RUTHFULLY YOURS

For most commentators, President Barack Obama’s biggest achievement in his four-nation tour of Asia was the enhanced defense treaty he signed with Philippine President Benigno Aquino. The pact permits US forces to operate on Philippine military bases and sets the conditions for joint training of US and Philippine forces, among other things.

There are two problems with the treaty, however.

And they reflect the basic problem with US foreign policy generally, five-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency.

First, there is the reason that the treaty became necessary.

The Philippines has been under attack by China since 2012 when China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Despite its mutual defense treaty with Manila, Washington did nothing.

This non-response emboldened China still further.

And today China is threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.

So, too, late last year China extended its Air Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace. The US responded to the aggressive move by recommending that its allies comply with China’s dictates.

The administration’s top priority in all these cases, as well as in the case of Beijing’s challenge to Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, has been to avoid conflicts with China.

But American timidity and refusal to abide by US treaty obligations to the Philippines and Japan have had the opposite effect.

By not responding to Chinese aggression, far from moderating China’s behavior, the Obama administration emboldened it. And in so doing, it destroyed the US’s deterrent posture in Asia. As China’s increasingly belligerent behavior has made clear, Obama’s attempt to appease China was perceived in Beijing as a green light for further aggression, because the Chinese correctly determined that Obama would never make them pay a price for seizing territory and otherwise harming America’s Asian allies.

Under these circumstances, Obama had no choice but to sign an enhanced defense treaty with the Philippines.

Marine Le Pen told RTL Radio that the government’s plan to fight against French jihadists was “cosmetic” and will remain ineffective as long as border controls are not restored within the European Union.

Others are wondering who will control the data collected by the new website and hotline, and how the information will be used, especially when it involves young people who have not been convicted of a crime.

The French government has unveiled a new plan aimed at preventing French citizens or residents from waging jihad in Syria and other conflict zones in the Muslim world.

More than 700 French nationals and residents are now believed to be fighting in different parts of the Middle East and North Africa, including at least 500 in Syria alone, according to French intelligence estimates.

Senior French officials have voiced increasing concern over the potential threat that these radicalized “enemies within” will pose when they return to France. The government has also faced criticism for failing to take steps to prevent its nationals from traveling to Syria in the first place.

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve presented the multi-pronged anti-radicalization plan at a French Cabinet meeting on April 23. The strategy includes more than 20 measures—those not requiring new legislation will be implemented immediately—aimed not only at preventing French citizens from joining the war in Syria, but also at combatting the radicalization of young French Muslims at the earliest stages of indoctrination.

One of the key provisions of the plan involves the creation of a counselling center and a dedicated website and telephone hotline for parents or family members who are seeking professional advice about how to handle children they believe are becoming radicalized.

The toll-free hotline—to be staffed by psychologists, social workers and experts in radical Islam—will also enable parents to secure immediate help from police in cases where underage children are trying to leave France without parental permission.

This provision comes in response to several recent attempts by French teenagers to become jihadists in Syria. In one instance, a 14-year-old girl from the southeastern French city of Grenoble was intercepted with a one-way ticket to Istanbul at the airport in Lyon on February 25, just as she was about to board a plane. Police were alerted after the girl sent her father a text message saying she was running away from home because she had been selected to “join the jihad” in Syria.

In another instance, two teenagers in Toulouse left for Syria on January 6, the first school day of 2014, after stealing credit cards from their parents to purchase plane tickets to Turkey. The youths—ages 15 and 16—were repatriated to France on January 26 and now face charges of conspiring with a terrorist enterprise.

In all, at least 15 French teenagers have tried to travel to Syria since the war there began in March 2011, according to French intelligence. In most instances, the parents say they did not suspect their children were becoming radicalized.

The Interior Ministry says it is urging parents to be more vigilant—especially about monitoring their children’s activities online. The Ministry is also encouraging parents to contact the hotline at the first signs of radicalization. The names of radicalized youths will be placed in a database of wanted persons, a system that would prevent them from boarding flights to destinations beyond the borders of France.

Cazeneuve also plans to pursue jihad recruiters online by means of a team of specialist investigators who will monitor jihadist chat forums and work undercover to infiltrate recruitment cells.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/maine-2014-candidates-for-congress-where-they-stand?f=must_reads Primary: June 10, 2014 ________________________________________ To see the actual voting records of all incumbents on other issues such as Foreign Policy, Second Amendment Issues, Homeland Security, and other issues as well as their rankings by special interest groups please use the links followed by two stars (**). U.S. Senate Angus King (I) Next Election […]

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July,

but Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
Ronald Reagan

Besides tax day, April is noted for showers, which according to the rhyme should bring May flowers. We certainly have had the rain and, if my garden is at all predictive, it looks like May will bring an abundance of blossoms – though nearer the end of the month than the start. The month was also, as I wrote in an earlier piece, the occasion of my 50th wedding anniversary. At the request of our grandchildren, we renewed our wedding vows. This time, though, I felt confident that they will really take; there should be no need to redo them in another fifty years!

The month began with Mr. Obama announcing that all debate about the Affordable Care Act can stop now that 8.0 million people have signed up. The first reaction of the Administration to the enrollment numbers, after high-fives all around, was to announce the resignation of HHS Secretary Katherine Sebelius. After an abysmal start on October 1st, 8.0 million is a credible number. But details have not been made available. How many have paid? How many were young and healthy? How many had been uninsured? How many are Medicaid signups? How many actually lost their insurance because of ObamaCare? What has been the cost – in technology and advertising? And what about the Little Sisters of the Poor? With dozens of lawsuits outstanding, no one can predict what will happen to the Affordable Care Act. The whole episode shows the divisiveness of one Party trying to unilaterally drive legislation past another.

The month was also a reminder of the instability of the world in which we live. A massive 8.2 earthquake hit offshore Chile on April 1. Earthquakes are measured on the Richter Scale, an exponential scale; so that every increase in a whole number equates to ten times the magnitude – a 7.0 earthquake is ten times that of a 6.0 and 100 times that of a 5.0. For comparison purposes, the earthquake that hit San Francisco in 1989 and which collapsed the Bay Bridge was 6.9 on the Richter Scale. This one was about 50 times larger and should serve as a reminder that man remains subservient to nature. At the end of the month, on the 27th, a tornado ripped through parts of Mississippi and Arkansas killing 35. Tornados are ranked according to the Enhanced Fujitsu Scale, from EF0, with wind gusts up to 85MPH to EF5, with wind gusts up to 200MPH. This one was ranked an EF3. The Philippines were ablaze on the 6th of the month when 1000 homes were destroyed by fire in the slums of the southern city of Davao. Like the great Chicago fire of 1871 (which was allegedly started when Mrs. O’Leary’s cow knocked over a lantern), this fire was started by human error – a candle.

President Obama to all tyrants and thugs:

“Listen up. De Tocqueville once said to George Orwell…” you can fool most people all of the time”….Well, I’m not “most people” and you can’t fool me. I know what you are up to. I don’t care if it takes six hours, six days, six weeks or six months. I have instructed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry to work this out until you get absolutely everything you want. Get it?”

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to Justice Department employees, praised Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in last week’s Supreme Court decision upholding Michigan’s ban on race-based admissions to its state universities. He called it “courageous and very personal.”

It was personal. Toward the end of her 58-page dissent, she said this about the six Justices who formed the plurality:

“More fundamentally,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, the plurality “ignores the importance of diversity in institutions of higher education and reveals how little my colleagues understand about the reality of race in America.” Those colleagues are Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Breyer and Thomas.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Schuette v. BAMN provides the most complete explanation I’ve seen of the reasoning behind the views on race of President Obama and Attorney General Holder. Over five years, the administration has repeatedly challenged various states on their voting practices, intervened to alter the racial composition of public-school populations and racial patterns in housing. Disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over voter ID laws has been particularly contentious.

Some of this is politics. But some of it is belief about the status of race in America a half century after passage of landmark civil-rights legislation in 1964.

“Race matters,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. It matters “because of persistent racial inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic disparities.”

Meet the new EPA chief. Even crazier than the old EPA chief. And the old EPA chief set up a separate identity for herself and gave it awards. And then left with an official very expensive portrait of her urinating into a brook.

But Gina McCarthy is showing promising signs of craziness.

Administrator Gina McCarthy attended an event Thursday at Clark Atlanta University hosted by the Hip Hop Caucus.

Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus, “argues often that climate change is the ‘lunch counter moment’ for the younger generation.”

It’s more like his 5-star restaurant moment.

The EPA chief encouraged black students, who are “most vulnerable to climate change,” to become “champion climate justice advocates” by supporting some of the FDA rules currently being pushed by environmental activists. McCarthy mentioned “greenhouse gas emission standards for new power plants that the agency released last fall, and the rules for existing plants” that are set to be released on June 1.

“Pollution is holding back millions of African Americans fighting for middle class security.” She continues, “Environmental justice is social justice.” McCarthy also says, “We have a moral obligation to act now.”

Sure. Black people are being held back by affordable food and gasoline. If only a carbon tax were to make these and many other things much more expensive, it would really move black people forward.

We have a moral obligation to make Al Gore richer and millions of Americans poorer. Anything else is racism.

Palestinian-American Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi addressed America’s role in the Arab-Israeli peace process on April 17, 2014, at Washington, DC’s Jerusalem Fund, a pro-Palestinian think tank. Describing Israel’s “entirely false narrative” into which “we have all been brainwashed,” Khalidi revealed his own myopia before an audience of about forty mostly likeminded, middle-aged people.

John Halaka’s “Portraits of Denial and Despair” photo exhibit currently displayed in Jerusalem Fund hallways set a worrying ambience for Khalidi. Amidst photo captions damning an Israeli “settler colonial state,” one photo montage shows Yasser Arafat’s former press secretary, Raeda Taha. She grew up “in the shadow of a martyr,” a caption declares, a “symbol of the national struggle,” namely her pictured terrorist father Ali Taha, “killed in a hijacking operation he commanded.”

Khalidi discussed how the United States has “systematically failed” to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace given “structural reasons.” “Corrupt terms” such as “honest broker” expressed by Secretaries of State James Baker and Condoleezza Rice enabled America’s “myth” as a “disinterested mediatory.” Rather, “continuing complicity” and “virtually identity of views” with Israel since 1975 make America sometimes “more Israeli than the Israelis.” “Ceaseless colonization” of East Jerusalem and the West Bank has actually “made this conflict worse” despite 1991 Madrid Conference American assurances of no “prejudicial” actions during peace negotiations.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s current negotiations continue America’s “pusillanimous role” amidst “widespread skepticism.” The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) “position of weakness” faces Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “uncompromising stand,” including Israel’s “brand new, never before revealed demand” for Jewish state recognition. Does this mean in Israel “everybody has to sing HaTikvah,” the national anthem, Khalidi joked.

Such biases “driven by domestic pressure” from the “Israel lobby” became “intense” during President Barack Obama’s “humiliating retreat” from a supposedly longstanding policy on ultimate 1967-based Israeli borders. Israel, however, must otherwise “conform to American wishes,” such as during the Iran nuclear agreement. Here the “United States did exactly how it pleased.”

Middle East arms deals also occur without Israeli consent, often involving Saudi Arabia’s “stealth lobby” operating in conjunction with American oil interests. Yet “in fact no contradiction” exists between American relationships with Israel and Gulf monarchies that, like all Arab autocracies, ignore local popular support for the Palestinian cause. “Some of them…are on Israel’s side,” Khalidi judged.

Originally published by the Hoover Institution.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama let slip his disdain for the middle-class when he explained his lack of traction among such voters. “It’s not surprising then,” Obama said, “that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” More recently, U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Braley mocked his opponent incumbent Chuck Grassley as “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” The liberal disdain for ordinary Americans has been around for a long time. Beneath the populist rhetoric and concern for the middle class that lace the campaign speeches of most liberal politicians, there lurks a palpable disgust, and often contempt, for the denizens of “flyover country,” that land of God, guns, religion, and traditional beliefs.

In Revolt Against the Masses, the Manhattan Institute senior fellow and New York Postcolumnist Fred Siegel presents a clearly written and engaging historical narrative of how nearly a century ago this strain of illiberal liberalism began to take over the Democratic Party. Along the way he also provides an excellent political history of the period that illuminates the “ugly blend of sanctimony, self-interest, and social-connections” lying at the heart of liberalism today.

Siegel begins with a valuable survey of the “progenitors,” the early twentieth-century thinkers and writers whose ideas shaped the liberal ideology. Those who know English writer H. G. Wells only as an early pioneer of science-fiction novels may be surprised to find how popular and widely read in America his philosophical and political writings were in the first few decades of the century. Wells’s 1901 Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought laid out the argument for a quasi-aristocratic elite of technocrats free of traditional values such as “monogamy, faith in God & respectability,” all of which Wells’s book “was designed to undermine and destroy,” as he frankly admitted. Applying Darwinism to social, political, and economic life, Wells envisioned, as Siegel explains, “scientist-poets and engineers” who would “seize the reins in the Darwinian struggle,” so that instead of “descending into savagery, we would follow their lead toward new and higher ground.” In Wells’s work we see the melding of attacks on traditional authority and middle-class morality, with the scientistic faith in technocratic elites that still characterizes modern liberalism.

Wells’s kindred American spirit was Progressive theorist Herbert Croly, whose 1901 The Promise of American Life Siegel calls the “first political manifesto of modern American liberalism.” Croly “rejected American tradition, with its faith in the Constitution and its politics of parties and courts, and argued for rebuilding America’s foundation on higher spiritual and political principles that would transcend traditional ideas of democracy and self-government.”

Sometimes doctrines just vanish, once they appear as naked as the proverbial emperor in his new clothes.
Something like that seems now to be happening with affirmative action. Despite all the justifications for its continuance, polling shows the public still strongly disagrees with the idea of using racial criteria for admissions and hiring.

Its dwindling supporters typically include those who directly benefit from it, or who are not adversely affected by it. Arguments for the continuance of affirmative action are half-hearted and may explain why some supporters descend into name-calling directed at those who dare question its premises.

The Supreme Court, by a 6–2 majority, recently upheld the decision by Michigan voters that their state would neither favor nor discriminate against applicants to the state’s public universities on the basis of race.

Recently, a group of liberal Asian-American state lawmakers in California — a state that is over 60 percent non-white — successfully blocked a proposed return to racial considerations in college admissions.

Asian-American students are now disproportionately represented in the flagship University of California system at nearly three times their percentages in the state’s general population. If race were reintroduced as a consideration for admission, Asian-Americans would have their numbers radically reduced in the California system in favor of other ethnic-minority students, regardless of their impressive ethnically blind grades and test scores.

Expect more such pushback.

In the 1950s, when the country was largely biracial — about 88 percent so-called white and 10 percent African American — and when the civil-rights movement sought to erase historical institutionalized bias in the South against blacks, affirmative action seemed to be well intentioned and helpful.