RUTHFULLY YOURS

If military advisers don’t plan to win it, Congress shouldn’t authorize it.

It probably won’t be, but the first item on the lame-duck congressional agenda should be the military action in which we are now engaged against the Islamic State, or ISIS. Congress has no more serious responsibility than to examine the policy and goals behind any action that puts American lives at risk. Thursday’s appearance of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey before the House Armed Services Committee should be only the beginning.

Not that Congress does that all or even most of the time our military is engaged in conflict. Over our hundreds of years of history, Congress has declared war only 11 times. Without declarations of war, we’ve nevertheless fought major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and engaged in smaller military actions dozens of times. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress twice passed “authorizations for the use of military force” first against al Qaeda and then for the Iraq invasion, but in neither case actually declared war.

Congress passed the 1973 War Powers Act by overriding President Nixon’s veto. Nixon’s successors have generally followed it without admitting to its constitutionality. President Obama, in accordance with the War Powers Act, notified Congress when he ordered the commencement of the air campaign against the Islamic State.

We’re already hearing members of Congress, beginning predictably with Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, say the ISIS war is illegal because it has exceeded the 90-day limit imposed by the War Powers Act, ignoring the probable unconstitutionality of that congressional action.

Following a second day of talks between top American, European and Iranian diplomats in Oman on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “real gaps” remain between the sides, but stressed that the negotiation partners were “working hard” toward an agreement by the end of the month.

He was referring to the self-imposed Nov. 24 deadline for signing a deal that would curb Iran’s nuclear program to a mutually satisfactory extent.

Statements emerging on the sidelines of the talks, which continued beyond Tuesday among lower-tier negotiators, indicated a degree of optimism on the possibility of progress in time to make the deadline. But the real test will take place next week in Vienna, when a final round of meetings is held to iron out differences that have prevented reaching an accord until now — unless another extension is decided upon, in the event of a stalemate.

Whatever happens, however, the outcome cannot be good.

The signing of a deal would mean that the P5+1 (the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K., France and Germany) will have succumbed to Iran’s demand that it be able to complete its “peaceful” nuclear program, unencumbered by restrictive international sanctions.

The absence of a deal would basically amount to the same thing, since Russia and the Obama administration will not cease pushing for an easing of sanctions, no matter what Iran does.

This no-win situation for the West is precisely what has been buying Iran time to build nuclear bombs.

I never met a British Baroness before, and yesterday at lunch I met a British Baroness who also never met one until, at the recommendation of Margaret Thatcher she was appointed The Baroness Cox, of Queensbury in Greater London on January 24, 1983. The luncheon was off the record and I respect that, but there is so much about Baroness Caroline Cox that is on the record.

She is one of 18 co-founders of the One Jerusalem Organisation,which aims at “maintaining a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel”.In 2005, she became Co-President of the Jerusalem Summit whose stated aim is “The establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international agenda”.

In February 2009, Cox joined UKIP peer Lord Pearson in inviting Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders to show the anti-radical-Islam film Fitna before the House of Lords. However, Wilders was prevented from entering the UK on the instructions of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In response, Cox and Pearson accused the Government of appeasing militant Islam.

She is a great humanitarian who has worked endlessly on behalf of persecuted tribal and religious minorities in Africa. She was one of the leaders of the anti-Communist intellectuals of Europe during the Cold War.

In April of 2014 Baroness Cox tells Israeli audience at an event hosted by the Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security at Tel Aviv University and The Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies on Monday that ‘Islam is using the freedoms of democracy to destroy it’ and warned about the growing threat of political Islam in Britain and Africa.

A biography: Lela Gilbert “BARONESS COS- EYEWITNESS TO A BROKEN WORLD” (2008) is available at:http://www.amazon.com/Baroness-Cox-Eyewitness-Broken-World/dp/0825461642/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415968620&sr=1-1&keywords=lela+gilbert+baroness+cox

Anti-Israel Jon Stewart Claims Judaism is Nazism

Professional cretin and former guest star on The Nanny, Jon Stewart is upset that Jews exist and have opinions that don’t accord with his. The notoriously thin-skinned whiner decided to promote his movie by calling Jews who kept their original last name and like being Jewish, fascists.

“It’s so interesting to me that people want to define who is a Jew and who is not. And normally that was done by people who weren’t Jewish but apparently now it’s done by people who are, and I find that very interesting. It’s more than nationalism,” Stewart whined.

It’s interestingly only in that Stewart knows less about Judaism than he does about Quantum Mechanics.

Every group defines who is a member of it. That’s especially true of religions which have a theology. Stewart retardedly seems to think that having a definition for a religion is what Nazis do.

But then again Jon Stewart calls people Nazis like Godwin’s Law never existed. “Don’t like me, you’re a Nazi!” “Didn’t get my order right, you’re a Nazi.”

“No. And you can’t observe (Judaism) in the way you want to observe. And I never thought that that would be coming from brethren. I find it really sad, to be honest,” Stewart said.

Brethren? Seriously.

How dare Jews have standards for Judaism? Why can’t Stewart just observe Judaism the way he wants to… by not observing it. He’s really sad that apparently Judaism is a religion with some sort of Bible and even a Ten Commandments.

Where did that come from? Why was he not told that you can’t observe Judaism by dressing up in clown makeup and twirling a propeller around. He never expected this from his fellow Stewartites.

In America there are two types of people; the oppressed and the oppressors.

The oppressed oppress the oppressors. And everyone including the oppressors agrees that this is only fair because the oppressors deserve to be oppressed. After all they are the oppressors.

They deserve to have the money they earn taken away. They deserve to be sent to the back of the line when applying to a college or looking for a job. They deserve to be beaten, robbed, raped, and taunted with slurs that would lead to national outrage if it were directed at the oppressed.

But they’re the oppressors. They deserve it.

If they complain, they deserve to have their speech censored. They are the oppressors. There’s no telling how much oppression they might dish out if the oppressed don’t keep them down.

That’s just life in the Victimocracy.

With one sob story too many, one whine too great, one more PBS special, special report about the plight of the oppressed and episode of Donahue, the country changed. The oppressors still had the democratic refuge of elections where they could by sheer numbers vote to retain their civil rights, but most of the other mechanisms of governance had ceased to be democratic and instead became victimocratic.

To have real power you had to be a victim or one of their protectors.

The Victimocracy is a lot like any other tyranny. In an aristocracy, power belongs to the nobles, in a theocracy, power belongs to the clergy, in a meritocracy, to anyone with skill and a work ethic.

But in a Victimocracy the biggest and angriest whiner wins.

Although they often complain, life as an Israeli Arab isn’t half bad · An examination of spending and consumption in the Israeli Arab sectors shows a quality of life which competes nicely with Haifa and Ashkelon · Meanwhile, the government pours millions in revenue support grants and support for corrupt municipalities · But who cares when you can throw rocks and stab people in the name of Falastin?

“They shot him just because he’s Arab!” is the slogan yelled by the masses of Israeli Arabs protesting the death of an Arab who tried to kill Israeli policemen just because they’re Jewish. The Arabs have shut down the schools, closed their businesses and started intifada-style riots. Why? Because article 17d, policemen need to fire at the legs and then the head?

One would have to be particularly naïve – or particularly left-wing – to believe that this is the cause of the riots. There are times when the truth has to be said. And when the riots are virulently nationalist, with Palestinian flags and lynching of Jews, then it’s probably not a protest for fair wages or higher budgets.

The Arabs and their well-wishers like to speak about “years of discrimination” which led to the buildup of tension and genuine class-based “rage”. It’s a nice sound bite, but when you check the actual data, it turns out that the facts are far different, and even if there are gaps, they certainly are not severe enough to excuse or justify an intifada.

Better than life in Haifa

Populations are usually compared based on income data – how much Jews and Arabs make and “what this says about us as a society.” But this measure is misleading and faulty; it makes no reference to unreported income or non-monetary income (presents or goods). Considering the differences in income and work habits of Jews and Arabs, these are critical lacunae.

In order to bypass these problems, we need to set aside income and focus on consumption: how much money do people spend? How much property – real estate, cars – do they own? And so on in this vein.

When you examine the amount spent on consumption among both groups, it turns out they’re about the same: the average Arab family in an urban settlement spends 13,100 NIS per month. True, this is less than Petah Tikva (13,612 NIS) and Tel Aviv (15,365), but it’s more than Ashdod (12,541 NIS) and Haifa (12,105 NIS).

There are several ways to see the National Cathedral’s decision to host Islamic Friday prayers this week.

First, the facts. The service is the brainchild of the Rev. Canon Gina Campbell, the Episcopal cathedral’s director of liturgy, and South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, a Muslim, who is delivering the sermon. Invitation-only guests include Masjid Muhammad of The Nation’s Mosque, representatives of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

That’s some roster if playing “Spot the Muslim Brotherhood Front” is a hobby. Clearly, it’s not the professionals’ pursuit. On being quizzed by the Daily Caller, for example, cathedral spokesman Craig Stapert had no idea that two of the invited groups were unindicted co-conspirators in the landmark Holy Land Foundation Hamas-financing trial.

A kewpie doll to the reader who can pick out the unindicted co-conspirators in the cathedral’s guest list (ISNA and CAIR — right!). A cigar to anyone who knows the name of the man who is both ISNA president and ADAMS executive director (Mohamed Magid). And which group tops the “list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood document explaining the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” underway in the U.S.?

Here’s another hint. The U.S. government entered this “Explanatory Memorandum” into evidence during the 2009 Holy Land Foundation trial. It explains that the organization’s secret “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by (Westerners’) hands and by the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” The answer, of course, is ISNA.

Speaking of the Muslim Brotherhood, here’s a bonus question: Where did the first delegation of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to visit the U.S. make a beeline from the airport to visit? The residence of South Africa’s Ebrahim Rasool, reports South African news site City Press.

A lie is apolitical, or at least it should be. If there is one thing that unites clear-headed Americans, it’s a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest.
And yet, there seem to be two types of lies in our political discourse: Those that hurt “my party” and “my policies”; and those that don’t. We condemn the former and forgive the latter—cheapening the bond of trust that enables a society to progress.
This truism came to mind when I read a Washington Post story headlined, “Who Is Jonathan Gruber?” It was an important and workmanlike report on the Obamacare adviser who bragged about the political advantages of deceiving voters, whom Gruber called stupid.
“Those comments have struck a nerve on the right,” wrote Jose A. DelReal (emphasis added), “with some of the law’s critics pointing to Gruber’s comments as evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs.”
My first reaction was, “No! No! Not just on the right!” I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor, and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come. While I think President Obama and congressional Democrats helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over what became the Affordable Care Act, I’ve openly rooted for Obamacare’s success. I’ve denounced the knee-jerk opposition from the GOP, a party that once embraced key elements of Obamacare. My ideology is amorphous; I am not “on the right.”
All of that, and yet: Gruber’s remarks struck a nerve with me.
Appearing on an academic panel a year ago, this key Obamacare adviser argued that the law never would have passed if the administration had been honest about the fact that the so-called penalty for noncompliance with the mandate was actually a tax.
“And, basically, call it ‘the stupidity of the American voter,’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass,” Gruber said.
Gruber: ‘Call It the Stupidity of the American Voter’

A showdown worthy of High Noon may erupt over immigration if Obama, as anticipated, decrees amnesty for millions of illegal aliens via executive order. Republicans would decry the sheer lawlessness of Obama’s brazen unilateralism in a nation of equal and divided powers, not least Congress’s explicit constitutional mandate to write laws and Obama’s utter absence of authority to do so. Conservatives, and many moderates, fret about the fiscal and sociocultural impact of a wide-open southern boundary practically decorated with a 1,989-mile-long “Welcome!” sign. Thus the oft-heard demand for border security as Step One in immigration reform.

Concerns about health, education, and welfare notwithstanding, there are serious national-security reasons for immediately clamping down on the U.S.-Mexican “border.” It has devolved into a people-mover for illegal immigrants from certified terrorist states and other nations filled with zealots eager to kill Americans.

According to recently released data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 5,063 individuals from nations that harbor terrorists were arrested last year trying to cross into America from Mexico. None of these were Mexicans, Guatemalans, or Hondurans; they were citizens from far-away nations consumed by militant Islam.

• Afghanistan, where U.S. troops battle resilient Taliban fighters, is the home of 70 people arrested at the southern frontier in 2013 alone.

• Syria, birthplace of ISIS and a tempest-tossed nation that America drones even today, saw 72 of its countrymen captured at our border.

• Sudan, designated by the State Department as an official “state sponsor of terrorism,” was the starting point for 168 individuals who were stopped en route to the U.S.A.

• Iran, another state sponsor of terrorism, is busy trying to build an atomic bomb. A total of 257 Iranians got caught on our border.

• Nigeria — headquarters of al-Qaeda offshoot Boko Haram, which practices child-sex slavery and anti-Christian genocide — is the nation from which 492 people departed before getting snagged on the way into America.

Declaring the North Atlantic Treaty Organization dead has been a pastime of analysts since the end of the Cold War. The alliance, today 28-members strong, has survived 65 years because its glaring contradictions were often overlooked, given the dangers of an expansionist and nuclear Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact subjects.

From its beginning, NATO had billed itself as a democratic Western bastion against Soviet totalitarian aggression—if not always in practice then at least in theory. NATO never had much problem keeping Greece and Turkey in the alliance despite their occasionally oppressive, rightwing military dictatorships, given the strategic location of both and the need to keep the pair’s historical rivalries in-house. If the alliance’s exalted motto “animus inconsulendo liber” (“A free mind in consultation”) was not always applicable, NATO still protected something far better than the alternative.

The United States opposed and humiliated its NATO partners France and Britain during the Suez crisis of 1956, without much damage to NATO at large. True, a petulant France after 1959, gradually withdrew its military participation—and yet secretly still pledged to fight with the alliance in the case of a Soviet attack. The 1989 unification of Germany progressed without a hitch, largely because an economically all-powerful Fourth Reich was happy to allow its historic rivals and NATO partners France and Britain to remain Europe’s only nuclear powers.

During the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the U.S. managed to leverage a few NATO countries in joining its interventions, while assuming the majority could either stand clear or damn the United States without much consequences to their American-guaranteed security. Ditto the two Iraq wars and the kerfuffle over the Bush administration’s dichotomy between “old” and “new” Europe.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and its arch nemesis, NATO limped on. Some had assumed that the often quoted aphorism about NATO’s mission from Lord Hastings Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General—“to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”—was no longer relevant and so neither would be NATO. But note that Ismay had said “Russians” not Soviets. He knew well that the historical tensions between an always ambitious Moscow and its vulnerable European neighbors transcended Soviet communism.