RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Obama argues that his nuclear agreement with Iran means “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off.” He says, moreover, that it sets the stage to “incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave.” It will be “a lot easier,” he predicts, “to check Iran’s nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies’ interests if they don’t have the bomb.”

The approach is a signature feature of Obama’s foreign policy. He has counted on diplomacy in a whole host of other areas to reduce tensions and preempt military conflict. And this approach has failed him repeatedly.
He reset relations with Russia—and Moscow annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine. He launched a strategic partnership with China—and Beijing occupied and built military installations on disputed islands in the East and South China Seas. He extended an open hand to the Muslim world—and radical Islam erupted. Will the agreement with Iran be the next Obama initiative to invite more violence rather than less?

Why did the illegal-immigration issue launch Donald Trump’s campaign? Why did his recent tense press conference exchange with Univision’s Jorge Ramos please even some of Trump’s liberal critics? What is it about illegal immigration that has finally turned off so many Americans?

1. Race

Over the years immigration activists successfully deconstructed the complex issue of illegal immigration into a race and class morality tale of privileged whites picking on poor brown people. The operative buzzwords were “racism,” “nativism,” and “xenophobia.” That theme is now mostly bankrupt given that every great lie eventually falls from its own weight.

It was rarely the host, but more often the activists on behalf of the guests, who framed illegal immigration in racial terms. Activists foolishly fabricated the controversy as “we noble Latinos” against “you prejudiced non-Latinos.” They forgot apparently two obvious truths: one, thirty percent of Americans are not so-called white; and, two, most people resent ethnic chauvinism. Is an unemployed African-American sympathetic to the argument that someone has a birthright to illegally cross into the United States and find instant employment? Is a Punjabi-American, waiting patiently for his engineer cousin to get a green card, eager to be told the United States must make special concessions to the Latino lobby? Does a third-generation Mexican-American prefer that his neighborhood school and emergency room be flooded with indigent illegal Mexican nationals?

Sometime in the last five years, the public woke up and grasped that Latino elite activists were not so much interested in illegal immigration per se, but only to the degree that the issue affected other Latinos. Were 3,000 Chinese illegally entering California per day by ship on the Northern California coast, Latino activists and politicians would probably be the first to call for enforcement of federal immigration law.

The New York Times did a spotlight on one of the heroes of America. Was it a special forces soldier who fought in Afghanistan? No. Was it a border patrol agent apprehending a drug dealer about to cross the border and commit an act of hate? No.

It was a Houston municipal judge who removed his testicles, called himself a girl, and is held up as a role model for the nation.Phillip, now “Phyllis,” Frye is a municipal court judge in Houston, recruited by Houston’s lesbian mayor, Annise Parker.

At one point in the 1980s, Ms. Parker gave Ms. Frye a ride to a conference. During the drive, Ms. Frye confided that she sorely missed playing sports, and that no women’s team would let her join.

Ms. Parker, who coached a lesbian softball team, looked over at the strapping, 5-foot-10 woman beside her and thought, “I really need a power hitter.”

“I got back to her later and said, excuse the pun, ‘I’m willing to go to bat for you,’ ” Ms. Parker said.

The new bogeyman, hex, curse, sneer and left/liberal branding iron is racism. It comes with many names. “Islamophobia.” Bigotry. “White privilege.” It is invoked the moment a single person or publication criticizes the influx of Muslims and illegal immigrants into Europe or into the U.S. It is the “one size fits all” smear that is supposed to automatically silence critics of mass immigration and conflict-engendering multiculturalism and cause them to hang their heads in shame and apology – which it succeeds in doing – and then wave in without control the dross of the earth to loot, murder, rape, destroy, and force “whites” to pay Islamic or welfare state jizya, as the price of being left alone – for the time being.

There was a passage from Churchill’s speech condemning the Munich Agreement of September 1938 which sprang to mind a few weeks ago. In many ways that awful pact mirrors the tragic folly of the Iran nuclear agreement. In it Churchill mentions Czechoslovakia’s isolation and her betrayal by the European democracies which, in many instances, resembles Israel’s position today with the notable exception that Israel is highly armed and far better led:

On October 3rd 1938 with Britain still singing the praises of “Good Old Neville”, Churchill rose to address the House of Commons and quickly punctured the euphoria. Amid catcalls and roars of “rude!” and “nonsense!” and “sit down!” he turned on the men skulking on the Treasury Bench and thundered,

“…..we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat …the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course … All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies.” Ignoring the uproar around him, he gave a stern warning, “Do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year, unless, by a supreme recovery of our moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

Given the weak state of Britain’s defenses it would have made perfect sense to come to an arrangement with Hitler but Churchill understood the absolute evil of Hitler and his Nazis in a way that others did not. It is inconceivable to me that the P5+1 are incapable of recognizing the absolute evil of the Iranian regime’s Islamic supremacist ideology particularly since, unlike Hitler, it does not even bother to hide it.

I won’t attempt to top Marion DS Dreyfus’s fine August 8th review on IPT of Joy Brighton’s Sharia-ism is Here: The Battle to Control Women and Everyone Else . I reviewed Brighton’s book on Rule of Reason on May 6th, 2014 and on Family Security Matters on May 10th. An excerpt of the review also appeared on the Counter Jihad Report on May 12th, 2014.

Dreyfus’s review was reprinted on several other blog sites, most notably on The National Writers Syndicate site on August 8th, 2015. Her review is tellingly illustrated with a photograph of ISIS sex slaves being paraded in a cage on the back of a pickup truck.

Further, much of the material covered in Brighton’s nonpareil book has been cited in my own Jihad: Islam’s Reign of Terror and in A Handbook on Islam.

What follows is a reprint of my May 6th review for those who may have missed it.

It is a profound and critical moment in our nation’s history when more than 200 flag officers condemn Barack Obama’s alarming Iran deal.

The most dangerous presidency in American history is now rushing to its climax. This is the lethal moment that Bush and Cheney warned us about – the catastrophic moment when a fanatical Armageddon regime in Tehran will be guaranteed a path to nuclear weapons. Some military experts are convinced they already have them.

The Bush administration made many mistakes, but it was absolutely on target about the danger of terrorists armed with nukes. For rational actors, nuclear weapons are a last-ditch defense, because in a nuclear exchange, everybody loses. Irrational and suicide-preaching regimes are different, just as Jim Jones was different from your Junior League Club.

Today, Obama actually wants to give the most destructive weapons in the world to Iran’s genocidal regime.

He has simply switched sides.

The surge in Germany’s Muslim population — propelled by a wave of migration unprecedented since the Second World War — represents a demographic shift of epic proportions, one that critics of the country’s open-door immigration policy warn will change the face of Germany forever.

“There are 20 million refugees waiting at the doorstep of Europe.” — Johannes Hahn, EU Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations.

According to Aiman Mazyek, head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, attendance at many mosques has doubled in the past month alone.

A large number (40%) are from countries in the Balkans, including Albania and Kosovo. This implies that nearly half of those arriving in Germany are economic migrants, not refugees fleeing war zones. — Thomas De Maizière, German Interior Minister.

Muslim men residing in Germany routinely take advantage of the social welfare system by bringing two, three or four women from across the Muslim world to Germany, and then marrying them in the presence of an imam. Once in Germany the women request social welfare benefits, including the cost of a separate home for themselves and for their children, on the claim of being a “single parent with children.” — From an exposé broadcast by RTL television.

The administration doesn’t want states to ‘interfere’ with its nuclear deal with Tehran.

President Obama’s executive agreement with Iran is enormously controversial for good reason. Negotiated in coordination with Russia, China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the deal welcomes Iran as a participant in the world community conditioned only on marginal changes to its nuclear program. It effectively allows Iran to maintain technology that would lead to a nuclear weapon, as well as continue its human-rights abuses, sponsoring of terrorism, imprisoning of American hostages, and threats to American allies, including Israel.

So much for Europe’s efforts to put the junk science surrounding genetically modified (GMO) food to rest. Berlin last week signaled it will prohibit cultivation of GMO crops in Germany, even if the crops have been approved by EU scientific bodies and despite an attempt by Brussels to legalize them.

Berlin is using an opt-out option granted by the EU to member states in April. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker moved to keep GMO foods generally legal in the EU, but he bowed to green pressure to allow individual states to prohibit EU-approved GMOs in response to concerns that “are usually not based on science but on other considerations.” That means politically driven consumer opposition or agricultural protectionism.