RUTHFULLY YOURS

We all know Bush’s Iraq War, but we don’t know much about Obama’s Iraq War. Republicans fight wars. Democrats engage in police actions, impose No-Fly Zones and provide security for humanitarian missions. They don’t do anything as vulgar as fight wars. That would be warmongering.

Even by the war-shy standards of Democrats, Obama’s word games with war have been something else.

Obama’s wars are complex shell games. When he goes to war, he claims that it was at the request of a third party, which was actually fulfilling his request to file a request that it later takes back, based on a pretext that turns out to be false, to carry out a mission that turns out to be a pretext for regime change.

At least that’s how it happened in Libya.

The Thugs of India ingratiated themselves with trusting travellers and strangled them to honour the goddess Kali. If only writers and politicians of the Victorian Age had been less judgmental, more inclined to focus on un-radicalised Thugs, how much more kindly might we remember them?
In a parallel universe, someone who resembled the Earthbound Sir Robert Peel explained to the British Parliament in early 1835 that it was wrong to blame peaceful Thuggees for the actions of a few. Radical Thuggees, who might be called Thugs for short, he suggested, were the problem. Hence the word thugs entered the lexicon.

I was thinking of this piece of pseudo-historical trivia when reading Wikipedia on the topic of Thuggees. Here is an excerpt:

There was a time, now fading from memory, when laws were made by legislatures. Today, look not to elected representatives for the setting of laws, but to the judges whose keen eye for identifying formerly unrecognised “rights” would appear to be boundless
For a considerable time, judicial power in Britain has been expanding at the expense of legislative and executive powers, and promises to continue to do so. But if this is to continue – and there are powerful reasons why it should not – it should be brought about not just by changes in the thinking of legal elites such as academics and judges, but with the understanding and assent of the public, or at least of those elected to represent the public. Furthermore, they must possess the knowledge needed to decide whether to assent or to oppose the change. This lecture is intended to provide some of that knowledge by describing recent developments and setting them within a broader philosophical and comparative context. This should be of interest elsewhere in the Anglosphere, wherever parliamentary government and the common law have grown from the same British stock.

While I will sometimes speak critically of judges expanding their own powers, I do not intend to impugn their motives. Decisions that have expanded judicial power have always been motivated by the laudable goal of promoting justice or the rule of law, and often with success. It should be acknowledged that the philosophical and political issues I will discuss are difficult ones, about which well informed and reasonable minds can and do disagree. On the other hand, it is this very fact – the existence of reasonable disagreement – that underpins the case for substantial constitutional change being brought about only through democratic reforms, and not by unilateral judicial innovation.

In the aftermath of the Shoah, horrified Europeans wanted to turn over a new leaf. Yet, as the Yad Vashem professor of Holocaust studies ruefully observed, the modern left tirelessly updates and amplifies all the ancient blood libels under the guise of ‘anti-Zionism’
Robert Wistrich, who died of a heart attack on May 19, 2015, was arguably the most important public intellectual of the past twenty-five years. He was, fittingly, about to address the Italian Senate on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. I met him only once, in January 12, 2012, when he addressed a group of twenty-three Australian educators at the International School for Holocaust Studies in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. The first part of his two-and-a-half hour presentation was titled “The Intellectuals and Rise of Modern anti-Semitism in Europe – 19th and 20th Centuries”, and that was followed by “Reflection on the Phenomenon of anti-Semitism in the Modern World (focus on Europe)”.

Wistrich would not be especially impressed by the “public intellectual” moniker, given that he placed much of the blame for modern-day anti-Semitism on – I quote from his lecture – “intellectuals, ideologues and second-rate journalists”, not excluding Wilhelm Marr, who first coined the term “anti-Semitism” in 1879 to differentiate his new-style anti-Jewishness, as outlined in The Victory of Jewry over Germandom, from traditional Christian anti-Judaism. In fact, Wistrich reminded us that the “intellectuals, ideologues and second-rate journalists” of almost every imperial, universalist or millennialist movement have identified “the Jewish problem” as an impediment to their would-be emancipatory projects. Each new rebellion and revolution in Europe, from Luther to Voltaire to Marx and beyond has somehow managed to “reproduce all the stereotypes of medieval Europe”.

These dyed-in-the-wool liberal critics of Israel’s policies are actively working to rally American Jewish opinion against Israel by stepping up their condemnations of the prime minister.

I am watching with increasing concern the abandonment of the Zionist dream by so many American Jews as a result of the recent elections in Israel, as if that community can ever feel safe absent the existence of Israel.

Frankly, I never thought that I would live to see the day when the likes of Peter Beinart and Jeremy Ben-Ami, among others, would urge American Jews to act against Israel and/or to actively lobby the US government to “reset” its traditional support for its only democratic and reliable ally in the Middle East. This is the same US government that, under the current administration, has been guilty of a failed foreign policy which has turned America into a non-trusted partner about whom the Arab world’s leaders makes jokes.

Hillary Clinton is an artful dodger when it comes to taking positions on lots of issues, but last Friday she opened a clear gap between herself and virtually every possible GOP presidential candidate.

Breaking with sincere progressives such as Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, Hillary went out of her way to endorse the Export-Import Bank, a little-known government agency that guarantees loans so that American corporations can sell products overseas. Its charter is set to expire on June 30 unless Congress rescues it from critics who have long opposed its record of funneling the vast majority of its loans to mega-companies such as Boeing, General Electric, and Caterpillar — all of which can easily secure trade financing on their own.

But Hillary appears to have no trouble embracing such corporate welfare. While secretary of state she shilled for the Ex-Im Bank. In 2009, she appeared in Moscow with officials of the Russian airline Rosavia to tout its pursuit of Ex-Im funding. This is how she put it: “This is a shameless pitch for Rosavia — I’ve said what you wanted me to say, Sergey — to buy Boeing aircraft. Right? The Ex-Im Bank would welcome an application for financing from Rosavia to support its purchase of Boeing aircraft, and I hope that on a future visit I’ll see lot of new Rosavia-Boeing planes when I land in Moscow.”

After all the speechifying yesterday on Memorial Day, this ongoing scandal at the VA is truly appalling and one can only salute and support the ongoing efforts of OpenTheBooks.com.for exposing it….rsk
Adam Andrzejewski is the founder of OpenTheBooks.com. The mission is to post ‘every dime online in real time’ of all federal, state and local public spending. This editorial is based on the data collected and posted within our data commons.

Bonuses at the most troubled VA facilities run virtually unabated

Last year, it took a courageous whistleblower, Dr. Sam Foote at the Phoenix Veteran’s Administration facility, to focus national attention on a ‘cook-the-books’ wait-times bonus scandal. At the Phoenix facility alone, Dr. Foote suggested that up to forty veterans died while waiting to see a doctor and up to 1,300 veterans had to wait up to six months for an appointment.

Although the Phoenix facility was the touchstone, the scandal was national: Memphis, Hines-Chicago, Biloxi, Albuquerque, Miami, Gainesville, Central Alabama and many other facilities were cited as ‘troubled.’

Yet, during and after the worst scandal in Veterans Administration history, not only did the VA continue the practice of doling out bonuses, but nearly half the bonuses in 2014 were paid to the exact same employees as the previous year. Where’s the accountability?

Nero, allegedly, fiddled while Rome burned. Today we have a Commander in Chief who seems equally unhinged from reality. In a world fraught with Islamic terrorists and muscle-flexing autocratic nations, the enemy on which he is focused is climate change. On the Wednesday before Memorial Day, President Obama came to the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut to warn the newly graduated second lieutenants of the far-reaching consequences of climate change, and of man’s responsibility to halt its effects. Like the Norse King Canute who, after conquering Denmark, England and Norway, tried to hold back the waves, Mr. Obama went to Denver in 2008 and promised that his Presidency would bring the time “when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” Global warming is the yardstick he has used to define his Presidency.

It seemed to make no difference that the world was being shattered – at least in part because of our neglect. The day before the President’s speech the Iraq city of Ramadi fell to ISIS, the North Koreans revealed they had the ability to attach a nuclear device to an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching the U.S., and the Iranians said that UN nuclear inspectors would not be allowed into Iran. The next day, the ancient (and strategically important) Syrian City of Palmyra fell to ISIS. Two days later, tensions rose between the U.S. and China over the latter’s constructing of artificial islands 800 miles off their coast in the South China Sea.

Just getting news reports that a bomb squad has detonated a device found in a suspicious car near the U.S. Capitol Building.

Breaking 911 reports:

DC Officials, including the bomb squad, have apparently blown up a device from a ‘suspicious’ vehicle parked near Capitol and a Memorial Day Concert.

The item looks like a pressure cooker and propane tanks have been removed from the car.

Thousands of people eager to get into the National Memorial Day Concert were delayed from entering.

Police are still searching the vehicle.

Jay Korff of the local ABC affiliate is tweeting details:

OK then:

UPDATE: The plot thickens…

UPDATE2: The Washington Times identifies the arrested man as Israel Shimlis.

Fox News reports:

The incident began at around 5 p.m. local time, when Capitol police officers on patrol noticed a vehicle they deemed “suspicious” on a street that crosses the National Mall west of the Capitol between Constitution and Independence Avenues. Further investigation revealed that the vehicle contained a pressure cooker and detected an odor of gasoline.

A bomb squad was called in and streets were temporarily closed off. The pressure cooker was detonated at approximately 7:45 p.m. The investigation was closed approximately 35 minutes later with nothing further found.

Senior security officials told Fox News that investigators initially believed that the pressure cooker “might be the real deal.” Pressure cookers have been used in several recent terror attacks, mostly notably the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured 260 others.

Sources told Fox News that the pressure cooker may have been part of a propane tank used in a food truck.

Jeb Bush should withdraw from the presidential contest of 2016. He should do so soon to become a true hero to our country that sorely needs one. And he should accompany his withdrawal with a detailed explanation of his reasons. It is not just because his mother Barbara Bush was correct in her original assessment that the United States does not any more Bushes or Clintons. It is far more.

The Democratic Party looks determined to nominate a woman for president that a majority of the country thinks a liar. A recent poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal found a paltry 25% of Americans believe Hillary Clinton to be honest. And this is before Mrs. Clinton assumes office. Who knows what would happen thereafter when so many presidents find themselves in crisis situations demanding courage and integrity?

If Mrs. Clinton were to win the presidency, she would do so under a cloud of distrust unprecedented in any of our lifetimes. She would have no honeymoon period and would not deserve one. And this would be happening at a moment in history when the entire world is on a knife edge because of the rise of radical Islam and ISIS throughout the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia, Latin America and, increasingly, Europe, not to mention having to monitor the controversial nuclear deal with Iran, if and when such a thing is signed.