RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Syrian conflict has taken many unpredictable turns over its terrible four years. But the developments this week are some of the most concerning so far.

Syria has always been not only a domestic civil war but also a place where regional powers have struggled with each other to promote and prop up their own interests. This seemed to be tolerable to much of the West when the countries vying with each other in Syria were Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf States and others. But the arrival of Russia in an open, rather than covert, manner changes things completely.

Because Russia is now openly involved and engaged in seeing the civil war to the end they have always wanted, and just as Turkey has used air strikes purportedly against Isis to in fact engage in their war against the Kurdish PKK, so Russia, under the guise of pursuing Isis, has clearly been carrying out its own sectarian, pro-Assad business.

The United States, President Obama said at the U.N. General Assembly last week, “worked with many nations in this assembly to prevent a third world war—by forging alliances with old adversaries.” Presumably, the president was not referring to his deeply flawed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the recent agreement that the White House has marketed as the only alternative to war with a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. Rather, it seems he was referring to the post-World War II period, when the United States created and presided over an international order that prevented an even larger, potentially nuclear, conflict with the Soviet Union. Now, that Pax Americana may be ending.
Indeed, Russia’s airstrikes against CIA-vetted Syrian rebels last week looked like a punctuation mark. When the secretary of state holds a joint press conference with Moscow’s foreign minister after Russia has decimated American proxies bearing American arms, we are not witnessing anything like a return to the Cold War. Rather, we’re witnessing a new order being born. It is an order that is being designed by others, without any concern for American interests.

My e-pal Ed Cline is author of innumerable great columns posted on his blog, on Family Security Matters and on Ruthfully. He is also author of dozens of books listed here…for your choice and reading pleasure….rsk

I received a request from a fan for a chronology of my works, especially of the novels. I have already replied to that request, but, for the enlightenment of other readers here, and for their convenience, I include my answer below.

This is a copy and paste of my Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Cline). The only titles with double publication dates are the Sparrowhawks (The only exceptions are First Prize and Whisper the Guns), which include the original MacAdam/Cage dates, followed by the Patrick Henry Press pub dates. I had to republish the Sparrowhawks after MacAdam/Cage ceased paying me earned royalties and stopped printing those titles, and then the publisher declared bankruptcy. Including them in the publication list or on my Wikipedia page was necessary because those were actual events. (The only exceptions are First Prize and Whisper the Guns.) These editions precede the Patrick Henry Press editions in the listing here. The only Sparrowhawk titles I wish people to purchase are the Patrick Henry Press republications; I no longer am paid royalties from purchases of the MacAdam/Cage editions. Also, Amazon and the Library of Congress would require the inclusion of the MacAdam/Cage publication dates, as well, in any biographical account that included my publishing credits.

Perfect Crime Books publishes the Chess Hanrahan detective series. My Patrick Henry Press publishes (through Create Space and Kindle) the Cyrus Skeen and Merritt Fury series (as well as my nonfiction). You will notice that the Kindle and Audible Amazon numbers assigned to all these titles are missing; including them would have made the Wikipedia page unwieldy and repetitive. It is assumed that anyone searching for one of the Patrick Henry Press printed editions of the Sparrowhawks or the Skeen detective novels would also encounter on Amazon the Kindle and Audio Book options. E-book editions of the titles are carried exclusively by Amazon; the print editions of the titles are also carried by Barnes & Noble and other sales venues, but not the Kindle editions.

The radicalization of Muslims in Belgium provides ominous lessons for the rest of Europe
At the turn of the 21st century, a parade of books and articles declared that the American century had ended, and that the new century would be a European century. Matthew Kaminski of Politico wrote recently that in 2000, many believed that “a continent free, whole, prosperous looked within reach” and that “the new century promised pooled sovereignty, peaceful cooperation, soft power, and social justice.” As Kaminski notes, futurologist Jeremy Rifkin wrote that Europe’s “vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream” and that “Europe will run the 21st century.” Washington Post correspondent T.R. Reid predicted that the Euro would replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The Euro, he wrote, “is more than money. It is also a political statement—a daily message in every pocket that cooperation has replaced conflict across the continent.”
Brussels represented the kind of post-national, multicultural city that European bureaucrats hoped the continent would become. In a 2001 report entitled “Brussels: The Capital of Europe”, Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco wrote, “In the presence of a multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnic Europe, Brussels [is] the center where diversities are not eliminated, but rather exalted and harmonized.” In May 2001, British historian Timothy Garton Ash described Brussels as “a place where highly sophisticated, multilingual men and women from the most diverse backgrounds . . . reconcile national interests and national ways of thinking with the pursuit of larger, common interests.”

This tenth anniversary of the Mohammed cartoons is a glum day for free speech. But that’s no reason for some “social media” billionaire not to make it worse. During her visit to New York for the grand UN dictators’ ball, Angela Merkel was overheard rebuking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for permitting people to post “anti-immigrant” sentiments on social media:

On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.

The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

The very small cartel that run “social media” worldwide are increasingly hostile to free speech outside of a limited and largely trivial number of subjects. Ours will be the first civilization to slide off the cliff while watching cat videos.

~I wonder if, by the time Zuckerberg’s “done some work” on this, we’ll still be able to quote Henryk Broder on Facebook. The author of The Last Days of Europe, Broder was one of the speakers in Copenhagen joining me to mark the tenth anniversary of the Motoons. (You can hear my remarks here, and Douglas Murray’s here.) As befits his book title, he was something of a pessimist, especially when it came to Chancellor Merkel and her perplexing enthusiasm for unassimilable “refugees”:

So — who had the Russians bombing Syria and the Palestinians voiding all deals with Israel in the pool on Tuesday night before going to bed?

“News,” a coinage of the late Middle Ages, is a shortened version of the phrase “new things.” And these two pieces of news genuinely define the word. They’re events that hadn’t happened before and immediately changed what will happen going forward.

What’s amazing is that they came as a surprise, since both have been foreshadowed for weeks in the case of Russia and a couple of years in the case of the Palestinian Authority. And yet they did.

Presidential candidate Marco Rubio literally predicted the former during the Sept. 16 GOP debate.

This week, the hero of the Democratic Party’s liberal activists — Elizabeth Warren — forced the resignation of Robert Litan, a distinguished scholar from the center-left Brookings Institution. Her actions deserve attention because they suggest the tactics she might employ if she were to become the Democratic presidential nominee — or the president. Her hardball moves also underline just how intolerant of opposing views many liberals now are. Litan, who had been affiliated with Brookings for more than 40 years, is no conservative, but his failure to sign on to the Warren crusade against financial institutions turned him into a casualty. Previously, Warren had blocked investment banker Antonio Weiss from becoming a top Treasury official and Larry Summers from becoming Federal Reserve chairman. She has real power. But is she misusing it?

In the Litan case, Warren and her allies are angry about the growing opposition to a proposed Obama Labor Department rule that would increase disclosure requirements for financial advisers. In fact, that opposition now includes half of all House Democrats and virtually all Republicans in Congress. Ninety-six House Democrats signed a letter this month calling on President Obama to make major changes in the rule. “We continue to hear from constituents, academics, providers, and investors that there are specific provisions of the Rule that may cause market disruptions and limit the ability of segments of the market to reasonably access advice,” the lawmakers’ letter said.

It’s a moment Republican onlookers always knew would come, though they did not know precisely when: The long-simmering tension between former Florida governor Jeb Bush and his one-time protégé, Florida senator Marco Rubio, has become a public spat. It was Bush who made it one.

Until this week, the two presidential rivals had exchanged veiled barbs. Bush had claimed, without naming Rubio, that he is the only candidate in the race with enough experience to clean up the mess in Washington. Rubio had said, without naming Bush, that the time is ripe for a new generation of leadership.

But on Wednesday, Bush began naming names, comparing Rubio, a man he once urged Mitt Romney to select as his running mate, to Barack Obama — not the inspirational leader who has helped to remake the Democratic coalition, but the neophyte executive who has left many conservatives angry and dispirited.

It’s Bush’s latest attack against an adversary he clearly considers a threat, and it comes as the governor is feeling pressure from skittish donors to break out in debates and in the polls. First, in what appeared an attempt to make the GOP contest a two-way race, came sallies in early September against the businessman Donald Trump, who had assailed Bush as a “low energy” candidate. The polls didn’t budge, and Trump’s charge stuck. Now, with his super PAC beginning a $24-million ad buy, Bush is turning his sights to Rubio, who has risen in the polls and who many say is threatening to steal his former mentor’s position as the party’s establishment favorite. Whether the ads persuade and the attacks land will do much to determine Bush’s fortunes.

President Obama’s attitude and policies of appeasing the Islamic Republic have reached an unprecedented level. After the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, lashed out at the United States and Israel at the United Nations General assembly, President Obama’s response was intriguing: He continued to apply additional appeasement policies. He pointed out to the world leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly that the “United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict.”

Basically, President Obama’s words granted critical global legitimacy to Iran, projecting Iran as a powerful state in fighting terrorism and resolving conflicts, projecting the United States as desperate, weak on the global stage, and in need of Iran. More fundamentally, Obama’s statement placed Iran on the right side of the equation: Iranian leaders are the “good folks” battling terrorism.

How can the US work with Iran while the Islamic Republic is the major sponsor of terrorism in the region? The Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps is militarily operating more freely than before in several countries in the region including Yemen, Syria, Iraq, etc. Iranian leaders are boasting about occupying four Arab capitals: Sanaa, Beirut, Damascus, and Baghdad.

Mere hours after a young, mixed-race religion-hater fatally shot at least nine apparently Christian victims at an Oregon college, President Obama tried to harangue Americans into supporting fresh restrictions on guns, the most severely regulated consumer goods in America.

The shooter has been identified as 20-year-old Chris Harper-Mercer. Police say in mid-morning they received reports of a gunman walking around Umpqua Community College (UCC) near Roseburg, Ore. As is the case in all or perhaps nearly all mass shootings at schools, UCC was a gun-free zone.

Wearing body armor, the man reportedly entered a classroom where an English and writing class was being conducted and demanded that those present state their religion.

Those who indicated they were Christian were fatally shot. Those who refused to answer were reportedly shot in the legs. Harper-Mercer apparently died during a shootout with responding police but at time of writing it was unclear if he killed himself or was shot by the officers.