RUTHFULLY YOURS

The link is to an Associated Press article headlined “Rand Paul Says GOP Hawks ‘Created’ ISIS.” Dr. Jasser had obviously read my posting of Tuesday, “Jeb Should Withdraw to Save the Country from Hillary.” He wanted me to do the same for Rand. (In fairness to Jeb, my earlier post was meant to prod him to an altruistic, patriotic act. In the case of Rand, it would be because he had, as Bobby Jindal is quoted as saying by the AP, disqualified himself.)

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.

The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP’s foreign policy hawks “created these people.” That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana’s governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president.

Rand Paul Created ISIS The GOP contender rewrites the history of Islamic State.

Well, okay, our headline goes too far. But the claim is about as plausible as Rand Paul’s outburst that Republican internationalists like Lindsey Graham and John McCain are responsible for the rise of the Islamic State.

“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” the GOP presidential candidate said Wednesday on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. “These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They’ve created these people.”

Citing Iraq, Syria and Libya, Mr. Paul added that “everything that they’ve talked about in foreign policy, they’ve been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise.”

Speaking of gall, and a word of political advice, an aide might want to remind Senator Paul which party’s nomination he is seeking. Republicans who begin their campaigns assailing other Republicans rarely succeed—especially when the accusation is culpability for a would-be caliphate that uses executions, slavery, extortion, rape and general terror to enforce oppression in the Middle East and North Africa, and whose ideology inspires jihadists world-wide.

An expansive new rule lets Washington regulate any creek or pothole.

While retrenching abroad, the Obama Administration remains committed to expanding Washington’s footprint at home. Behold the Environmental Protection Agency’s rewrite Wednesday of the Clean Water Act that extends federal jurisdiction over tens of millions of acres of private land.

The Clean Water Act limits the federal government to regulating the “navigable waters of the United States” like the Colorado River or Lake Michigan. In 1986 the EPA expanded that definition to seize jurisdiction over tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Now it is extending federal control over just about any creek, pond, prairie pothole or muddy farm field that EPA says has a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway.

In one assignment, students measure the size of their family’s carbon footprint and suggest ways to shrink it.

While many American parents are angry about the Common Core educational standards and related student assessments in math and English, less attention is being paid to the federally driven green Common Core that is now being rolled out across the country. Under the guise of the first new K-12 science curriculum to be introduced in 15 years, the real goal seems to be to expose students to politically correct climate-change orthodoxy during their formative learning years.

The Next Generation of Science Standards were released in April 2013. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted them, including my state of New Jersey, which signed on in July 2014 and plans to phase in the new curriculum beginning with the 2016-2017 school year. The standards were designed to provide students with an internationally benchmarked science education.

President Obama’s unilaterally imposed immigration amnesty plan will remain suspended for the time being, thanks to a federal appeals court ruling that serves as a desperately needed reminder to Americans that the United States is not supposed to be a one-man dictatorship.

On Tuesday two members of a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed an injunction [2] to remain in place that blocks Obama from moving forward with his immigration plan.

The ruling effectively extends the stay that was ordered in February by a courageous Texas-based federal judge, Andrew S. Hanen, who found that Obama probably exceeded his authority in unilaterally granting benefits to more than 4 million illegal aliens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said at the time that the U.S. District Court ruling was a “major victory for the rule of law” and “a major turning point in the fight to stop Obama’s lawless amnesty.”

Despite a generation in which radical anti-crime policies such as enforcing the law and locking up criminals slashed murder rates, there’s still plenty of debate over whether anti-crime policies work.

But no one can argue over whether pro-crime policies work.

108 people were shot in New York, Baltimore and Chicago over the weekend. Many of the casualties were saved from that terrible “school-to-prison pipeline” that bedevils promising young crack dealers and instead went straight to the morgue.

56 people were shot in Chicago including a 4-year-old girl. That’s quite a step up from last year in which only 17 people were shot. It might actually be the most violent Chicago weekend in a while.

And that’s saying something.

The idea that, because Sunni and Shi’ite elements are locked in battle with one another today, they will not pose a threat to international security tomorrow, is little more than wishful thinking.

The increased Iranian-Hezbollah presence needs to be closely watched.

A policy of turning a blind eye to the Iran-led axis, including Syria’s Assad regime, appears to be doing more harm than good.

As the regime of Bashar Assad continues steadily to lose ground in Syria; and as Assad’s allies, Iran and Hezbollah, deploy in growing numbers to Syrian battlegrounds to try to stop the Assad regime’s collapse, the future of this war-torn, chaotic land looks set to be dominated by radical Sunni and Shi’ite forces.

A deeper look into the history of Turkey reveals that, unfortunately, Turkey has never been either truly secular or democratic. In Turkey, freedom of conscience and religion is respected — but only if you are a practicing Sunni Muslim.

The problem is that “modern” Turkey claims to be a “secular” republic; a secular republic is supposed to treat all people — Muslims and non-Muslims — equally. The objective of the Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs), on the other hand, is to keep religion (Islam) under the control of the state, and to keep the people under the control of the state by means of religion.

“Those who are not genuine Turks can have only one right in the Turkish fatherland, and that is to be a servant, to be a slave. We are the most free country of the world. They call this Turkey.” — Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, Turkey’s first Minister of Justice, 1930.

When many Western analysts discuss the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, they rightfully criticize it for its religious intolerance, authoritarianism and lack of respect for secular principles and minorities. They also tend to compare the AKP to former Kemalist governments, and draw a distinction between the Islamist AKP and former non-Islamist governments.

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/

The anti-semitism v anti-Zionism question revisited

Streetwise is an organisation whose website says that it “works nationally with Jewish schools and Community organisations, enhancing the personal safety and personal development of young Jewish people to support their safe, physical, and emotional wellbeing.” All very well meaning. But last week at a Jewish school in London the Streetwise ‘training’ told pupils that “anti-semitism was completely different to anti-Zionism”. This suggests Streetwise is part of the problem, not the solution and it prompted me to produce below an updated version of a posting I did a while back.

I have written to Streetwise asking “In what way are you preparing Jewish students, for example, for the tsunami of hatred they will face when they go to University given that 100% of the hatred will be dressed up as anti-Zionism rather than what it really is?” PLEASE SEE THE CHART AT THE SITE

In 2012, a couple of weeks after the assault on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, I noted the strange chumminess of Hillary Clinton’s eulogies to her “friend” “Chris” Stevens:

On Hugh Hewitt’s radio last week, National Review columnist Mark Steyn accused the Obama administration of using slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens as a political prop.

Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” particularly criticized the way top administration officials — including the president — referred to Stevens as a “friend…”

“They have spent the next four weeks in effect lying to us, including people who claim to be Chris — everyone calls him ‘Chris’ in this administration — Chris, he is known to all, he is friend to all, Chris Stevens. Hillary Clinton calls him ‘Chris.’ Barack Obama calls him ‘Chris.'”

“Hillary Clinton stood next to her friend Chris’ coffin and went on about this video, even though she knew it was nothing to do with that,” Steyn continued.

I disliked the mateyness. I would have preferred it had Obama and Clinton referred to him as “Ambassador Stevens”: He was the representative of the United States, and that is why he died. And it seemed to me that all the Chris-this-Chris-that stuff was designed, like everything else, to deflect from the reality of what had happened – a successful military assault on the anniversary of 9/11 – and to turn it into merely a personal tragedy for poor “Chris”. I returned to the theme on several occasions:

Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all “Chris this” and “Chris that,” as if they’d known each other since third grade.

Yet, for such a close personal friend, “Chris” evidently had trouble getting hold of Hillary when he needed to: