RUTHFULLY YOURS

At the New York Times website this morning, if you dig down under stories on the Donald Trump Circus, you will find a one-line link, buried beneath several other one-line links, to a report titled, “U.N. Vote on Iran Nuclear Deal Irks Congress.” Further burying the lede, you must scour down to a passing reference in paragraph four to find a glimmer of the real story: The Obama administration has already raced to the United Nations Security Council to spearhead action, today, that would adopt Obama’s Iran deal in a resolution that will begin the deal’s implementation.

The Times tut-tuts that this has left the people’s representatives in Congress “irked,” that lawmakers of both parties are “complaining that the Security Council action, expected Monday morning, would pre-empt the congressional debate.”

It’s difficult to say what’s more striking about President Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation: its breathtaking radicalism, the refusal of the press to cover it, or its potential political ramifications. The danger AFFH poses to Democrats explains why the press barely mentions it. This lack of curiosity, in turn, explains why the revolutionary nature of the rule has not been properly understood. Ultimately, the regulation amounts to back-door annexation, a way of turning America’s suburbs into tributaries of nearby cities.

This has been Obama’s purpose from the start. In Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, I explain how a young Barack Obama turned against the suburbs and threw in his lot with a group of Alinsky-style community organizers who blamed suburban tax-flight for urban decay. Their bible was Cities Without Suburbs, by former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk. Rusk, who works closely with Obama’s Alinskyite mentors and now advises the Obama administration, initially called on cities to annex their surrounding suburbs. When it became clear that outright annexation was a political non-starter, Rusk and his followers settled on a series of measures designed to achieve de facto annexation over time.

Facts, as the saying goes, are stubborn things.

Unfortunately, these days debates about climate change too often occur in fact-free zones. So let’s stipulate two truths: Yes, our climate is changing over tim,e and, yes, humans have played some part in that change. That said, before we react rashly to warnings of imminent climate catastrophe, we should consider humankind’s checkered history of such claims.

When I was growing up, people across the country were riveted by Paul R. Ehrlich’s best-selling book, The Population Bomb. Ehrlich’s book warned of mass starvation that would hit the United States in the 1970s and ’80s due to overpopulation, and called for immediate, draconian measures in response.

So what happened to his prediction?

The short answer is Norman Borlaug. Borlaug, known as the “father of the green revolution,” was awarded the Nobel Prize because, perhaps more than anyone else, he was responsible for the expansion of global food production, which allowed the world to avert Ehrlich’s now-infamous forewarning of impending catastrophe.

“Islam belongs in Europe… I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini.

Under the treaties establishing the EU, there are no democratic checks on figures such as Mogherini or on the enormous power they wield.

“It was Hamas’s strategy, not illegal Israeli action — as this report shamefully alleges without a shred of evidence — that was the reason why over 1,000 civilians died in Gaza.” — Col. Richard Kemp.

As a result of the border policies imposed by Mogherini, ISIS’s scheme to augment such a migrant flow with jihadists is now being accomplished.

Mogherini, the official responsible for the EU’s borders represents a sheltered elite, convinced that the solution to problems in the Middle East and North Africa is importing their populations into Europe.

“We simply can’t have a situation where different rules apply to families from different family backgrounds. The law of the land should apply equally regardless of the heritage of the children involved.” — Conservative MP Philip Hollobone.

Observers say that Pastor McConnell’s prosecution is one of a growing number of examples in which British authorities — who routinely ignore incendiary speech by Muslim extremists — are using hate speech laws to silence Christians, but not others.

“It [Islam] doesn’t seem to be a bit accommodating at all in understanding everybody else’s religions.” — UK Independence Party MP David McNarry.

The devil is in the details, as they say, and the map (above) illustrating the claim — reverently reported by the Fairfax press, of course — that June, 2015, was the hottest month ever recorded on Planet Earth makes the point. According to the “news” organisation’s Peter Hannam, SMH environment editor, “land and sea-surface temperatures last month and for the first half of 2015 were the warmest in 136 years of records, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said on Monday.”

Now Quadrant Online cannot speak for sweaty sorts in Brazil and we are in no position to agree or differ about what the mercury has been doing in Malawi. But we do know about Melbourne, which has been enduring one of the harshest winters in decades.

How cold? Well, it has been a snap to get the cling wrap off your delivered morning newspaper because near-freezing overnight temperatures make the plastic brittle and easy to unfurl. There has been snow in places that seldom see it. Little kids being dropped off at school by their mums are so rugged-up and padded they make the Michelin Man seem svelte.

Gallup published in late July a poll that showed that Republicans strongly disapprove of the Supreme Court, in stark contrast with Democrats. This ought to be a rallying cry for Republicans going into the 2016 election.

No institution in American government has been as destructive and arrogant as the Supreme Court. Until we unwind the anti-constitutional arrogance of power this court has seized for itself, the problems of our political system cannot be solved.

Last week, when four unarmed U.S. Marines and a Navy petty officer were murdered by a 23-year-old fanatic named Mohammed in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the President of the United States was in the process of hyping our national surrender to Iran’s drive for nukes.

The White House also gave its annual Eid el Fitr dinner for Muslims, at a time when they celebrate the end of Ramadan by butchering sheep and goats in the backyard, using the same throat-slitting method the 9/11 hijackers used to murder American and United Airlines personnel, fourteen years ago.

ISIS videos show the same throat-slitting style, to promote the religion of peace. Throat cutting follows Mohammed’s command to “strike at the neck” of Islam’s enemies.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/san-francisco-one-sick-sanctuary-city/?print=1

The horrific — but likely preventable — death of Kate Steinle at the hands of five-time deported illegal alien and seven-time released felon Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez should remind us all of the dangerous wages of ignoring the law.

In the upcoming months, the trial of her killer (on parole from Texas authorities and a user of aliases) may well prove a circus of sorts. We will likely hear all sorts of contextualization to explain why either Lopez-Sanchez was not culpable for the shooting, or hardly can be seen as the inevitable result of a quite unhinged policy. Or we will hear that he was just aiming at sea lions and simply missed with one of his three shots. Indeed, already the ubiquitous and often shameless Rep. Gutierrez has scoffed (on Telemundo no less) that the death of Kate Steinle was “a little thing” [1] (una cosa pequeña).

The latest kerfuffle – actually it’s more than that — in the Republican presidential shootout is between Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and it’s over the all-important Iran deal. Stephen Hayes writes in The Weekly Standard:

Speaking to reporters here Saturday after an appearance at the Family Leadership Summit, Walker said the next president will need to be prepared to take aggressive action against Iran, “very possibly” including military strikes, on the day he or she is inaugurated, and said he would not be comfortable with a commander in chief who is unwilling to act aggressively on day one of a new presidency. In his announcement speech at the beginning of the week, Walker had promised to ‘terminate’ the Iran deal on day one of his presidency, and Bush, at a town hall four days later, said ending the deal on the first day of a new administration was unrealistic and suggested that promises to do so, while politically appealing, reflected a lack of seriousness