RUTHFULLY YOURS

After presiding for six years over a war in which over 1,600 Americans were killed fighting the Taliban, Obama did not mention the enemy during his West Point Commencement Address.

That wasn’t unusual. Obama has a curious habit of avoiding the “T-word” in his official speeches. Even when delivering his Rose Garden speech about Bergdahl’s return, the Taliban were never mentioned.

Obama’s mentions of the Taliban vary by context. When speaking to the military he might say that the United States is at war with the Taliban. In international diplomatic settings however he emphasizes that the conflict is really a civil war between the Taliban and the Afghan government with the United States there to act as a stabilizing force.

The President of Afghanistan claimed that Obama had told him, “The Taliban are not our enemies and we don’t want to fight them.”

Joe Biden had expressed similar thoughts, stating, “The Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical.” White House spokesman Jay Carney awkwardly defended Biden by arguing that the United States was fighting the Taliban, but was there to defeat Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan however had already been defeated by Bush.

During the campaign and once in office, Obama had proposed outreach to the “moderate” Taliban. Biden estimated that only 5% of the Taliban were incorrigible while 70% and then another 25% could be reasoned with.

According to Biden, these Taliban were expected to end all ties with Al Qaeda, accept the Afghan constitution and offer equal treatment to women. Obama issued the same demand last year. The Taliban who hold strict religious beliefs about the evils of democracy and the inferiority of women did not rush to take Obama and Biden up on their offer.

A catalog of government lawlessness is more discomforting to contemplate when the catalog is contemporary. We are all familiar with tales of mischief, corruption and abuse of power from other ages and in other places. We call it history. But the new book Obama’s Enforcer by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund documents the rank lawlessness that has saturated Eric Holder’s Justice Department, and thus, the Obama presidency.

Von Spakovsky and Fund’s book releases June 10. It details the radical nest that the Justice Department has become. Their book echoes what I still hear from Justice Department employees across the Department still stuck working for a lawless radical attorney general: you simply cannot believe what is happening inside DOJ.

Eric Holder is Obama’s enforcer. The authors catalog Holder as an enforcer for a progressive gang spanning across all agencies of the federal government. Obama’s enforcer has successfully turned the power and prestige of the Justice Department into a radicalized agency for fundamental change. Holder is the enforcer that has used his power to turn America away from post-racial possibilities and toward race-obsessed legal policies. According to the authors, Holder is the single most important change agent inside the single most important change agency.

The book also covers territory never before touched – namely, why is Holder so radicalized?

I’ve worked at the Justice Department, written a New York Times bestseller about the DOJ, and never discovered what the authors reveal: how Holder’s wife played a central role in turning Holder into a racialist radical.

The authors secured an interview with one of Holder’s old buddies – Craig Donsanto. Donsanto was a lawyer at the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. Donsanto worked with Holder early in Holder’s DOJ career and spent many long days travelling with Holder on DOJ business. What Donsanto shares might explain Holder’s radicalism about race, most famously on display when he described “my people” before a committee of Congress.

Holder “changed” after his marriage, says Donsanto. Holder himself admitted that his wife has an “edge” that he doesn’t have because he “never saw the reality of racism or felt the insecurity that comes with it.”

I WOULD LOVE TO WRITE ABOUT THE 100 WAYS MY OWN LIFE IMPROVED SINCE DAVID HORNIK MOVED TO ISRAEL AND BECAME THAT NATION’S ARTICULATE, STEADFAST, DEPENDABLE AND PRINCIPLED JOURNALIST…..A ROSE AMONG THE LEFTIST THORNS IN ISRAEL’S MEDIA, I DEPEND ON DAVID’S COLUMNS FOR TRUTH, SANITY AND ZIONISM….RSK

1. I put my money where my mouth is.

In my twenties in the U.S., I became intensely “pro-Israel.” I avidly followed its affairs, wrote letters to the editor, even got on the phone to solicit funds for it. I spoke of “the Israelis” as a race of ideal people, heroes; but that was guilt talking. I had to be honest with myself: what I was doing was not enough.

Now I’m here; I’m not just an observer or a fan from afar, but a player. Whatever happens here, for good or bad, happens to me. I walk the walk. I’m morally at peace with myself.

2. I get to watch Israel grow.

Thirty years ago, when I came here, Israel was still in some ways a sleepy socialist backwater. The population stood at four million. Inflation was triple-digit, and public services were so sluggish that it took years—years—to get a phone from the state-owned telephone company.

Today the population stands at eight million. Israel is a world-recognized, high-tech and economic dynamo, ranking 16th of all countries on the Human Development Index. Living here these 30 years has been like watching a confused, shy, awkward kid grow into a confident young master of his fate.

3. I’m in the Land of Abraham.

Eretz Yisrael, the land to which God directed Abraham, the land that was the focus of yearning for two millennia of dispersion. Jews in places like Russia or Poland would cherish an orange from the Land of Israel almost like a sacred object. As I was growing up in upstate New York, images came to me from this land of happy people working and dancing in fields. They were romanticized images, but not totally.

Now I live in it; it’s my daily ambience. But I don’t get used to it; I watch its seasons and hues, its parched summers and moody winters, with an ongoing sense of wonder. Leave it? Unthinkable.

4. I’m always learning Hebrew.

I’ve seen those studies that say learning a language is one of the best exercises for the brain, a way to keep it young. I came here at 30 knowing very little Hebrew, and have been learning it ever since and always will be. By now I’ve conquered quite a lot of the territory—but there’s always more lying ahead.

And Hebrew is not just, of course, “a language.” It’s the language that Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and David speak in the Bible, the rich ore of Jewish culture for thousands of years, now chattered at every street corner in the old-new land.

5. I got to serve in the Israeli army.

At the time I immigrated, even (male) immigrants at my age were supposed to serve. At 33, I did two months of basic training for the Artillery Corps in the broiling sun. Then another two months in an artillery base on the Golan Heights, to learn how to operate the big guns there.

For the 12th time in 36 years, the winner of both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness has failed to win the Belmont Stakes. But another opportunity also disappeared in the homestretch for California Chrome this year. That was the possibility that for the first time ever, a triple crown-winning horse and its jockey, owners, and trainer might have made a White House Rose Garden appearance.

After the disastrous photo op the president held with the parents of deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, for whom he had traded (without the required notification to Congress) five of the nastiest [1] Guantanamo prisoners to the Taliban (or at least temporarily to Qatar for a bit of safekeeping), the president might have welcomed the chance for some light-hearted celebration at the next Rose Garden event. The country’s sports-fan-in-chief — a job he fills more easily and more capably than commander-in-chief — might have enjoyed the opportunity to shatter the thoroughbred glass ceiling at the White House.

Having the Rangers, Kings, Heat or Spurs for a White House visit (or, in some cases, repeat visit) would be pretty routine at this point. Think, on the other hand, of the diversity celebration that would have been on display with California Chrome’s owners, a trainer named Sherman, a jockey named Espinoza, an African American president, and a dark-horse winning thoroughbred (Lipizzaners would not be so welcome [2]).

No president has inserted himself more into popular-culture venues than Barack Obama. The president now makes a regular interview appearance on Super Bowl Sunday to the nation’s largest annual television audience, offers up his NCAA brackets to CBS broadcasters who treat them as the equivalent of messages from Delphi, shows up regularly for sporting events in the Washington area, and by his own admission watches a lot of games on TV (as well as ESPN’s Sports Center nightly). The president has joked, perhaps wistfully, of his desire to start a career at ESPN after his White house playing days are over.

No administration has been as social-media savvy. And never has an administration cared so much about participating in this new communications environment, with cabinet members and aides regularly tweeting their instant reactions and heartfelt “feelings” about this and that (e.g., “Putin invading Crimea is really not good at all” or “Donald Sterling must go, solidarity with the Clippers”). The president himself has regularly appeared on lowbrow television programs like The View and offered himself or Michelle up for interviews with women’s magazines or People. Press conferences have been rare and, until recently, easy-going affairs with journalists eager not to offend.

The first few days of rolling out my new book, Faithless Execution, have been exhilarating, with few things more gratifying and humbling than the wonderful review by one of my very favorites, PJ Media’s own Roger Simon.

It has been uplifting to see how many people really are alarmed—rather than indifferent, as I worried—to the problem of rampant presidential lawlessness. People really do grasp that the separation of powers, which is so threatened by President Obama’s usurpation of the powers of the states and other federal departments, really is the key to protecting our liberties. Too much accumulation of power in one government official’s hand—particularly, the Framers observed, the joining of the legislative and executive power in a single department or person—is the road to tyranny.

When people grasp that, they similarly grasp that presidential lawlessness is not a conservative versus liberal issue, nor Republican versus Democrat. It is a question of whether we still aspire to be a republic under the rule of law instead of subjects under presidential whim. If they are not knocked down, the precedents that President Obama is setting for imperial executive power will be available for exploitation by every future president, regardless or party or ideological orientation. That ought to frighten all Americans, not just opponents of the current president’s policies.

I make a sustained attempt in the book to explain that impeachment—the ultimate constitutional response to presidential lawlessness—is a political remedy, not a legal one. You can have a thousand impeachable offenses, but if there is not a strong public will that the president be removed, impeachment is a nonstarter. The political case for removal is the one that is uphill. Establishing the legal case for impeachment—i.e., demonstrating that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed—is the easy part.

That is because “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term of art the Framers borrowed from British law, does not refer to penal statutes defining what we commonly think of as crimes and misdemeanors. They are, as Hamilton put it, the “political wrongs of public men”—breaches of fiduciary duty by high officials in whom great public trust is reposed. The concept is much more resonant of the military code of justice than penal laws, embracing such offenses as dereliction of duty (such as a commander-in-chief who replenishes Taliban enemy forces in wartime) and the violation of an oath (such as the oath to preserve the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws).

According to Article 110 of the Islamic Republic’s Constitution, the Supreme Leader must oversee all matters. Even the release of one single prisoner is not possible without his signature. Presidents are just paraded around for the sake of the West.

Silent executions continue under Rouhani. Political prisoners remain without medical aid but with prolonged well-planned torture, to kill them without formal executions.

The only difference seems to be that now prisoners are taken to hospital, photographed in an examination gown and returned to prison without treatment — to create the appearance that the prisoner was treated, to appease human rights organizations.

Crimes committed against Baha’is are not punished in Iran: according to Islamic law, they are considered non-persons.

Internationally, the Islamic Republic of Iran is still basking in having falsely attained a “moderate” status for President Hassan Rouhani and a seat on five sub-committees of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, including the Commission on the Status of Women. Inside Iran, however, daily life still consists of systematic arrest, torture, persecution of minorities and accelerated executions.

In just one week under the Islamic Republic:

Roya Nobakht, a dual British-Iranian citizen who lived in Stockport, England, was sentenced on May 30 to twenty years in prison for a comment she posted on Facebook during her three week holiday in Iran. The comment simply stated that the government was “too Islamic.” According to HRANA News Agency, she was among eight others sentenced to a total of 128 years for similar comments. All were charged with “endangering national security, insulting Islam and gathering crowds.”

The arrest of four men (Bahman Tafazolinasab, Afshin Zemanati, Reza Tejareh and Davood Afrooz) was also reported by HRANA on May 30 for “Facebook activities” in the city of Dehdasht. Three social media users (Saleh Tamouli, Hamzeh Zargani and Adel Sadooni) from Ahwaz were sentenced — after being severely tortured for two months — to three years each on charges of administrating pages in Facebook. Facebook, Twitter and, most recently, Instagram are strictly banned in the Islamic Republic.

In her new book, Hillary Clinton picks out a few foreign policy topics on which she thinks it now safe, even helpful, to express disagreement with the course taken by the Obama administration. She wanted to arm and train the Syria rebels, while Obama did not. She thought it unwise to call for Hosni Mubarak to step down immediately, while Obama wanted him gone.

She acknowledges that the Obama administration’s demand for a settlement freeze from Israel as a precondition to talks with the Palestinians “didn’t work.” Yet she also seeks to exculpate herself from this failure by claiming that she was against the policy from the beginning. According to the Washington Post, she “disagreed with Obama and then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on a demand that Israel halt all new settlement construction. ‘I was worried that we would be locking ourselves into a confrontation we didn’t need,’ she writes.”

A confrontation indeed ensued – a long and nasty one that continues to this day and has been perhaps the most consistent feature of the administration’s foreign policy. Yet for all her alleged opposition to the policy that launched the confrontation, no one save President Obama himself played such a prominent role in provoking it, amplifying it, and prolonging it.

Immediately after Obama first issued the demand for a freeze, Clinton took the lead in making indignant, confrontational public statements that were clearly intended to intimidate the Israelis and gratify the Palestinians. The freeze, Clinton said, was the only way to get Abbas and the Palestinians to talk.

Yet as we now know, they never had any intention of talking, were never pressured by the Obama administration to talk, and instead sat back and enjoyed the spectacle of Obama and Clinton beating up on Netanyahu in public. And what a spectacle it was.

Mrs. Clinton’s diplomatic memoir invites us to forget her record.

“However one feels about Mrs. Clinton, she was the least consequential secretary of state since William Rogers warmed the seat in the early years of the Nixon administration. This is mainly the fault of the president for whom Mrs. Clinton worked, and of the White House hacks who had the larger hand in setting the tone and shape of foreign policy. Most everyone knows this, and most everyone doesn’t want to admit it. So in place of a record we have a book. ”

Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president of the United States, and why not? We live in an age of choreographed reality, and hers is among the most choreographed of lives. Also, an age of the triumph of symbol over substance and narrative over fact; an age that demonstrates the power of the contention that truth matters only to the extent people want it to matter. Mrs. Clinton’s career is testimony to these things as well.

Which brings me to the subject of her book.

I obtained an advance copy of “Hard Choices,” her latest doorstop of a memoir, and started reading it before its publication Tuesday. There she is, bitterly regretting her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. There she is again, standing by her actions during the Benghazi debacle, insisting on the relevance of the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

Elsewhere we find her equivocating over her opposition to the Iraq surge (which, as we learned from Robert Gates’s memoir “Duty,” she privately admitted was purely political), or allowing that the Obama administration’s decision to stand silent over the stolen 2009 Iranian revolution was something she “came to regret.”

The Internal Revenue Service may have been caught violating federal tax law: In October 2010, the agency sent a database on 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups containing confidential taxpayer information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to documents obtained by a House panel.

The information was transmitted in advance of former IRS official Lois Lerner’s meeting the same month with Justice Department officials about the possibility of using campaign-finance laws to prosecute certain nonprofit groups. E-mails between Lerner and Richard Pilger, the director of the Justice Department’s election-crimes branch, obtained through a subpoena to Attorney General Eric Holder, show Lerner asking about the format in which the FBI preferred the data to be sent.

“This revelation that the IRS sent 1.1 million pages of nonprofit tax-return data — including confidential taxpayer information — to the FBI confirms suspicions that the IRS worked with the Justice Department to facilitate the potential investigation of nonprofit groups engaged in lawful political speech,” Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan wrote in a letter to IRS commissioner John Koskinen. The two lawmakers also raise questions about the timing of the meeting, just weeks before the 2010 midterm elections, when Republicans recaptured a majority in the House of Representatives.

The Justice Department never prosecuted social-welfare groups, and e-mails from IRS officials show their awareness that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of money from nonprofit groups and labor unions to flow into the political process, the law did not favor a crackdown on anonymous donations to politically orientated nonprofits, which sprouted up on all sides in the wake of the ruling. “We don’t have the law to do something,” an IRS official responsible for tax-exempt organizations said in a September 2010 e-mail.

The Obama administration’s new carbon rules won’t put a dent in emissions.

For people who use the word “science” as a bludgeon and trumpet their strict commitment to fact and reason, the Obama administration and its supporters are strangely incapable of rational analysis of new climate-change regulations.

President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency released draft rules last week to create a vast new regulatory apparatus with no input from Congress — in other words, to govern in its accustomed highhanded, undemocratic manner. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, in particular coal-fired plants, to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The rhetoric around the rules has involved self-congratulation about how they are the inexorable result of taking climate science and the reality of dangerous global warming seriously. “Science is science,” President Obama said in an open-and-shut tautology about global warming during an interview with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. By the same token, math is math, and the new regulations make no sense.

While the regulations are stringent enough to impose real economic costs — especially in states that produce coal or heavily use coal power, or whose economies have grown relatively robustly since 2005 — they have almost no upside in fighting global warming. That’s because the U.S. is only part of the global carbon-emissions picture, and a diminishing one at that.

We account for roughly a sixth of global emissions, and our emissions have fallen the past few years more than those of any other major country. In fact, we’ve already achieved about half of the administration’s 30 percent goal, in part through the boom in natural gas, which produces half the carbon emissions of coal.

The regulations aim to cut carbon emissions by 700 million tons by 2030. That sounds like a formidable number only if it is abstracted from the context of the rest of the world. As Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute notes, carbon emissions increased worldwide by about 700 million tons in 2011 alone. China increased its emissions by 3 billion tons from 2006 to 2012.