RUTHFULLY YOURS

The left is winning, but for the left winning is indistinguishable from dying. The West didn’t defeat Communism; it held it at bay long enough for it to defeat itself. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China crushed Communism more decisively than Goldwater could have ever dreamed of.

The embargo didn’t turn Cuba into a hellhole whose main tourism industry is inviting progressive Canadian pedophiles [1] to rape its children. Castro did that with help from the dead guy on the red t-shirts.

“One of the greatest benefits of the revolution is that even our prostitutes are college graduates,” Castro told Oliver Stone. In real life, his prostitutes are lucky if they graduated from elementary school [2].

American admirers eager to get to Havana claim to be worried that Starbucks will ruin their Socialist paradise. What really worries them is that American businesses might give Cuban teens an economic alternative to sexually servicing decrepit leftists from Berkeley for $10 a night in the revolutionary version of Thailand where everyone is free, especially the political prisoners and raped children.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned at this evening’s Yad Vashem ceremony to mark Yom HaShoah that the civilized world has been “lulled into slumber on a bed of illusions” this many years after the Holocaust.

“In the years before World War II, the free world tried to appease the Nazi regime, to gain its trust, to curry its favor through gestures,” Netanyahu said at the Holocaust Memorial Day event. “There were those who warned that a compromising policy would only whet Hitler’s appetite, but these warnings were ignored due to the natural human desire for calm at all costs.”

The prime minister spokes of those who like to repeat the phrase “never again,” vowing that the Holocaust’s lessons have been learned.

“They declare: ‘We will not turn a blind eye to the expansion aspirations of a violent tyranny.’ They promise: ‘We will oppose evil things as soon as they begin.’ But as long as these announcements are not backed by practical actions – they are meaningless,” Netanyahu said.

“Did the world truly learn a lesson from the inconceivable universal and Jewish tragedy of last century? I wish I could tell you that the answer to this was positive.”

He warned that “just as the Nazis aspired to crush civilization and to establish a ‘master race’ as ruler of the world while annihilating the Jewish people, so too does Iran strive to gain control over the region and then spread further, with the explicit intent of obliterating the Jewish state.”

A bombshell revelation has emerged about the incident responsible for the greatest U.S. Air Force loss of life during the War on Terror, the deadliest “green-on-blue” attack during U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

On April 27, 2011, Afghan Air Force Colonel Ahmad Gul gunned down eight U.S. Air Force personnel and a civilian contractor inside the Afghan Air Force headquarters, including investigators who had just arrived in the country to examine rampant corruption in the Afghan military.

Multiple Air Force and CENTCOM investigations claimed to find no motive for the attack, leaving the families of those killed with no answers.

Usually, when you think of going to the movies, it’s something fun or adventurous, sci-fi dazzle or romantic razzle, something you can immerse yourself in harmlessly for a few hours while nibbling on popped kernels of your favorite salty air-popped corn snack.

And it is slightly gruesome to see films like this, which are thinly scripted true stories of a grisly episode in Paris 2006. It was there that a telephone salesperson, lured into a honeypot assignation by a pretty moll of one of the gang men paid to seduce a specific fellow, captured the prey a gang of thugs in the banlieux were seeking: A single male, Jewish, abductable for money from his presumably “rich Jewish family.”

The entire sordid plan was premised on the absurd belief that every Jewish family, you name them, has millions stashed away, ready to convert into liquid assets and cash at the drop of a cell phone call.

In his State-of-the-Union address, president Obama again confirmed that “saving the climate” remains one of his top priorities. Yet an official December 2014 confab in Lima, Peru didn’t really conclude anything — certainly no binding Protocol to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) — but it “kicked the can down the road” to the next international gabfest in Paris, scheduled for 2015.

The world is looking forward to the 21st annual COP (conference of the parties to the global climate treaty), which will be held in Paris in December of 2015. It is hoped by many that Paris will end up with a climate protocol that will continue and even surpass the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which expired in 2012 and achieved practically nothing except to waste hundreds of billions that might have been better spent addressing genuine world problems — without accomplishing its main goal of reducing global emissions of the much-maligned greenhouse gas CO2. On the contrary, emissions rose — mainly from greatly increased industrial growth in China, which was fueled primarily by coal-fired power plants. At the same time, of course, global agriculture benefited from these higher levels of CO2, which is a natural plant fertilizer; the starving of the world really owe a vote of thanks to China.

Ill-defined federal laws now reach into virtually every sphere of human behavior, and thus prosecutors can destroy almost anyone they choose. The recent indictment of Senator Robert Menendez on 14 counts of corruption and “honest services” fraud is a troubling case in point that deserves more than a little skepticism.

Mr. Menendez is accused of doing government favors for his friend Salomon Melgen, a Palm Beach ophthalmologist and Democratic Party benefactor, in return for vacations and campaign cash. Justice’s quid pro quo tale is often sleazy—Brazilian actresses feature prominently—and Mr. Menendez’s conduct won’t enhance the reputation of Congress. But the quids and quos Justice identifies aren’t illegal on their own—and the indictment never gets to the pro part.

Mr. Menendez is seen, for example, supporting visa applications for Dr. Melgen’s overseas girlfriends and urging the State Department not to undermine a port-security contract that a company Dr. Melgen acquired had signed with the Dominican Republic. But it is not unusual for elected officials to intercede on behalf of constituents and allies. The term for this is representative government.

Dr. Melgen is seen cutting checks to Mr. Menendez’s campaign, the New Jersey Democratic Party and a Super PAC working for the Senator’s 2012 re-election. But then these election-year donations were legal and disclosed, Dr. Melgen supported Democratic causes nationwide, and donors are allowed to give to politicians whose positions are aligned with their interests.

Hillary has a size-of-government fight on her hands.

Republican activists strapping on body armor for the impending presidential campaign may get what they’ve been itching for—the Battle of Washington. That would be the long struggle between Big Government and whatever remnants of individual liberty haven’t disappeared inside the federal maw of rules, laws, programs or prosecutions.

To conservatives this is the Leviathan state, an opponent normally thrashed in 400-page books. In real life, the federal Leviathan simply expands annually. This election could be different, with the fight over the size of government finally ending up in the streets. Several reasons why:

Among many careerists and politicians, tweaking one’s ethnic identity is becoming increasingly widespread.
Not long ago, the New York Times uncovered the artifact that Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush had once listed himself as “Hispanic” on a Florida voter-registration form. Bush is married to a Mexican American. He lived for a number of years in South America and speaks Spanish fluently. Maybe he has consciously assumed a Hispanic identity. Or perhaps he did not think there was much of a difference between “white” and “Hispanic.” Or, as he said, he simply checked the wrong box by accident.

Which presidential candidate is most likely to be tripped up by their position on the Common Core?

Jeb Bush comes to mind, of course. Yet the candidate whose support for Common Core could be most personally perilous—and most consequential for the larger 2016 race—is Hillary Clinton. Yesterday, Clinton effectively endorsed the Common Core.

Yes, she threw a bone to liberal opponents of Common Core by calling on teachers to “lead the way” in further developing these national standards. It’s obvious from Clinton’s overall remarks, however, that she supports Common Core.

Senator Jeff Sessions comes under fire for his reasonable proposal. It’s hard to take New York Times editorials seriously, given their parodic parochialism and cluelessness.

Rebutting one feels almost like writing a non-ironic letter to the editor of The Onion. Its commentary on immigration is probably worse than on other topics, and arguably more harmful. In an analysis of “How Arthur Sulzberger Radicalized the New York Times Editorial Page on Immigration,” my colleague (and Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter) Jerry Kammer wrote: “But the Times has carried its good intentions to a destructive extreme.

Its editorials have poisoned the national discussion of a complex and emotional issue.” And the venom continues to flow. It’s no surprise that the Times’ latest hiss on immigration attacks Senator Jeff Sessions. Specifically, Sessions penned a sober op-ed in the Washington Post the other day arguing that “America needs to curb immigration flows,” meaning not just better controls at the borders but also lower levels of future legal immigration: What we need now is immigration moderation: slowing the pace of new arrivals so that wages can rise, welfare rolls can shrink and the forces of assimilation can knit us all more closely together. I happen to agree, but one could certainly offer a thoughtful rebuttal. Not the Times, though. In Times World, Sessions “worries darkly” about the effects of immigration, choosing “to echo an uglier time in our history” by making “a case for yanking America’s welcome mat.” I assume an editor removed the references to Hitler.