RUTHFULLY YOURS

IN the months since President Obama first seem poised — as he now seems poised again — to issue a sweeping executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, we’ve learned two important things about how this administration approaches its constitutional obligations.

First, we now have a clear sense of the legal arguments that will be used to justify the kind of move Obama himself previously described as a betrayal of our political order. They are, as expected, lawyerly in the worst sense, persuasive only if abstracted from any sense of precedent or proportion or political normality.

Second, we now have a clearer sense of just how anti-democratically this president may be willing to proceed.
The legal issues first. The White House’s case is straightforward: It has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports, it has precedent-grounded power to protect particular groups from deportation, and it has statutory authority to grant work permits to those protected. Therefore, there can be no legal bar to applying discretion, granting protections and issuing work permits to roughly half the illegal-immigrant population.

This argument’s logic, at once consistent and deliberately obtuse, raises one obvious question: Why stop at half? (Activists are already asking.) After all, under this theory of what counts as faithfully executing the law, all that matters is that somebody, somewhere, is being deported; anyone and everyone else can be allowed to work and stay. So the president could “temporarily” legalize 99.9 percent of illegal immigrants and direct the Border Patrol to hand out work visas to every subsequent border crosser, so long as a few thousand aliens were deported for felonies every year.

The reality is there is no agreed-upon limit to the scope of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law because no president has attempted anything remotely like what Obama is contemplating. In past cases, presidents used the powers he’s invoking to grant work permits to modest, clearly defined populations facing some obvious impediment (war, persecution, natural disaster) to returning home. None of those moves even approached this plan’s scale, none attempted to transform a major public policy debate, and none were deployed as blackmail against a Congress unwilling to work the president’s will.

Between an ambitious India and a North American energy renaissance, Iran’s horizons narrow.

The Middle East is where generalizations go to die, but suffer a few: The Whac-A-Mole approach to jihadist franchises more or less closely affiliated with al-Qaeda will necessarily continue for the foreseeable future, and those organizations, though they pose a real threat, will be a relatively small problem except where they enjoy state sponsorship and the resources and safe haven that go along with it. Sunni–Shiite cooperation in jihadist projects, uneasy though it may be, will continue to present dangers beyond the expectations of many American analysts. Potential allies in and around Iraq, having been burnt more than once by a seemingly fickle United States that is unsure of itself and its interests, will seek out regional allies and hedge their positions vis-à-vis American power. All of which serves to underline a point repeated by a half-dozen military and foreign-affairs scholars during National Review’s floating policy salon aboard the Allure of the Seas last week: The short-term problem in the Middle East may be the Islamic State or some other du jour gang of stateless beheaders, but the long-term problem is Iran.

Iran is, in a sense, the sort of problem we want to have in the Middle East. It is not an amorphous, slithering coalition of non-state organizations and ad hoc militias; rather, it is a nation-state with infrastructure, institutions, and interests — i.e., a target-rich environment with a great many vulnerabilities. Its young people are restive, and recent sanctions showed Tehran — and the world — exactly what sort of sandy foundation its economy rests upon: Iranian exports fell by half, and the rial lost some 80 percent of its value. And by “Iranian exports” we mean petroleum and minerals, after which dates and figs loom large in the Iranian economy.

It is unknown whether or how or when military action might be undertaken to prevent Tehran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, which would be a truly catastrophic development. Some of Israel’s most sincere and well-informed admirers believe that Benjamin Netanyahu, recently denounced as a “chickens***” by one of Barack Obama’s suavity-dripping diplomatic lieutenants, does not in fact have the military capacity to undo Iran’s nuclear program, a mission that would be quite a bit more complex and challenging than the bombing of an Iraqi reactor in Operation Opera a generation ago. It is also unknown whether the United States would stand alongside its only reliable ally in the Middle East during the inevitably bloodthirsty retaliation from such an action. Likewise, the timing and conditions of any future U.S. military engagements in the area are impossible to forecast.

But some long-term developments are foreseeable, and the United States should make the most of these in its confrontation with Iran, forcing the Tehran regime to fight a war — economic, diplomatic, cultural, and, if it comes to it, military — on two fronts.

In writing Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, I had a purpose: Explain that the capacity of Congress to oust a lawless president is central to the Framers’ design of our governing system. Because executive power is awesome, and intended to be that way, certain abuses of it can be discouraged only by the credible threat that Congress will remove the president from power — or, if discouragement fails, can be remediated only by the president’s actual removal. That is why Madison believed that the inclusion of impeachment in Congress’s arsenal was “indispensible” to preserving the Constitution’s framework of liberty vouchsafed by divided power.

Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter. One must use the qualifier “now” because this was not always the case. Immigration enforcement was originally a state responsibility. Washington has supplanted the states since the early 20th century, an erosion of federalism largely responsible for our current immigration crisis. That, however, is a subject for another day. Like it or not (I don’t), the federal courts’ ill-conceived application of preemption principles has left the states and the American people vulnerable to a lawless president who refuses to protect them from illegal immigration while preventing them from protecting themselves. (Obama’s theory that disarming the state somehow promotes security works about as well in Arizona as it does in Ukraine.)

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

The most remarkable thing about Foxcatcher, a movie about two seriously damaged protagonists, is its refusal to offer anything resembling a psycho-babble interpretation for the unusual circumstances we have witnessed. There is no over-arching tying up of unraveled cords as frequently occurs in movies when the creators don’t trust their audience to parse the subtext accurately. Instead, the screenwriters, director and cast have all done their jobs so expertly that we have understood what the characters have thought and felt without any verbal explanations.

The plot concerns the interaction between John duPont, an eccentric scion of one of America’s wealthiest families and Mark Schulz, an Olympic gold medal wrestler who leads a solitary and inauspicious life. Du Pont entices Schulz to live on his opulent estate where he will be the hired coach – assistant to John – for what the mogul hopes will be the US wrestling team, combining his passion for the sport with his equally patriotic fervor for America. Played by Steve Carell with facial prosthetics that have him resembling his own nickname of golden eagle, the character is predatory, elusive and taciturn, leaving us to rely mainly on his body language and his very controlled reactions to the people around him, most significantly his aged mother (Vanessa Redgrave). Channing Tatum plays Mark in an equally transformative role, his normally handsome head looking more Neanderthal than we would have imagined possible, fitting well with his inarticulate longings and feelings of betrayal. Mark Ruffalo is Dave, his older brother, also a champion wrestler, but one who has transitioned into successful adulthood with a family of his own, a job and paternal concern for his younger brother. The scenes in which the two brothers physically interact with their wrestling moves are poignantly revealing of what they cannot express to each other in words. Dave tries over and over again to get Mark to tell him what’s bothering him but the younger man is no more capable of self-analysis than Lenny in Of Mice and Men. Tensions escalate at the Foxcatcher facility after du Pont hires Dave to be in charge of preparing the team for the world championships and after several other pivotal events that lead to a startling conclusion. Since this is a story based on real people, I thought that many in the audience would already know how this unfolds but suffice it to say that a collective gasp, from myself included, proved me wrong.

Daniel Kurtzer, a Princeton professor and former U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel, told the Daily Princetonian that the petition reflected a basic misconception of the Mideast conflict“To choose sides at this time is to trivialize history,” Kurtzer told the paper.( He served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt during the term of President Bill Clinton, and was the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005 during the term of President George W Bush.)At least he took a mini-step here but does not realize that his bloviation about a 2 State Dissolution are useless and most recently (August 2014) touted the 2002, an Arab “Peace” Initiative as a “road map” for peace in the mideast…..rsk

Princeton University professors have opened a new front in the battle over Israel on campus with a petition signed by 60 tenured faculty members calling for the university to divest from companies backing the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

The explosive protest, the most powerful faculty-led effort at an Ivy League school in recent years, has triggered a wideranging debate over the Middle East conflict within the Jewish community at the bucolic New Jersey campus and sparked pro-Israel counter petitions from both students and faculty.
“The intention of our petition was to clarify that there is faculty support for divestment,” said Max Weiss, a professor of History and Near Eastern Studies at Princeton and one of the five authors of the petition. “There is already student activism which is operating on its own terms.”

The pro-divestment professors unveiled their petition in a campus newspaper early this month with 48 names. Weiss says the number of signatories has since risen to at least 60. Organizers say they limited the list to tenured faculty to protect junior faculty from having to take a stand on such a controversial topic.

The organizers plan to present the petition to Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber before Thanksgiving.

After the petition was published, pro-Israel professors responded with a petition of their own opposing divestment that was signed by at least 63 tenured and non-tenured faculty. A pro-Israel student group has gathered 300 student signatures on an anti-divestment petition and pro-Palestinian groups are working to build support too.

http://www.factualisrael.com/1939-palestinian-flag-look-like-surprised/
1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised? From Arye Zelasko in Beir Shemesh, Israel
Nov 14, 2014
97272

This a Larousse French dictionary from 1939. In the appendix it lists all the then current flags of the world in alphabetical order. You’ll notice that for Germany at that time the flag was the Nazi one replete with Zwastika which proves that this was pre-1945 ( before 1945) ! .

Now, alphabetically, look for the Palestinian Flag. YES , there is one. What does it look like? Surprised? Oh, but you thought (Mandate Jewish) Palestine was an Islamic Arab-,Turkish-, Circassian Sovereign State that the bad Jews took over , right?
Palestine Mandate Jewish Flag

Confused?
From 1920-1948 a ( class ‘A’ Mandate) State of Palestine existed as per international law but it was, as all of its major institutions, Jewish. Until the 1960s, name “Palestine” resonated as something Jewish to European ears; the Muslims rejecting the name saying it didn’t belong. The 4,000 year old Jewish homeland or “Land of Israel” or the “Holy Land” were all synonymous!!

The British as legal Mandatory over the Mandate managed or mismanaged the state partially with Jewish Auxilary until Jews regained official sovereignty in 1948, by declaring independence.

The U.N. did not recreate Israel as some people claim.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

“‘Sheikh Google’ is the real threat to young Muslims.” — Hifsa Haroon-Iqbal, British Muslim mother, Daily Telegraph.

These mild legal outcomes indicate that U.S. officials do not appreciate how inflammatory the materials are.

As informed Muslims know, present-day radical Islamists have proven adept at using the internet – far more than have their moderate and Western opponents. “Internet savvy” jihadism appears as evidence of the youthful constituency of the extremists. They have grown up with the internet, video games, and other online diversions. When fanatical ideology takes hold of them, the internet is one of the obvious places for the process to begin.

In an important 2003 article in The Weekly Standard, entitled “The Islamic Terrorism Club,” Stephen Schwartz, wrote about some of the more obnoxious pro-jihad Arabic-language websites then operating from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The jihad-net expanded considerably in the decade that followed.

Even before September 11, 2001, however, many Muslims who opposed the fundamentalists were focusing on Islamist websites in English, as a means to anticipate threats from radicals.

With Britain targeted for recruitment to the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” [IS] and the IS’s brutal campaign in Syria and Iraq, these sites, which remain operating, are still important and accessible to both the Muslim and non-Muslim public. They are exceptionally educational about the aims and methods of Islamist demagogues.

“Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.” — Hamas Charter.

Turkey’s supreme court declared the olive grove to be “under state protection,” after it was totally destroyed.

Some Turks are prepared to hate even olive trees because “they are Jewish.”

Islamists often come in two flavors: Those who would decapitate an infidel, take out his heart and eat it in front of cameras, like the jihadists in Syria; and those who have the same sentiments and goals but pursue smarter means to Islamize the whole universe through “de jure” methods, including the ballot box.

Turkey’s leaders fall into the second category, but some Turks these days feature a third flavor: Non-Violent Idiocy.

Hamas’s infamous charter, proclaimed in 1988, is a must-read for self-declared Western intellectuals who tend to “angelize” the terrorist group in order, often, to reinforce their own intellectual identities. The charter (or the Covenant) calls for the eventual creation of an “Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.”

It goes on by outlining Hamas’s mission as: “The only way to engage in this struggle between the truth and falsehood is through Islam and by means of Jihad until victory or martyrdom.” Here, obviously, “victory is killing the last Jew on earth; and martyrdom is getting killed by Jews [or Muslims of rival sects].”

In what seems to be an escalation of his previous public comments, tenured Kent State University professor Julio Pino is using his personal Facebook page not only to post anti-Semitic epithets and threats, but also to declare his solidarity with the terrorist group ISIS.

In August, we saw the incendiary, anti-Semitic Facebook posts by Pino, the Cuban-born associate history professor who converted to Islam in 2000. Dr. Pino’s posts supported Hamas, made vile, racist comments about Jews and Israelis, and even seemed to support ISIS. Pino, who has a long history of anti-Semitic behavior, also vowed that he wouldn’t work with fellow staff members who supported Israel:“Collaborate with no one who collaborates with Israel, and let her or him know why. I have started with the head of our ‘Religious Studies’ program, who sends student-dupes to Israel every year.” Pino remains employed by the taxpayer-supported university and it seems he has been emboldened by the cover Kent State is providing for him.

In a post this week, he declared, “We will wage jihad from al-Quds to Canada!” Pino posted this comment along with a video from Russia Today (the state-funded news outlet) showing allegedly “uncut” footage of the “bloody caliphate” in Iraq.

In another post with a link to a YouTube video warning of a possible Islamic State attack in New York City, Pino calls a Canadian jihadist his brother: “Canadian Brother from ISIS ‘We love being attacked! We seek martyrdom!’”

On Friday, Pino posted a link to a BBC article warning that the Islamic State is setting its sights on Saudi Arabia, where the Muslim holy site of Mecca is located. “No Sleep Till Mecca!” Pino vowed.

Back in October, Pino scoffed at reports that ISIS is a great military threat. “From the bourgeois media: ‘ISIS is the greatest military threat the U.S. has faced since 1945.’ You mean that whole Cold War, nuclear arms race, Korea, Viet Nam thing was for kids?” he asked.

Last week Pino applauded the Ayatollah Khamenei, calling him his “favorite tweeter.”

Here’s the tweet that got Pino so excited:

Mahammad Kalifa Al-Kalifa More-Kalifas is still not an Islamic scholar and has no desire to be so qualified. Having observed that violence is the response of some Muslims — quite a few, actually — to an invitation to engage in theological debate, hel lacks the courage to publish this article under his real name
Of Guppies, Catfish and the Caliphate

Drop a few predators into the West’s happy little fish tank and multiculturalism’s massive contradiction — the enforced tolerance of everything, especially Islam’s intolerant insularity — is easily recognised. The trick is in making the effort to observe what some would prefer not to see

“You have to congratulate me,” beamed my smiling Jordanian friend as we shook hands for the first time that day at our workplace in Saudi Arabia.Why, I asked?“Because I am getting married” replied Mohammad.And the lucky girl?

“I don’t know,” he replied, “my mother has not yet found a candidate”.

Like most Australians, I had been fully indoctrinated by the ABC and other leftist “education” agencies to believe that multiculturalism is the only fair and reasonable way to go – anything else must be “racist”, even when race is not the issue. Nevertheless, putting myself in Mohammad’s shoes, I still could not accept the idea of my mother finding a stranger for me to marry. But it got worse, with Mohammad explaining that matchmaking mum planned to seek his spouse from her circle of female friends with daughters of about the right age. Because of restrictions on independent travel, and the need to avoid males, her circle of friends extended all the way to second cousins.

I never mentioned my concerns about his situation to Mohammad, and I had a lot of difficulty in sharing his enthusiasm for the impending nuptials. A few weeks later, however, I had a chance meeting with Ozzie Mohammad, my Australian-Jordanian friend, one of groom-to-be Mohammad’s uncles. Ozzie Mohammad had spent over 20 years in Melbourne, where he raised a family, and was in Saudi Arabia to earn some quick money for a bigger house.

I greeted him: “Hi, Mohammad, have you heard Mohammad’s big news?”

Before I could launch into a troubled rant about archaic, barbaric cultural practices and the abuse of women’s rights, Ozzie Mohammad replied, “Yes, it is great! I have just finished arranging with my wife the marriage of my eldest daughter”.

I was gobsmacked: twenty years in Australia, a man with whom I had had many interesting and intelligent conversations, a 16-year-old girl who knows only Melbourne — none of it made any difference. I did not know what to say, particularly when Ozzie Mohammad conceded that his daughter was not happy. He was confident, however, that “she will find love will grow”.

This was the moment when I first started questioning multiculturalism. Some can accommodate massive contradictions, especially leftists, but I never could. It took no time at all to realise that multiculturalism’s massive contradictions — the tolerance of everything, including intolerance — make it a flawed and completely dangerous concept.

The suppression of women is just the tip of the iceberg, as Islam has many other features that are fundamentally incompatible with the modern West. This includes modern Western socialist societies, but we just have not yet seen the end results.

Unlike most other great religions, Islam does not have a worldwide structure. If Catholic extremists were to start killing non-Catholics and kidnapping hundreds of young girls, we can be sure the Pope would speak against them in an instant. The world would be left in no doubt that the militants did not represent mainstream Catholic views, and we could be just as sure that real Catholics would put themselves on the frontlines, denouncing the radicals and battling to defeat them. I don’t think I am extending the benefit of the doubt in being equally certain that all the other main religions would react in much the same manner. Muslims, however, don’t have a pope or equivalent. We hear much of grand muftis, but their views and edicts are theirs and their supporters alone. With different countries and different muftis of different persuasions subscribing to no officially structured and universally recognised doctrine, Islam is whatever its adherents want it to be — the religion of peace to some, the religion of blow-’em-to-pieces on the other.

This is why, when Boko Haram kidnapped 300 schoolgirls we heard no strong and authoritative Islamic voice condemning the abductions.