon signs blinking in the dark along the stretch of Park Avenue, Central Park West or West End Avenue, to name just a few other great residential streets, and none in front of Gracie Mansion, residence of our mayor. In addition to adding a visual blight, the carts blare music and deposit their trash into corner sidewalk pails which are filled to overflowing and litter the street until pick-up the following day. They invite transients to come into a family neighborhood after dark when there is insufficient crowd or police presence to make that area feel safe.

If you haven’t been to Bryant Park lately, you may not be aware that it has been occupied by Bank of America’s Holiday Shops – 125 purveyors selling Christmas ornaments and other holiday gifts in what are described as “jewel box” kiosks lining the walkways and terraces of what is still called a park, though the remnants of green are hard to see through the density of these boxes. The statue of William Cullen Bryant, America’s great poet and newspaper editor, sits imposingly at the eastern terrace of the park, now looking out onto a field of shoppers and eaters instead of a beautiful swath of lawn and shrubbery. Far from being a peaceful and natural extension of the library – a place of contemplation and quiet enjoyment of the outdoors, Bryant Park has become another place for fast food and consumerism, no different than 42nd, 34th and 14th streets. Who was it who decided that what the library needed more than a park was an outdoor shopping center sponsored by a bank and some cafes shrouded in weather-proof plastic to offset the elegance of the Beaux Arts architectural gem of Carrere and Hastings? And who allowed it to happen

Obama Wrote Secret Letter to Iran’s Khamenei About Fighting Islamic State: Carol Lee and Jay Solomon
Presidential Correspondence With Ayatollah Stresses Shared U.S.-Iranian Interests in Combating Insurgents, Urges Progress on Nuclear Talks

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to people briefed on the correspondence.

The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.

Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say.

The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government.

The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important—whether in a potentially constructive or negative role—to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months.

Mr. Obama’s letter also sought to assuage Iran’s concerns about the future of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, according to another person briefed on the letter. It states that the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.

Political candidates backed by the controversial Middle East advocacy group J Street were trounced at the polls on Tuesday, with J Street’s endorsees losing in almost every competitive race.

J Street scrambled to save face on Wednesday after two candidates that the group described as must-wins were defeated by their Republican opponents.

While J Street spread its money across 92 races around the country—the majority of them uncompetitive contests—J Street candidates locked in tight races were repudiated by voters.

Analysts say this is further proof that voters are increasingly likely to embrace more hawkish pro-Israel candidates over the dovish views characteristic of J Street and its allies in the Obama administration.

Democrats Mark Udall (Colo.) and Bruce Braley (Iowa), both of whom lost yesterday, received repeated endorsements and cash from J Street, which claimed that both candidates would counter “dangerous, neoconservative ideas” in the Senate.

“We can’t afford to lose these two [Senate] races,” J Street political director Dan Kalik wrote in a September email to supporters, urging them to donate at least $18 dollars to Udall and Braley.

“If Mark and Bruce don’t have the resources they need in these last few weeks, you can expect their opponents’ dangerous, neoconservative ideas to gain momentum in the Senate,” J Street wrote at the time.

J Street’s efforts to make the races about its anti-Israel agenda appears to have flopped, as voters in both states favored the Republican challengers Joni Ernst and Cory Gardner.

J Street endorsee Michelle Nunn, who the group made several high-profile pitches for, lost her race in Georgia to Republican David Perdue, a candidate J Street described as “shameful.”

“These guys think they can scare votes their way by borrowing a page from the neoconservative playbook. Will you prove them wrong?” J Street asked in an October fundraising pitch for Nunn.

The organization’s efforts to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine also ended in failure.

In Nigeria and Iraq, Muslim armies are selling women as slaves. Iran hanged a woman for fighting off a rapist. ISIS was more direct about it and beheaded a woman who resisted one of its fighters.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D7E74LmOii0/VFpZ7tB7IhI/AAAAAAAAOhc/zK-lQmnYrkY/s1600/This-is-what-a-feminist-l-009.jpgBut we don’t have to travel to the Middle East to see real horrors. The sex grooming scandal in the UK involved the rape of thousands of girls. The rapists were Muslim men so instead of talking about it, the UK’s feminists bought $75 shirts reading, “This is what a feminist looks like” which were actually being made by Third World women living sixteen to a room. This was what a feminist looked like and it wasn’t a pretty picture.

The same willful unseriousness saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a survivor of genital mutilation and an informed critic of Muslim misogyny, booted from Brandeis by self-proclaimed feminists. Meanwhile the major feminist cause at the moment is Gamergate, a controversy over video games which can be traced back to a female game developer who slept with a video game reviewer. Professional feminists have spent more time and energy denouncing video games than the sale and rape of girls in Nigeria and Iraq.

That is what feminism looks like and there is something seriously wrong with that.

Women Against Feminism touched a nerve because professional feminists know that few women want to identify as feminists. Polls have found that the majority of women view feminism negatively. Even among young women, the feminist label doesn’t come close to breaking the halfway mark.

Professional feminists respond to the negative feedback by claiming that feminism is simply equality. But if feminism were equality, women, and for that matter men, wouldn’t dislike it so much.

A feminist looks like a professional activist wearing a $75 t-shirt made by slave labor while proclaiming that she is a feminist. It isn’t fighting for the rights of women that makes her a feminist. It’s the pricey fashion statement of someone who toots their own horn while exploiting less fortunate women.

The professional feminist is not there to help women, but to promote the agenda of the institutional left. She will turn campus rape into a political cause while criticizing every rape prevention measure, from a rape drug detecting nail polish to self-defense for women, for not dealing with rape culture. Stopping rape doesn’t interest her. Exploiting the abuse of women to fight a culture war does.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform: what is it?

Tonight, I shall make a comprehensive meal. My wife will eat it to learn what is in it…

When I hear law makers and pundits say “comprehensive” I cringe. There are never details, just the magic word. I think it is a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the people for the benefit of the lawmakers.

So, I have come up with my own set of details on a plan for “comprehensive immigration reform”. Will any lawmaker ever see it? Probably not. Will the lawmakers come up with anything vaguely resembling my plan? Assuredly not. Can the people scream for it? I sure hope so. So, let’s spread this around the internet. Our most pressing problem is the Southern border.

1. Close the border. Station the military along the whole border. Anyone not coming in through a legal crossing point meeting legal requirements should be immediately put back on the Mexican side of the border. Do we want to be humane? Give them some bottles of water and MREs (Meals ready to eat).

Make this Mexico’s problem, not ours. Let it cost Mexico money, not us.

2. Make sanctuary cities illegal. Cut any Federal funds by, say, 25%. Let their actions cost the cities taxpayer’s money, not the rest of us.

3. Any alien accused of a violent crime should be tried in a court. If found guilty, then he/she should serve time in prison and then deported across the border he/she came through.

Any alien convicted of a non-violent felony should be deported along with immediate family members.

The 2014 elections are over, and the work of actually resolving America’s many crises must begin. Delay is unacceptable.

The essential linchpin of the American economy is a healthy middle class. A combination of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the increased costs to businesses and consumers alike of Obamacare, heightened fuel prices, and the loss of steady jobs has wreaked havoc with this vital group.

Taxes on middle income families must be lowered. Policies that have discouraged the creation of middle class jobs, including Obamacare mandates and corporate tax policies that have sent businesses overseas must be repealed.

The U.S. balance of trade continues to see far too many dollars going overseas. It is time to keep those dollars home. The most rapid way of doing that is making the nation truly energy independent. Lands under federal control must finally be opened for energy exploitation. Also, attempts to limit other energy sources, including coal, must stop.

The most imminent threat is the dramatic deterioration of America’s defense posture during the past several years. This has occurred have at the same time that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran have dramatically built up both the size and sophistication of their forces. Also, it is irresponsible to not deploy a comprehensive anti-missile policy.

These are crises whose solutions cannot be postponed.