RUTHFULLY YOURS

“The poor little rich liberals have made themselves wealthier and the country poorer. Now they are exploiting the miserable economy that they are responsible for with more class warfare.They are poor, but not in money. They are impoverished in industry and suffer from severe poverties of honesty, decency and shame. They hardly have a single truth to their name and their fake poverty is as fake as their concern for the poor.”

No group has been hit harder by the Obama economy than American liberals. From Marin County, where bundlers have had to struggle to scrape together a few ten grand bills to attend Obama fundraisers, to Washington D.C. whose bedroom communities now have seven of the ten highest household incomes in the country, poverty is hitting poor rich little liberals really hard.

In 2006, Alaska had the highest household income. But voters chose Obama over Palin and these days it’s Maryland. Because six-figure consultants on sustainable development, diversity and transgender bathrooms also need McMansions to go home to after a long day of team building exercises, celebrating Pride Week and snorting small mountains of cocaine.

Despite numbers like these, liberals are barely making ends meet. Some are “dead broke” like Hillary Clinton. Forget about a dollar not buying what it used to. Not even a hundred million dollars does. And there’s poor Joe Biden who claimed not to have a savings account or any stocks and bonds. And he doesn’t. He has five savings accounts and eleven investment funds.

But wealth is relative. Despite earning $100 million, Hillary Clinton claims that she isn’t “truly well off”. And if a woman with a colonial mansion for every occasion is, in the words of her adviser, still just “trying to earn a living”, the economy must really be bad.

With income inequality such a hot topic and Washington D.C. hoovering up more of the country’s wealth than ever, the Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunners are taking a vow of poverty. They aren’t actually draping themselves in burlap sacks and begging for spare change, though they do make a point of being seen shopping at Target or Costco before being driven back in their limos to a pricey exclusive neighborhood, but they are working hard at pretending to be poor.

If Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can’t convince Democrats that they’re just one step away from begging for spare change on street corners and truly understand the plight of the people who actually work for a living, Elizabeth Warren is always waiting in the wings. After all who better than a Harvard professor who made $429,981 in her last full year of teaching to understand how hard it is to barely get by under income inequality.

The culture war never changes. It shifts contexts. It flips through personalities and technologies. But its tactics remain the same.

When Anita Sarkeesian launched a crowdfunded Kickstarter campaign to make videos denouncing sexism in computer and video games, she had few other skills to fall back on. Equipped with a master’s degree in feminist critiques of science fiction and fantasy, she was all but unemployable.

According to Anita she had sought out that topic because “I was attempting to imagine a future economic and social system that is rooted in social justice values” but instead she found that Science Fiction shows identified with Western values such as “individualism” and “meritocracy.”

Considering that her only skill in life was complaining about the things that more talented people created based on the content of her DNA, it was unsurprising that she had issues with meritocracy.

Internet research by her critics had traced her back to an appearance in a supposed pyramid scheme video and assorted dubious public relations and marketing work. But her marketing skills finally paid off when after claiming to be a victim of hostile comments on the Internet, friendly media outlets flooded her with publicity and instead of $6,000, the official victim took home $150,000 from her Kickstarter.

$150,000 is a lot of money for a few videos criticizing sexism in games. Before too long even her allies were wondering why there were few videos and why Anita didn’t seem to know anything about games.

Anita Sarkeesian had once told a class “I’m not a fan of video games.” Despite the sizable payday, her videos used stolen artwork. With interest fading, it was time for a feminist who critiqued the “Damsel in Distress” trope to play the damsel in distress once again soliciting rescue through money and media coverage.

This time her Internet persecution, which supposedly forced her out of her home, was covered by major media outlets. The Los Angeles Times claimed Anita’s plight revealed the “ugly side of gaming“ and the Washington Post editorialized “Anita Sarkeesian is a woman who dares exist on the Internet and have an opinion that some men find objectionable.”

Anita Sarkeesian had achieved what every unemployable grad student with a worthless degree dreamed of becoming. She is now a social justice icon.

ISIS, Jihad and Why Obama Never Looks Worried — on The Glazov Gang »
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/isis-jihad-and-why-obama-never-looks-worried-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was guest hosted by Michael Hausam and joined by Mark Tapson, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, Mike Munzing, a Tea Party Activist and Jennifer Van Laar, a writer at Independent Journal Review.

The guests gathered to discuss ISIS, Jihad and Why Obama Never Looks Worried, analyzing why the loss of American lives and the damage to American interests don’t stress a Radical-in-Chief. The dialogue occurred within a focus on Obama’s ‘Managing’ of ISIS, which shed light on the administration’s discomfort with American victory:

Something extraordinary has happened.

On August 31, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told an audience of Fatah members that Egypt had offered to give the PA some 1,600 kilometers of land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza, thus quintupling the size of the Gaza Strip. Egypt even offered to allow all the so-called “Palestinian refugees” to settle in the expanded Gaza Strip.

Then Abbas told his Fatah followers that he rejected the Egyptian offer.

On Monday Army Radio substantiated Abbas’s claim.

According to Army Radio, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi proposed that the Palestinians establish their state in the expanded Gaza Strip and accept limited autonomy over parts of Judea and Samaria.

In exchange for this state, the Palestinians would give up their demand that Israel shrink into the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, surrendering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Sisi argued that the land Egypt is offering in Sinai would more than compensate for the territory that Abbas would concede.

In his speech to Fatah members, Abbas said, “They [the Egyptians] are prepared to receive all the refugees, [and are saying] ‘Let’s end the refugee story.’” “But,” he insisted, “It’s illogical for the problem to be solved at Egypt’s expense. We won’t have it.”

In other words, Sisi offered Abbas a way to end the Palestinians’ suffering and grant them political independence. And Abbas said, “No, forget statehood. Let them suffer.”

Generations of Israeli leaders and strategists have insisted that Israel does not have the ability to satisfy the Palestinian demands by itself without signing its own death warrant. To satisfy the Palestinian demand for statehood, Israel’s neighbors in Egypt and Jordan would have to get involved.

Until Sisi made his proposal, no Arab leader ever seriously considered actually doing what must be done. Indeed, the rejection of this self-evident Israeli claim has been so overwhelming that in recent years, every Israeli suggestion to this effect was met with raised eyebrows and dismissal by Israelis and foreigners alike.

That line from John Ford’s classic The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance contains wisdom everyone from peasant to king knew before our modern age and its smug illusions. Go back 2,400 years, and you can hear it from the Athenian orator Demosthenes as he chastises his fellow citizens for responding to Macedonian aggression by “forever debating the question and never making any progress” and issuing “empty decrees.” “All words, apart from action,” Demosthenes warned, “seem vain and idle, especially from Athenian lips: for the greater our reputation for a ready tongue, the greater the distrust it inspires in all men.” We’ve had several years now of watching Obama and his foreign policy team prove this eternal truth as they have feebly and fecklessly responded to crisis after crisis in Ukraine, Syria, and a dozen other venues.

Just in the last few weeks we have heard a lot of bluster about Islamic State, the rampaging jihadists in northern Iraq who have left in their wake a trail of traditional Muslim mayhem–- sectarian cleansing, forced conversion, slaving, rape, torture, slaughter, and Koran-inspired beheadings, including two American journalists. In response to these decisive deeds, Obama has thundered that he will “degrade and destroy” the “cancer.” In an op-ed co-written with British Prime Minister David Cameron, he has vowed that the allies “will not be cowed by barbaric killers.” His vice president Joe Biden, with his usual trite hyperbole, has threatened, “We will follow them to the gate of hell until they are brought to justice.” And Secretary of State John Kerry, after the beheading of journalist James Foley, has warned, “The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil. ISIL and the wickedness it represents must be destroyed, and those responsible for this heinous, vicious atrocity will be held accountable.” “By whom” is the question the passive voice artfully leaves unanswered.

To paraphrase Demosthenes, the greater this administration’s ready tongue, the greater distrust it inspires in our allies, and the greater boldness it creates in our enemies. Or to put it in my old man’s more earthy terms when I smarted off, “Don’t let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash.” Obama has been bouncing foreign policy checks from Ukraine to the South China Sea, and most points in between.

Indeed, the deeds necessary to back these loud boasts have been few. That should not surprise us, since Obama has said and done much to tell the world that we will not act decisively, relying instead on verbal processes and gestures of force like bombing some trucks to create a telegenic illusion of action. He started his presidency with the “apology tour,” on which he called the U.S. “arrogant, dismissive, derisive,” confessed that we are “still working through some of our own darker periods in our history,” proclaimed that we “will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made,” confessed that “too often we set [our] principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford” and so “we went off course,” and promised that we “are working to improve our democracy.” How could such a tainted and flawed state have the moral authority to act with the confidence and decisiveness that his recent rhetoric implies?

Likewise his domestic deeds have undercut the capacity to enforce his tough foreign policy words. Because of cuts to the military budget––inspired in part by his desire to reduce the U.S. to merely one unexceptional member of an international coalition that supposedly can maintain global order and create collective security––our military capacity is destined “to be an increasingly hollow force,” as Bret Stephens writes, “with the Army as small as it was in 1940, before conscription; a Navy the size it was in 1917, before our entry into World War I; an Air Force flying the oldest—and smallest—fleet of planes in its history; and a nuclear arsenal no larger than it was during the Truman administration.”

It’s not enough that the Justice Department is investigating the shooting of Michael Brown by a Ferguson, MO police officer. Now it’s opening up [1] a “pattern and practice” investigation of the entire Ferguson police force. The big question: Is this Justice Department capable of conducting a fair and impartial investigation?

The applicable federal law (42 U.S.C. §14141) makes it unlawful for any governmental authority “to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers … that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” This is not a criminal statute; it gives DOJ authority to file a civil action to “obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.”

The question about the Department’s ability to conduct a fair “pattern and practice” inquiry arises because the shop responsible for conducting the investigation is the Special Litigation Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Sections attorneys enjoy incredibly broad discretion in deciding what investigations and cases to pursue and have a disturbing track record of abusing that power.

As I explained in one [2] of a series of articles called “Every Single One” that J. Christian Adams and I wrote for PJ Media on hiring in the Civil Rights Division:

Anyone who doubts the havoc that renegade attorneys from the Special Litigation Section can inflict on municipal institutions needs only read Heather MacDonald’s extraordinary piece – “Targeting the Police: The Holder Justice Department Declares Open Season on Big City Police Departments” [3] – detailing the $100 million that the Los Angeles Police Department has been forced to incur as part of a draconian federal consent decree demanded by the Section’s legal staff. Or one can examine the (fortunately failed) efforts by Section attorneys during the Clinton administration to intimidate the state of New Jersey into radically modifying its law enforcement practices based on bogus allegations of racial profiling by state troopers.

Incredibly, the Section’s staff even tried to suppress [4] the report that completely debunked the allegations. It was a sad state of affairs that eventually caused the Bush administration to have to remove the then-chief of the Section and force the line attorney involved to find alternative employment.

Political correctness kept authorities silent and whistleblowers ignored for a decade.

It was revealed last week that between 1997 and 2013, at least 1,400 girls, as young as eleven years old, in just one relatively small English city (Rotherham, population 275,000), had been repeatedly and systematically raped by gangs of men over the past decade.

As summarized in a British government inquiry:

It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

Why was nothing done for 16 years?

Police incompetence was a factor, but not the primary reason.

The primary reason was political correctness. It turns out that the perpetrators were all, or nearly all, of “Pakistani heritage” and the girls were all, or nearly all, white.

This explanation is not that of conservatives alone. Virtually everyone, including media and politicians on the British left, acknowledge that this is the reason. What neither they nor the American Left have acknowledged is that political correctness was created and is sustained by the Left.

It is a testament to the lack of self-awareness on the left that it experiences no cognitive dissonance. The New York Times and other left-wing media have thoroughly reported this story and the fact that political correctness is to blame for what was done to these girls. Yet they are oblivious to the fact that they are the very ones who created the moral monsters known as political correctness, multiculturalism, and “diversity” — the doctrines that forbid judging non-whites, Muslims, and others by the same moral standards by which whites and Christians are judged.

Let us count the ways: bald lies, lies of omission, mythography, amnesia, redaction . . .

We can usefully view the Obama administration’s chronic untruthfulness as a sort of multifaceted corporation of untruth, with all sorts of subsidiaries.

THE BALD LIES OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY
Remember the al-Qaeda-is-on-the-run 2012-election talking point? It was mostly a lie. The administration deliberately released to sympathetic journalists only those documents from the so-called Osama bin Laden trove that revealed worry and dissension among the terrorists. Then it nourished essays by pet journalists trumpeting the decline of al-Qaeda. Disturbing memos that confounded that narrative, as Weekly Standard journalist Steven F. Hayes recently noted, were kept back. “On the run” was dropped after the 2012 election, when events on the ground made such an assertion absurd.

Recent disclosures by some of the combatants about the night of the Benghazi attack remind us that almost everything Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama swore in the aftermath of the debacle was knowingly false. A video did not cause the attack. The rioting was not spontaneous. A video-maker, an American resident, was soon jailed, while one of the suspected killers was giving taped interviews at a coffee house in Benghazi. There were ways of securing the consulate and the annex that were not explored, both before and during the assault. Talking points were altered. Again, the catalyst for untruth was reelection worries by an administration that believes its exalted ends of social justice allow any means necessary for reaching them.

Has anything the administration said about pulling our troops out of Iraq proven true? Was it really the Iraqis’ fault or George Bush’s? Was our leaving proof that Iraq might be one of the administration’s “great achievements”? Was the Iraq that we left without any peacekeepers really “stable”? On more than ten occasions the president bragged on the campaign trail that he alone had ended American involvement in Iraq. When Iraq predictably blew up after our departure, he snarled to reporters that he was angry that anyone would dare accuse him alone of being responsible for our precipitate departure.

Was there any element of “reset” with Russia that was accurate? Obama came into office lambasting the prior administration for alienating Russia — when all it had done was adopt some rather moderate measures to punish Russia for invading Georgia. Reset, in truth, was a remission of punishments — from missile defense with the Czechs and Poles to cut-offs of some high-level negotiations — and thus served as a signal to Putin and his subordinates that Obama believed America had been wrong to react to Georgia. And we know what followed from that.

LIES TO HIDE WHAT WE DON’T LIKE
On issues where the public is at odds with the administration, the Obama team too often makes things up to hide its isolation. Little the administration has stated about the IRS scandal has proven true. It was not a slip-up in one local office; nor were liberal groups equally targeted. There was quite a bit more than a “smidgen” of corruption. The administration’s strategy was to make so many things up that the public got confused and the matter went away. The corruption worked to defang the Tea Party in 2012, and the cover-up — except for fall woman Lois Lerner, who took the Fifth Amendment — worked even better.

Have any of the statements the administration has presented about our southern border proven true? Do we know how many people have recently crossed into the United States illegally, what exactly U.S. immigration policy is, or where exactly foreign nationals are and what are their statuses? The public polls strongly against lax borders and blanket amnesties, so the administration apparently must deceive to permit both — and in a politically disingenuous fashion of postponing the requisite executive orders until after the 2014 midterm elections, while blaming the delay on the crisis on the border that it caused.

Did much of anything prove accurate about the Affordable Care Act? Costs, keeping our doctors and existing plans, the effect on the deficit, the website? Had the president in 2008 outlined honestly the ACA’s provisions, he would never have gotten elected, or had he by 2012 fully implemented them, he would never have gotten reelected. Lying about Obamacare and demonizing any who objected were smart politics, but the president will never regain the trust of those whose premiums spiked, who lost their coverage and their doctors, and who still do not understand what exactly Obamacare is.

According to Roy Gutman, in an article published recently by the McClatchy Newspapers, the Kurds have delayed plans for a referendum on independence. The reasoning seems to be that it is better for the Kurds to first concentrate on defeating the existential threat to the Kurdish region from the brutish ravages of Islamic State (IS).

Massoud Barzani is the Kurdish leader of the largely autonomous Kurdish region but his chief of staff, Fuad Hussein, has said: “We now have a priority to clean the area of IS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). IS must not remain our neighbor. When you have this priority, some other priorities will be delayed.”

Once the Islamic State savages are finally defeated and Barack Obama no longer suspiciously delays and obstructs what any normal U.S. president would have undertaken long ago – namely the total eradication of the barbaric Muslim Islamic State thugs who have been allowed to befoul the world – it is hoped that at long last an independent, sovereign Kurdistan will arrive on the world stage.

The Kurds, like the Jews, unreservedly deserve their existing homelands, for both trace their ancestry in them back thousands of years. It is highly instructive to review the Kurds remarkable history in conjunction with that of the Jews. It is also necessary to review the historical injustice imposed upon both indigenous peoples over the centuries by hostile neighbors and empires.

Let us go back to the captivity of the Ten Tribes of Israel, who were taken from their land by the Assyrians in 721-715 BC. Biblical Israel was depopulated, its Jewish inhabitants deported to an area in the region of ancient Media and Assyria – a territory roughly corresponding to or near that of modern-day Kurdistan.

Assyria was, in turn, conquered by Babylonia, which led to the eventual destruction of the southern biblical Jewish kingdom of Judah in 586 BC. The remaining two Jewish tribes were sent to the same areas as their brethren from the northern kingdom.

When the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus the Great, allowed the Jews to return to their ancestral lands, some Jews remained (and continued to live) with their neighbors in Babylon – an area which, again, included modern-day Kurdistan.

It was only in 1948, upon the birth of the reconstituted Jewish State of Israel, that the 2,500 year old Jewish life in the region ended when the Arab regimes drove the Jews out of their ancient homes; most fleeing to safety in Israel.

Not money, power, territory or revenge. The Russian strongman is after bigger game.

Vladimir Putin aims to reconstitute the Russia of the czars. He wants to avenge the historic humiliation, as he sees it, that was the collapse of the Soviet Union. He’s got to do what he’s got to do to stay in power, probably for life, if necessary by whipping Russians into nationalist frenzy. And he wants to have a lot of fun while doing all of it.

To adapt Mel Brooks : It should be good to be king.

All true. But maybe Mr. Putin is after bigger game. And maybe our failure to think about how Mr. Putin thinks about himself explains our consistent failure to anticipate his moves and check his ambitions. “What a novel my life has been!” said Napoleon on St. Helena. It wasn’t an idle remark: Napoleon had been an aspiring writer as a young man. Suppose Mr. Putin is also living his life as a novel. How would he write the next chapter?

Here’s a guess: Not by quivering in fear that a fresh round of sanctions is going to spark the third Russian Revolution, or that NATO is going to stop him from another advance into Ukraine or some other tempting neighbor. There’s a reason men who are on a roll never take a break: a udentes fortuna iuvat. Fortune favors the daring.

Right now, fortune for Mr. Putin comes, first, in the shape of Barack Obama. The Russian was bound to see the American president as the classic self-infatuated liberal, half as clever and twice as weak as he imagines himself to be. As a former KGB agent working in East Germany, Mr. Putin would have had training, and perhaps experience, in reducing these types to human rubble.