RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/338290

Mindful of Kathryn’s observation that even NR types are resisting “the urge to rain on the president’s parade today,” I thought I’d nevertheless venture a wee bit of criticism — not of the speech, which was true to form, but of the overall vibe of the event, which seemed to me big but empty. The ceremonial lunch (I caught Nancy Pelosi speaking as the Obamas, Biden, Boehner, and Mrs. Clinton looked on) seemed especially reductive of this great nation, but Chuck Schumer as Friar’s Club emcee, and that poet from hell, and Beyoncé and Kelly Clarkson all contributed to the general pseudo-monarchical tinniness.

I see that if not quite raining I’m certainly drizzling. So let me cite my favorite presidential “inauguration.” I’ve written before about how much I enjoy visiting the Calvin Coolidge homestead in Plymouth Notch, Vt., and how it embodies the republican ideal of the citizen-executive. It’s very moving to stand in the small, humble sitting room where, just before 3 in the morning, Colonel John Coolidge, a notary public, administered the oath of office to his son by kerosene lamp. The character of the place and its moment in history are as far away from the palaces of mighty emperors as you could get, and uniquely American in their spirit. Granted, Coolidge assumed the presidency in very different circumstances, but I don’t think he’d have missed Kelly Clarkson or the poem guy — and I wish there were a little room for that spirit amid all the celeb-stuffed bombast.

THE INIMITABLE MARK STEYN IN 2007

The other day I took my kids over to the Coolidge homestead in Plymouth Notch, Vermont, and with the aid of snowshoes we scrambled up the three-foot drifts of the village’s steep hillside cemetery to his grave. Seven generations of Coolidges are buried there all in a row – including Julius Caesar Coolidge, which is the kind of name I’d like to find on the ballot next November (strong on war, but committed to small government). The President’s headstone is no different from those of his forebears or his sons – just a simple granite marker with name and dates: in the summer, if memory serves, there’s a small US flag in front, but if there’s one there now it’s under a ton of snow and only the years of birth and death enable you to distinguish it from the earlier Calvin Coolidges in his line.

I do believe it’s the coolest grave of any head of state I’ve ever stood in front of. “We draw our presidents from the people,” said Coolidge. “I came from them. I wish to be one of them again.” He lived the republican ideal most of our political class merely pays lip service to.

Afterwards, we stopped at the cheese factory his son John owned until 1998 and bought a round of their excellent granular curd cheese.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578255593489895424.html

THIS POLICY IS BI-PARTISAN…..EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION ENCOURAGED THE HUNGARIANS TO REVOLT AGAINST COMMUNISM AND RUSSIA….PROMISING SUPPORT. THE HUNGARIANS DID SO AND FOUGHT BRAVELY UNTIL THE RUSSIAN TANKS ENTERED THE STREETS OF BUDAPEST AND SLAUGHTERED THE PARTISANS….THE US DID NOT LIFT A FINGER TO HELP.PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S ADMINISTRATION ENCOURAGED AND HELPED TRAIN CUBAN EXPATS FOR AN INVASION OF CUBA AND PROMISED AIR SUPPORT. WHEN CASTRO’S THUGS BUTCHERED THE FIGHTERS IN THE BAY OF PIGS, THERE WAS NO AIR SUPPORT WHATEVER FROM THE UNITED STATES.BOTH OF THESE BETRAYALS ENCOURAGED THE SOVIET UNION AND CONVINCED THE HOSTAGE NATIONS OF EASTERN EUROPE THAT THEY COULD NEVER COUNT ON US SUPPORT…..RSK

Isn’t it fitting that, as a final order of business in President Obama’s first term, the United States would haggle with France over the federal equivalent of a $2.15 check?

Last week, the Journal reported that the administration was asking the French to pay for the limited logistical support—mainly cargo flights and aerial refueling—that the U.S. had agreed to provide the French mission to Mali.

“French officials said they were particularly ‘perplexed’ last week when the U.S. . . . insisted on getting reimbursed for the costs,” the Journal’s Adam Entous and David Gauthier-Villars reported Sunday. “Other countries including Canada have offered to transport French military equipment and troops to Mali free of charge, according to French, European and Canadian officials. As a result, France is considering not using the U.S.”

By week’s end, however, the administration had agreed to cover the costs, estimated at around $600,000 a flight for 30 flights. Considering that the federal government spends just over $10 billion a day, or $115,000 a second, we’re talking about less than three minutes’ worth of the government’s time.

Is the effort worth it? “France expects the U.S. to do more to fight militants who have vowed to hit at Western interests and conducted an attack in Algeria that left at least 23 hostages dead, including at least one American citizen,” French officials told the Journal. Considering that, before France’s intervention, the local branch of al Qaeda was on the verge of overrunning a country larger than Texas and California combined, one might think the French had a point.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324624404578256300074805728.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop Perhaps you’ve heard that “the tide of war is receding,” except apparently where it isn’t, which seems to be much of the world. The latest flash points are in North Africa and the Western Pacific, both of which implicate America regardless of President Obama’s second-term wishes. The hostage death toll from the four-day terrorist […]

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/diversity_and_racism.html On January 18, 2013, Rush Limbaugh had a caller who explained that she was “going to school to become a teacher … and from the first class that [she] took in education[, she and the other prospective teachers] were being taught as teachers that [they] are racists.” She explained:   We are inherently racist […]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2504/krugman_japan_and_the_definition_of_insanity Krugman, Japan and the definition of insanity The belief in Keynesian stimulus spending is the perfect example of Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity ecently the beleaguered government of Japan announced they would be embarking on a programme of fiscal stimulus totalling the equivalent of £72 billion. It is hoped this new programme of government […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/338278 Were Barack Obama reelected, I predicted two months before the November 2012 presidential vote, “the coldest treatment of Israel ever by a U.S. president will follow. Well, the election is over and that cold treatment is firmly in place. Obama has signaled in the past two months what lies ahead by: Choosing three senior […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338303/write-your-own-inaugural-john-o-sullivan Some years ago a musicologist with a sense of humor patented a piano parlor game called “Write your own Mozart.” It didn’t enable the player to write music as well as Mozart, of course, but by shuffling a series of musical bars in some sort of order, it did allow him to produce an […]

http://news.yahoo.com/jordan-election-touted-start-democratization-064113706.html

UNEASY LIES THE CROWN OF KINGLET ABDULLAH….THE SPURIOUS HASHEMITE RULER OF EASTERN PALESTINE….RSK

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — From a podium at an Amman street rally, the leader of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood vowed that soon the country would become a “state in the Muslim Caliphate,” bringing cheers of “God is great” from the crowd of bearded, Islamist supporters.

It was extreme rhetoric, suggesting that the monarchy that defines this U.S. ally in the Mideast will disappear to be replaced by an Islamic state. The Brotherhood, the top opposition group in Jordan, usually avoids such bold strokes and insists on its loyalty to the king.

But the speech last week by Hammam Saeed points to how the heat is turning up in the country’s simmering political confrontations as Jordan holds parliamentary elections Wednesday that the government touts as a milestone in a gradual process of bringing greater democracy.

King Abdullah II is trying to control the pace of change, ceding enough of his absolute powers to parliament in hopes of forestalling any Arab Spring-style uprisings like the ones that toppled autocratic leaders in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia and devolved into a bloody civil war in Syria. But the Brotherhood and others in the opposition say his moves do not go far or fast enough to end his monopoly on power.

“The elections are a theatrical comedy, which we will not take part in,” said Zaki Bani Irsheid of the Islamic Action Front, the Brotherhood’s political party. “It is part of a royal gimmick to buy time and block any moves toward real and genuine reforms.”

The Brotherhood is boycotting the vote, as are four smaller parties, including communists and Arab nationalists. But the Islamists’ frustration is growing because they haven’t been able to rally a large sector of the public to their side. Though there is anger over the economy, rising prices and corruption, many Jordanians also distrust the Brotherhood, eyeing its rise in Egypt and fearing it could grab power in Jordan and throw it into instability.

The protest Friday at which Saeed spoke was far smaller than expected, numbering only just over 1,000, despite the Brotherhood’s boasts it would bring out tens of thousands to show the people’s rejection of the reform program.

The government says the measured pace of reform aims to acclimatize Jordan to democracy. Constitutional reforms made last year by Abdullah start to edge the government out from under his total domination, handing more authority to the newly elected parliament. The Chamber of Deputies will now have a freer hand to draw up legislation, a stronger role in monitoring the Cabinet and for the first time lawmakers, not the king, will choose the prime minister.

An Independent Electoral Commission was created and tasked with supervising Wednesday’s voting, taking over the responsibility for the first time from the Interior Ministry, which is in charge of security forces.

Last week, Abdullah signaled that he was ready to relinquish more powers in the future.

“The system of ruling in Jordan is evolving … and the monarchy which my son will inherit will not be the same as the one I inherited,” he told a French magazine. He didn’t elaborate, but his comments raised speculation Jordan could eventually move toward a constitutional monarchy, with the king in a more ceremonial role.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/01/22/schumer-hagel-and-obamas-good-jews/

Chuck Schumer had his footprint, handprint, and just about every other print over Barack Obama’s second inauguration Monday. The New York senator even merited some gentle ribbing by his friends on Huff Post Comedy – Chuck Schumer Photobombs The Oath of Office.

This behavior should be no surprise considering the senator’s well-known camera-hogging proclivities and that he happens to be chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, therefore charged with being master of ceremonies for the inauguration and overseeing all preparations for Obama’s swearing-in, including making sure the traditional Congressional lunch that followed is chuck full [pun intended] of New York State products (Hudson Valley apple pie, etc.).

The New York Times’ The Caucus blog had some gentle fun of its own about this – This Inauguration Brought to You by the State of New York. We all know how “ungentle” the NYT would have treated this kind of porky behavior had Schumer been a Republican, but skip over that for a moment to a more important matter.

Just a few days ago, the New York senator was in the eye of a storm surrounding Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of Defense. After a private interview with the former Nebraska senator (he of the well-documented slurs against gays and Jews contrasting with a more laissez-faire attitude toward Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran), Chuck Schumer — in the role of wise counsel for all Jewish-Americans — announced he was “convinced” Hagel had changed his noxious opinions.

Well, good. But imagine if Hagel had not really changed his opinions (or if he semi-hemi-demi changed them). What would Chuck Schumer, as the president’s inaugural emcee and chief factotum of his second inauguration, have done then? Excoriate Hagel and demand he not be nominated, thus humiliating his mentor?

Not likely. But Schumer would never have had to do that — would never be put in that position — because the game was already rigged. Hagel would say the right things to Schumer who would relay those words to the world, reaping glory less than a week later in the role of president’s “best man” on national and international television.

The game has similarly also been rigged against the state of Israel. Schumer, consciously and/or unconsciously, has been one of the riggers, he and a squadron of Obama’s other “good Jews” including David Axelrod, Jack Lew, and Rahm Emanuel.

Meanwhile, the president — actually treating Israel like the fifty-first state she has been accused of being — has reportedly said the Jewish state doesn’t know what’s good for her.

Israel, for her part, is moving to the right. The reason is simple – although contra everything Obama thinks or wishes. The Israeli public is finally facing – years after the Oslo Accords and after unilaterally departing from the Sinai and Gaza only to be the recipient of endless missiles and terror attacks — that the Palestinians, leadership and public, have no real interest in a two–state solution. It is only the Israelis, ironically, that want one. For reasons of tribalism, vengeance, and religious primitivism, the Palestinians seek only a one-state solution. Theirs. If they had wanted a two-state solution, they could have had one of their own decades ago.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/some_questions_for_secretary_clinton_when_she_testifies_on_benghazi_this_week.html

The lady is a skilled liar and obfuscater….and she probably has prepared answers….the real question for her is more simple. “Do you acknowledge that Islamic Jihad is on the uptick throughout Africa?”….rsk
Some questions for Secretary Clinton when she testifies on Benghazi this week

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has agreed to testify on the Benghazi debacle before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 23, two days after President Obama is inaugurated.

I doubt that very many journalists and citizens will closely follow the hearing held so soon after the inauguration. But even so, I have some questions that a member of the Committee may want to ask. (Of course, these questions are the tip of the iceberg.)

1. On October 15, 2012, did you take responsibility for the lapses in Benghazi security that resulted in the 9/11/12 murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

2. Do you take responsibility for the State Department not improving security or withdrawing after terrorists exploded two bombs (one in April 2012 and the other in June 2012) at the American Benghazi diplomatic post?

3. Do you take responsibility for the State Department not improving security or withdrawing after a May 2012 terrorist attack on the Red Cross in Benghazi that caused the organization to withdraw effective August 6, 2012?

4. Do you take responsibility for the State Department not improving security or withdrawing after an attempted assassination of the British Ambassador in Benghazi on June 10, 2012, that resulted in the withdrawal of all British consular staff that same month?