Displaying posts published in

February 2016

Rubio the Comeback Kid in South Carolina Leaves New Hampshire behind him. By Roger L Simon,

To call a Republican the “Comeback Kid” when that moniker was applied to Bill Clinton is perhaps damning with strong praise, but that’s what happened with Marco Rubio coming back from his New Hampshire brain freeze with by far the best performance in Saturday’s South Carolina debate.

The fresh ghost of the great American jurist Antonin Scalia hovered over the debate, but it faded into the firmament quickly as Donald Trump did everything he could to act like a horse’s ass. What was wrong with him — he had been doing so well lately? I have been (generally) supportive of Trump and couldn’t care less about most of his insults or his use of profanity. But when he started to blame George W. Bush for 9/11, he went off into kookland and I thought my head would explode. Was I suddenly listening to Ron Paul? Donald came off for the moment as a desperate, juvenile jerk. And for what reason? He’s ahead. Does he want to shoot himself in the foot? It’s possible he has a real self-destructive streak. But then with Trump you never know what’s going to happen, which is basically the whole point — the apotheosis of politics as theatre.

The pundits said Ted Cruz had a decent night. I wasn’t so sure. Cruz is obviously an extremely smart guy, but someone who is constantly reminding us “Who do you trust? Who do you trust?” makes me nervous. I think I’m at a car dealership.

“Treason” In Turkey: Asking for Peace by Uzay Bulut

The Turkish state authorities have made it clear that calling for an end to state violence in Turkey’s Kurdish regions is “treason.” This means that in Turkey, requesting peace and political equality between Kurds and Turks is illegal.

The 1128 original signatories of the “Academics for Peace” declaration have been subjected to sustained attacks and threats from the Turkish government and nationalist groups. In the week after the publication of the declaration, at least 33 academics were detained by police. Some have lost their jobs. Associate Professor Battal Odabasi from Istanbul Aydin University, for instance, was fired for supporting the petition. At least 29 academics have been suspended from their jobs at universities.

On January 11, 2016, a group of academics and researchers from Turkey and abroad called “Academics for Peace” signed and issued a declaration entitled, “We will not be a party to this crime.” In it, they criticized the Turkish government for its recent curfews and massacres in Kurdish districts, and demanded an end to violence against Kurds and a return to peace talks.

“We declare that we will not be a party to this massacre by remaining silent and demand an immediate end to the violence perpetrated by the state,” the declaration said.

In total, 2212 academics and researchers from Turkey, and 2279 from abroad, signed their names onto the declaration.

War hero: The death of Avidgor Ben Gal By Jonathan F. Keiler

Very few Americans have ever heard of Avigdor “Yanush” Ben Gal, who died yesterday in Israel at age 79. But Ben Gal is an important figure in 20th-century history, who directly contributed to the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union, albeit in an indirect way.

Ben Gal was an officer in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) Armored Corps. Like many Israelis of his generation, he got to Israel in a roundabout way. As a boy, he fled Poland as a refugee with his parents into the Soviet Union at the start of World War II. His parents died along the way, but with his sister Ben Gal made it to the Palestine Mandate. He served in the IDF in the 1956 Suez Campaign, the Six-Day War of 1967 (in which he was badly wounded), and the War of Attrition that followed. He won his place in military history a few years later, during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Then, as commander of the IDF’s crack 7th Armored Brigade, he arguably saved the Jewish state from destruction, and both established and proved the tactical and operational concepts for defending the West against mass Soviet-style tank assaults.

At about 2 p.m. on October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a coordinated surprise assault on Israel. IDF forces faced overwhelming odds on both fronts, but Israel had some breathing room in Sinai against Egypt. Not so on the Golan Heights, where Ben Gal deployed with his brigade. There only a few scant kilometers separated the front line from Israel proper. The Syrians threw 30,000 troops and 1,500 tanks (supported by as many artillery pieces) at the Israeli line. That line was thinly held by the under-strength 188th Barak Armored Brigade in the southern Golan and by Ben Gal’s brigade to the north. Between the two units, the Israelis deployed 177 tanks, about 50 artillery pieces, and fewer than 3,000 infantrymen.

In three days of bloody fighting (in which the Barak Brigade was effectively wiped out, with both its commander and deputy commander killed in action), Ben Gal held the front together with surviving elements of the 188th and his own brigade. In this action, Ben Gal’s tanks savaged the Syrian assault, destroying 600-800 tanks (plus hundreds of other armored vehicles). Ultimately, the 7th Armored stopped the Syrian attack cold, though at the conclusion of the fight, fewer than a dozen IDF tanks were still runners, the rest destroyed, damaged, or broken down. A day after the defensive fight concluded, the surviving tanks of the 7th Armored, along with reserves, counter-attacked into Syria.

EDWARD ALEXANDER: A REVIEW OF “NOTHING ABIDES: PERSPECTIVES ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND ISLAM” BY DANIEL PIPES

This review appeared in the Chicago Jewish Star

Nothing Abides: Perspectives on the Middle East and Islam, by Daniel Pipes. Transaction Publishers, 2015.
More doggedly than any other expert on Middle East affairs Daniel Pipes has riveted his attention upon the threat that radical Islam poses to civilized life in nearly every corner of the globe. The Boston Globe was not indulging in hyperbole when it stated that “If Pipes’ admonitions had been heeded, there might never have been a 9/11.” He is the polar opposite to the willfully blind politicians who, as if to prove that the greatest deceivers are the self-deceivers, refuse even to identify the enemy by name and even (in Europe) impugn any criticism of the world’s most intolerant religion as a violation of human rights. Faced by the naked aggression of a militant and aggressive form of Islam, our own president, secretary of state, and those who now aspire to perpetuate their policies in Washington keep insisting that “climate change” is our main national-security concern. (“Bernie” Sanders would go one step further and , according to the Wall Street Journal of January 20, 2016, open “criminal investigation of climate dissenters.”)

Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum, and has taught at several universities as well as the US Naval War College. He is a public speaker of prodigious energy and singular courage in the face of Islamist intimidation. He has also made a major contribution to the debate over American foreign policy about how to put an end to the 68-year old Arab war against Israel, which has forced its citizens to carry on their lives under a constant burden of peril such as no other nation has had to endure (unless we count the pre-Holocaust Jews of Eastern Europe as a nation without nationhood).

Nothing Abides is a compendium of essays published by Pipes between 1994 and 2014. The title alludes to the “instability, volatility, and perpetual motion [that] continue to characterize Muslim communities.” It also takes for granted Samuel Huntington’s definition of the borders of “the religion of peace” as the “ceaseless wars waged by Muslims against non-Muslims, from the Christians of Iberia to the Hindus of Bali.” The essays are grouped in five sections: The Arab-Israeli Conflict; Middle Eastern Politics; Islam in Modern Life; Islam in the West; Individuals and American Islam. (Lest there be any confusion about Pipes’ position with respect to Muslims, he has encapsulated it thus: “My slogan is that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.”)
Section 1, “The Arab-Israeli Conflict,” is likely to be of most immediate interest to readers of the Chicago Jewish Star. One of its topics is the (interminable) “peace process,” the peace processors and promoters, whose careers, in journalism and politics, demonstrate that in this realm nothing succeeds like failure, and (so Pipes argues) that “what is called the ‘peace process’ should actually be called the ‘war process.’”

There’s Precedent For Rejecting Supreme Court Nominees By Gabriel Malor

Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.

Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.

President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1943. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!

Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year.

Several pending cases were expected to be 5-4 decisions. Crucially, the immigration (DAPA) case, United States v. Texas et al., and the mandatory union dues case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell cases on the contraception mandate accommodation.

Decisions that are tied with a 4-4 vote have no binding precedent and the decision of the lower court is upheld. This would be good in United States v. Texas et al., because the lower court’s decision was that states have standing to sue against an Obama policy that muzzles states from enforcing immigration laws.

A kiss in Havana: Pope rolls out his ‘Mission Impossible’ on world stage: By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING-Much to the amazement of the rest of the world, Pope Francis and the Vatican have been steadily raising their profile in international affairs over the past couple of years.

The latest expression is a historic meeting in Havana, Cuba that took place between the Pope and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill on Feb. 12. A symbolic “kiss” in an airport VIP room symbolized the first meeting between two leaders of the churches in 1,000 years in a political gesture also aimed at Russia. The pontiff also broke precedent on Feb. 2 by sending a Chinese New Year’s greeting to President Xi Jinping. He also called on the world “not to fear China’s rise” in an exclusive interview with Asia Times.
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis embrace in Havana.

Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis embrace in Havana.

At first glance, this may appear to be a miracle. But the developments have deep historical roots. It is a continuation of the Vatican’s past approach to world affairs that shows itself more clearly due to the failure of the US, its competitors, the UN and other existing agencies to provide leadership in the world. Sensing a political vacuum, the church has moved to fill the void.

Reaction to U

Last Night’s GOP Debate: Lies and Liars By James Arlandson

“If strength of language without all the anger that Trump showed is the criterion, then Rubio won, with a close second to either Cruz or Bush.Bottom line: Rubio did what he had to do, so the laurels go to him.”

The main story for the night was anger and passion. Does this help or hurt the GOP’s prospects in November?

Everyone seemed nervous, including the main moderator. His voice quavered. But the moderators were not the story, so we can move past them.

Everyone talked about Scalia’s passing and how important this election is. Two branches of government are at stake.

With that appropriate opening, let’s take them in alphabetical order.

Bush

He criticized Trump as having a wrongheaded foreign policy. Russia should not be an ally, and Assad should not remain in power. Bush does not get his foreign policy from TV, which Trump does.

Bush told Trump to stop attacking Bush’s elderly mother. Trump leveled the charge that George W. did not keep America safe; look at 9/11, after all. Bush shot back that while Trump was building a reality TV show, his brother was building a security apparatus that kept us safe.

He brought up Trump’s “McCain is a loser” comment. Trump denied it, but unconvincingly, because everyone knows he said it.

He went after Trump on eminent domain. Trump pointed out that George W. used it to build a stadium. Jeb said he disagreed with his brother; eminent domain is okay for public reasons, but not for private business.

His line of the night: Reagan said to tear down this wall, while Trump tears down other people.

Don’t Let Obama Fill Scalia’s Seat By Bruce Walker

Congress has frittered away virtually every constitutional power save one: the power of the Senate to deny presidential appointments to the federal bench. If Senate Republicans expect conservatives to ever trust them on anything, then they must decline to consider Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia.

There is precedent for this. In 1968, when Republicans were a Senate minority possessing only the power of filibuster, Everett Dirksen prevented Lyndon Johnson from appointing Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren and then appointing Homer Thornbury to take Fortas’s seat as an associate justice.

Senate Minority Leader Dirksen did not run the Senate or control any Senate committees. Republicans, in fact, held only 36 Senate seats, and several of these were leftists. Yet Dirksen was able to cobble together enough senators to prevent Johnson from filling a Supreme Court office during a heated election year. The left, of course, squealed and yelled, but it lost, because Senate Republicans and a handful of Senate Democrats stood firm.

If Everett Dirksen, who was only a moderate conservative holding a very weak hand, was able to thwart LBJ, who had been Senate majority leader before he was vice president and who knew all the ropes and all the tricks of the Senate, then Senate Majority Leader McConnell clearly has the power to do the same.

In fact, all McConnell and the Republican leadership have to do is to decline to consider any nominee appointed by Obama. State clearly that the Senate is exercising its constitutional power and, unlike Obama who presumes powers he does not have, that the power to confirm or deny a presidential appointment is at the heart of the Senate’s control of the Executive Branch.

Michael Galak The Very Russian Mind of Vladimir Putin

Dr Michael Galak and his family came to Australia as refugees from the Soviet Union in 1978
His country enjoyed a decade of the relatively good life, courtesy of its energy exports. As that bounty shrinks and collapses, don’t expect the leader’s grasp on power to be enfeebled. Paranoia, propaganda and history will likely put pay to any and all hope of change, let alone reform
L’etat, c’est moi

— Louis XIV

Those words reflect not only the totality of a leader’s identification with the functioning of his entire state, they also speak of a damaged personality and, in their imperious arrogance, a lack of insight that we should bear in mind when contemplating the fundamental distinctions between Western and Russian governance. The former’s ability to change leaders and adjust in an orderly, transparent and bloodless fashion sets it apart. Russians on the other hand, along with Arabs, Africans and many others not blessed by traditions of democracy, property rights and free speech, lack such mechanisms. This makes it of immense importance to understand the personality of the autocrat presiding over the Russian Federation and its nuclear arsenal. As the West has no choice but to cope with Vladimir Putin, it is essential to understand him.

First, never forget that Putin is a product of a country isolated from the wider world by history, religion and culture, even down to its alphabet. Above all, what has set Russia apart is the abiding fear of its ruling class that their own people will come to recognise just how pitifully incompetent and corrupt are their masters. Russians bear the accumulated scars from centuries of bloodshed and despotism, the well-founded expectation being that those in power will always feel free to treat the populace with utter contempt when it suits their purposes. This is Putin’s cultural legacy as both a product of that society and the man who now presides over it. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it in one of her more astute moments, Putin inhabits a world of his own. He is sincerely convinced that he is empowered to redress with his actions and policies the historic injustices he sees as having been inflicted on his homeland by the West. To balance the scales, to achieve what he sees as “justice”, he will do whatever he deems is required. More than that, he will do so without shame, reservations or apology.

The US Senate Must Hold the Line By Frank Salvato

With the passing of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia we stand at a very sober moment for our nation, a moment that finds the US Constitution – and the idea of constitutionality in general – in a very fragile state. With the make-up of the US Supreme Court existing on a razor’s edge between the conflicting ideologies of Progressivism (which views the Constitution as malleable) and Constitutionalism (which sees the document at a limitation on government) what happens in the next months will serve to chart the course for our country. The two paths couldn’t be more different: one a pathway to national demise.

I am want to recall a passage from a speech that Ronald Reagan gave in 1964:

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Today, with the passing of Justice Scalia, the Republican and Conservative members of the United States Senate have met up with their own “rendezvous with destiny.” They will soon be presented with a nominee to the US Supreme Court from President Obama, a Far-Left Progressive who has already seated two political activists to the Court. It will be the Senate’s duty – not their option, but their duty – to deny Mr. Obama another Progressive seat on the US Supreme Court.

Progressives by their very nature believe that the US Constitution is a flawed document; something to be improved, perfected and otherwise titrated to the needs of the times. That is anathema to what the Framers intended and history bears that out. The Framers intended for the US Constitution to be the “chains” that binds government to the service of the nation, not the service to the ideological and/or the few.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”