RUTHFULLY YOURS

Those putting party over country try to conceal their votes from the public.

Democratic senators supporting President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran are cowards. They know that a majority of Americans oppose the deal. Thus, they are running for cover to avoid going on the record and voting against a resolution disapproving the deal. A filibuster to block a vote on the merits altogether is the Democratic Senate caucus’s preferred way out.

The White House is reportedly pushing the filibuster strategy even though Obama is virtually certain to have enough votes to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval passed by both houses of Congress. Two-thirds votes are required in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to override an Obama veto. But if Obama can get out of using his veto pen and expending political capital to sustain it, he is all too happy to hide behind the filibuster fig leaf.

So far only two Democratic senators have declared their opposition to the deal – New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, and New Jersey’s senior senator, Robert Menendez. Assuming they both would vote with the Republican majority to end a filibuster, four additional votes would be needed to reach the magic closure number of 60 and allow the resolution to proceed to a floor vote. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is doing what he can to corral enough support among his fellow Democrats to prevent the closure number from being reached.

Even black voters, Obama’s most enthusiastic base, split on the deal 39 to 38 percent.
Obama’s case for the Iran deal has gotten tangled up in his own lies. He’s claiming that the Iran deal will give Iran near zero breakout time to the bomb and that it will “permanently” stop it from developing a bomb. He claims that the deal is rigorous and yet we’ve learned that Iran will be doing at least some self-inspections.

The poll numbers for the deal keep getting worse. Some Democrats have done the responsible thing by coming out against the deal.

Obama’s associates have tried to portray opponents as Republicans, Iraq War supporters and chickenhawks, but as Senator Webb, a member of his own party, a Vietnam vet who was against the Iraq War, said, “I think it’s a bad deal and I’ve said so for several weeks now. I think we need to put country ahead of party.”

But Democrats refuse to do that. Instead they’re putting Obama over party. They’re even putting Obama over their own constituents, as Nadler did, betraying his voters who have made it very clear that they oppose the deal.

You can never be equal if you’re always angry and afraid. There is a war on black people.

You hear about it from powerless black men like Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Al Sharpton. Black people can hardly leave the house without being shot by a cop for no reason at all. That’s what you hear from the activists of #BlackLivesMatter who illustrate the point by blocking traffic, harassing white people in restaurants and shoving elderly Democratic presidential candidates… without getting shot.

Black racist activists and their white leftist allies like to talk up “White Fragility” which means that white people are used to sitting down for brunch without having fat black women yell in their faces about genocide. Or as the official definition would have it, white people are so insulated from critical dialogues about race that they get upset when those women, who are actually working on their PhDs in critical race theory, loudly accuse them of white supremacy.

Secretary of State John Kerry said today at an Arctic conference in Anchorage that “anybody running for any high office in any nation in the world” should visit a place where the “seismic challenge” of climate change is happening “and inform themselves about this.”

“And we as leaders of countries will begin to witness what we call climate refugees moving – you think migration is a challenge to Europe today because of extremism, wait until you see what happens when there’s an absence of water, an absence of food, or one tribe fighting against another for mere survival,” Kerry told the Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement, and Resilience (GLACIER) Conference.

“We are hardly the first generation in human history to face uncertainty about the future. Seventy-five years ago, our predecessors faced a world that was literally engulfed by strife, where seemingly all of Europe was overrun by evil, and civilization itself seemed to be in peril. We had leaders then who rose to that occasion, and we have all seen a world that is better for what came out of it with the United Nations and multilateralism and commitments to humanitarian and other missions,” he said.

A new trove of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department tonight includes scathing opinions about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from close confidante Sidney Blumenthal — and an agreement in internet slang from Hillary.

Blumenthal was an aide to President Clinton and has been a longtime loyalist of the Clinton family, so fiercely loyal that he wasn’t welcome in any State Department position in the Obama administration. He went to work for the Clinton Foundation and has been subpoenaed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi to testify about his communication with Clinton in his time period.

His analysis, suggestions and advice show up regularly in the official State Department correspondence conducted on Clinton’s private email server.

A number of the latest emails from 2010 center on the Gaza flotilla raid. Israeli commandos boarded the “Freedom Flotilla” to force the ships to port for inspection. A few dozen of the hundreds on board fought the commandos; 10 activists were killed and 10 of the Israeli commandos were wounded.

The unmistakable signs of a disaster from which we would all suffer, the fall of the once-greatest nation on earth, have left me “shaken.”

I have never been partial to doomsday scenarios. End-of-the-world prophecies always seem to leave their proponents in the throes of revisionary confusion, manically adjusting their calculations and hoping to get it right the next time, and the time after that, ad vomitatum. Mark Biltz [2] and John Hagee [3] have belabored the blood moon event, but lunar tetrads of no overwhelming significance have occurred before. Population gurus promise mass starvation while the food supply defiantly increases. Flood experts inform us that the entire eastern seaboard will soon be under water but ocean levels remain insolently stable. Global warmists predict an atmospheric inferno while the temperature refuses to comply and the next Ice Age gradually but inexorably approaches. And so it goes.

Real threats to our wellbeing and even existence—a wayward asteroid, an EMP attack neutralizing the electrical grid, or the cultural debacle of unrestricted Islamic immigration—are exigencies that can be met, given the mental alertness and political will to prepare for and defuse them. Doomsday scripts and warnings are another matter, figments of the realm of theological speculation or pathological fantasy. Yet one must always allow for a possible exception to the general rule, if only to avoid the intellectual rigidity of epistemic and ideological dogmatism.

Sunstein is the hubby of Smantha Power, the U.S. Ambassadress to the United Nations rsk

Cass Sunstein, a University Professor at Harvard Law School (and former Obama staffer), last week published an article vigorously disagreeing with other leftists. He took issue with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (formerly a Harvard Law prof) and another Harvard Law colleague, Larry Lessig. He also included Bernie Sanders in his list of public figures who claim the system is rigged by big capital interests and capitalism. Money, Sunstein asserts, distorts the political process and plays an “intolerably large role in the political system.” But, using his brilliant Harvard intellect, he asserts that the wonderful reforms of the Obama administration could not have taken place if the system were rigged. No. It is a system that is distorted and polarized. There are inherent frustrations. But hard work he asserts can turn “yesterday’s losers” into “tomorrow’s winners.” Is he thereby implying that hard work can also turn yesterday’s winners into tomorrow’s losers? Sadly, this is the painful logic of the brilliant leaders of the left.

“Senator Cruz agrees with the ambassador: “The U.S. and Israel are joined by the Iranian rhetoric that calls Israel ‘The Little Satan,’ and the U.S. ‘The Big Satan.’ Their intention is to murder both of us. We face an enemy that hates us and has been very explicit that they intend to do everything they can to kill Israelis and us. These enemies are driven by a radical theological view that glorifies death and suicide. This deal harkens back to the Munich Deal of 1938, allowing homicidal maniacs to acquire weapons of mass murder. ”

Just last week President Obama gave a special address via a webcast to the members of the Jewish Federation. His purpose was to try to convince American Jews on the merits of the Iranian nuclear deal. Unfortunately, his statements lacked substance and the questions asked were softball in nature, never addressing any of the concerns. Compare that with the interview that Senator Ted Cruz gave to American Thinker on the dangers of this deal.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that in situations where hunger strikes are organized as a means of pressuring the relevant authorities into releasing detainees, a refusal to comply with the demands of the hunger-strikers does not constitute a violation of Article 2 — provided that there is a regulatory system in place guaranteeing all the necessary measures are taken to monitor and manage these situations, including unrestricted access to appropriate medical care.

Israel has the benefit of the European Court rulings to refer to, as well as the provisions many fellow democracies have on their statute books concerning the membership of proscribed groups and the criteria for proscribing them — in the case of less liberal democracies like France, they are more wide-ranging than those applied in Israel.

Israel has a dilemma. Is it better when confronted with hunger-striking “activists” belonging to terror groups to let them starve themselves to death or not to let them starve themselves to death, even if it means feeding them by force.

Most of the Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria have long served as large weapons warehouses controlled by various militias belonging to different groups. This has been happening while the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is formally in charge of the refugee camps, continues to look the other way.

The 120,000 Palestinians living in Ain al-Hilweh are “unfortunate” because they are not being targeted by Israel. Otherwise, there would have been an international outcry and the UN Security Council would have held an emergency session to condemn Israel and call for an immediate cessation of hostilities. Instead, Ain al-Hilweh may soon fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State terrorists.

The Syrian Army has also been dropping barrel bombs on the camp almost on a weekly basis. But because Israel cannot be blamed, Palestinians killing Palestinians is not something that the international media and community are interested in.

Instead of admitting their responsibility for turning the camps into military bases, Palestinian leaders often prefer to blame others, preferably Israel, for the plight of their people.