RUTHFULLY YOURS

Most of the Syrians we see on the nightly news and on newspaper front pages are not fleeing war-torn Syria. The three-year-old Aylan Kurdi (his real name is Alan Shenu) whose heartrending death was broadcast around the world was not fleeing Syria. He’d lived his whole short life in Turkey, where his parents had been living in safety.

The Shenu family, like so many of these refugees, left Turkey on a smugglers’ boat, ultimately trying to reach Canada in pursuit of better economic prospects and a better life.

This distinction is often lost in the coverage of the European “refugee crisis” that is in many respects a migrant crisis. According to the law, never mind morality, we treat refugees differently. Refugees flee for their lives. Migrants make choices.

“I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.”

— Donald Trump, in an interview for Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success, by business journalist Michael D’Antonio.

“Trump was willing to say and do almost anything to satisfy his craving for attention. But he also possessed a sixth sense that kept him from going too far.”

— D’Antonio’s conclusion to the book.

One often-underappreciated virtue of U.S. presidential campaigns is that their extreme length makes it very difficult to conceal what makes a candidate tick. (Barack Obama in 2008 was an exception, and he had help from an actively complicit media.)

This reality is finally catching up to Donald Trump.

As good as his “sixth sense” may be, Trump seems unlikely to avoid “going too far” in the long four-month stretch between now and the Iowa caucuses in February.

On Wednesday night, it came to light that Trump had made fun of rival candidate Carly Fiorina’s looks to a Rolling Stone reporter. “Look at that face,” he was overheard to say. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Trump now claims he wasn’t talking about Fiorina’s appearance, but her “persona.”

Before the news of his Fiorina remark broke, Trump spoke at an afternoon rally protesting President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and blasted Obama for failing to secure the release of four Americans jailed in the Islamic Republic. Then he misapplied a lesson from history: “If I win the presidency, I guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office. I guarantee that. They will be back before I ever take office, because [the Iranians] know what has to happen, okay?”

Obama’s original Iraq treason led to his Iran treason today.

In his sales pitch for the nuclear deal with Iran that even he admitted gives the terrorist regime a near zero breakout time to the bomb, Obama pulled out every conceivable stop. He even accused opponents of trying to get the country into a war with Iran just as they had “brought the country” into the Iraq War.

But Obama was responsible for the rise of ISIS and his deal with Iran sets the stage for the next Iraq War. His original Iraq treason led to his Iran treason today.

To understand why that is, it’s important to realize how we got here.

Obama campaigned on a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. As with so much else, he lied. But his plan for a rapid withdrawal did win an endorsement from one key ally. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki backed Obama’s push for a swift withdrawal, stating that American soldiers should leave “as soon as possible.”

Maliki was Iran’s man in Baghdad who had been picked by Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC had conducted the Shiite terror campaign against American soldiers in Iraq. Maliki’s endorsement of Obama meant an endorsement from the godfather of Iran’s terror machine whose IEDs were responsible for the murder of over 500 American soldiers.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 should have been a rude awakening from the dogmatic slumbers of the previous decade. Instead, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West went on a vacation from history. The seeming triumph of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism convinced many that all we had left to do was to oversee the inevitable triumph of the Western paradigm throughout the world. Unfortunately, the “world,” especially the Islamic ummah, had other plans, ones that our own bad ideas and cultural dogmas have advanced.

Most broadly, the centuries-long belief that all peoples everywhere are embryonic Westerners should have been shattered by the slaughter in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. The attacks were a horrifically graphic reminder that our core ideals––human rights, sex equality, tolerance of difference, peaceful coexistence, personal and political freedom, material prosperity, the separation of church and state, free speech, and consensual government founded on law––were historical anomalies rather than the destiny of all humanity.

Sensing weakness in the West, the absence of conviction and resolve, illegal migrants of all kinds pour into Europe. More drown. The problem gets bigger. And worse. Nations can only be generous if they feel secure. Australia has absorbed that lesson. The international community … not so much.
In 1957 I took out my first subscription to a “small magazine”. I did so through my school, St Mary’s College in Crosby, Lancashire, which encouraged its boys to take the Times and magazines such as the Spectator and the New Statesman as first steps to becoming leaders of society. My English teacher, Mr Hughes, had never heard of the magazine I chose, however. It was called Crossbow, the house journal of the Bow Group, itself quite a new body of young Tory intellectuals who wanted to continue talking politics late at night despite having left university. Perhaps because so many Bow Groupers worked in the London media, Crossbow’s launch had been covered by the BBC news. It still exists, incidentally, though mainly on the internet, where a search for it may mis-direct you to a magazine for electric crossbow enthusiasts.

Mr Hughes eventually tracked down the magazine, and its first issue devoted to “An Expanding Economy”, arrived at school. It left me cold. I was too young for the charm of economics. And how could an economy expand anyway? Or, come to that, contract? But its second issue inspired me—and it went on to inspire the world too.

Four young Tory activists—Crossbow editor Tim Raison, celebrated British athlete Christopher Chataway, Picture Post journalist Trevor Philpott, and financial writer Colin Jones, then on the Economist—launched a campaign in Crossbow to make 1960 a World Refugee Year when governments and voluntary bodies would devote special efforts to clearing the backlog of refugees and DPs (displaced persons) living in camps mainly in Europe, the Middle East and Hong Kong. The idea caught fire, public opinion was aroused, US$92 million was raised in donations (a huge sum then), voluntary bodies were enthusiastic, an amazing array of celebrities from Clement Attlee to Dame Edith Evans endorsed it, the United Nations adopted WRY in a resolution, the Soviet bloc stayed aloof but passive, governments (many initially sceptical) got on board, national migrant quotas were expanded or special ones established, and by the end of 1960 the last refugee camps in Europe had been closed. It was an astonishing achievement for a magazine that probably counted its subscribers in the high hundreds.

If you wish there were no 22nd Amendment, enabling Barack Obama to continue his successes, here and abroad, then the next best thing for you is to vote for Donald Trump.

Huey Long said, “If fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-fascism.” In truth, if fascism comes to 21st-century America, it should be called game show hucksterism.

If six years of an immature, pampered narcissist have not been enough for you – if you enjoy rule by a clique of incompetent über-wealthy cronies, with little regard for the constitution, led by a man with distorted knowledge of history, geopolitics, economics, basic science, world religions and conflicts, yet thinks he knows everything; who easily lies about his faith, and anything else, at any time or any place; who believes that language is as flexible as Humpty Dumpty’s words or merely Orwellian expedients; who has no fixed values and cannot be relied upon to keep his word; who was created by a craven, money-driven, valueless media; who has had the skids of life greased for him; who enjoys luxury to excess; who credits himself with every success, real or imagined; who never acknowledges a failure, even when his own words refute his lie; who never constructs a reasoned argument in debate; who never treats with respect those with a different opinion; who is intolerant of dissent and is highly insulted by even the mildest criticism; who appeals to our basest instincts and grossly disrespects women who dare disagree with him; who does not seek to advance with ethical compromise, but rather prefers to bully – a man with no humility – then Trump is your man. President Trump will not only be Obama’s third term – he will be Obama’s hard-earned and well-deserved legacy.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump have more in common than once favoring single-payer national health plans. They are both thin-skinned. Neither ever says he’s sorry or expresses regret. Instead they blame and deride others.

Now for Obama this behavior has been VASTLY (caps deliberate) more consequential. His refusal to acknowledge having called ISIS the jayvee team, the lies surrounding Benghazi, the further prevarications surrounding Obamacare and the absolute failure to admit anything wrong after he abrogated his chemical-weapons red line with Assad (resulting in hundreds of thousands of Syrians now swarming into Europe) are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Maybe it’s time to amend one of Hollywood’s more famous lines: Self-love means never having to say you’re sorry.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump is prey to to the same self-love, or is it insecurity, as is Obama, although on a far lesser scale. At first we could excuse his crass comments about fellow Republicans, because at least he wasn’t a politically correct wimp and everybody — myself included — has had it up to wherever “here” is with political correctness. But his recent assaults are wearing thin.

As Muslims swarm into Europe, the long-term implications are clear as violence erupts and demands are made.

For example, the tiny Greek island of Lesbos, situated 6 miles from the Turkish shore, has a population of 85,000. But life for Greeks who live there has changed in hideously threatening ways, as they have been overwhelmed with 25,000 Muslim invaders. With no end in sight. The invaders arrive on inflatable boats, which they slash once they reach the shore. Breitbart reports on German news coverage (RTL):

…they are being held on the Island while the police issue emigration documents, a delay which can take days. The wait is causing tension between groups as Afghans accuse Syrians of getting preferential treatment by the authorities, leading to vicious violent clashes.

As rocks, bottles and municipal bins fly, one tearful local woman told RTL “We are in danger, every day, every minute. We need someone to protect us. They come into our houses. I want to go to work, but I can’t. Our children want to go to school, but they can’t. They have stolen our lives!” (snip)

The main town of Lesbos, Mytilene, now resembles a war zone as the migrants rip apart the infrastructure and use the town as a urinal. Mayor Galinos helpless in the face of such an onslaught is out of ideas, and is calling on the European Union to do something.

“This is a ticking time bomb that will go off soon,” he said. “We have managed to avert some catastrophes, but we need help, more ferries. This island is so small, we can’t solve a worldwide humanitarian crisis by ourselves. The European Union needs to act.” (snip)

Junior interior minister Yiannis Mouzalas told local radio “the situation is on the verge of explosion.” It is a scene being replicated on islands all along Greece’s coastline.

From a statement by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) after Senate Democrats on Thursday used a filibuster to block a vote on a resolution disapproving of the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran:

Political fealty to President Obama’s hoped-for legacy in foreign affairs means this dangerous deal will likely move forward, despite the overwhelming and bipartisan opposition to it in Congress and the clear will of the American people. Obstruction on the part of a minority of legislators is not the foundation on which lasting, consequential arms control agreements are built. A majority of Americans oppose the Iran deal because it compromises the safety and security of not only the United States, but also of the rest of the world.

History will remember this stunning display of partisan loyalty and willful blindness. And it will remember this Senate as the one that—when given the chance to stop the world’s worst sponsor of terrorism from obtaining the world’s worst weapons—blinked when confronted with that evil.

The Senate held its first showdown vote on the Iranian nuclear deal Thursday, with 58 Senators having declared their opposition, including four Democrats and Republican non-hawks like Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. The American public is also overwhelmingly opposed, with a Pew poll this week finding 21% approval for the agreement versus 49% disapproval.

So it says something about President Obama’s contempt for Congress that he browbeat and threatened 42 Democrats to filibuster the vote so he can duck having to veto a resolution of disapproval. The President may think he can spin 42 Senate votes into political vindication, and we’re sure he’ll get media support for that view. But Americans should read a filibuster as a tacit Democratic admission of no confidence in an agreement they fear voting on.