RUTHFULLY YOURS

The migration crisis that has been central to the European political drama since 2014 is rapidly changing. You can see signs of change everywhere, from subtle intensifications of bureaucratic language to an increasing frankness about what the migration crisis has done to Europe’s nations and societies. It also shows up in the numbers. The overall rate of migration into Europe is starting to decline, but the number of migrants who are dying in their attempt is going up. But you can see it most of all in the willingness of European leaders to tell the truth.

Just in the past ten days, you can see a shift. European Council president Donald Tusk admitted that most of the people coming in have no right to do so: “In most of the cases, and that is actually the case on the central Mediterranean route, we’re talking clearly and manifestly about economic migrants.” He added, “They get to Europe illegally, they do not have any documents which would allow them to enter the European soil.” In other words, these primarily aren’t refugees fleeing war, they’re economic migrants, who are coming in to countries along the southern Mediterranean that already suffer massive unemployment.

The reality is sinking in within the member states as well. Aydan Ozoguz, the German commissioner for immigration, refugees, and integration, admitted this week that three-quarters of the refugees Germany took in recently will still be unemployed in five years.

Just a year ago, pundits were holding out that Europe would find economic salvation in the “warm bodies” crossing the Mediterranean. It was an argument that never made sense, given the millions of unemployed but educated youth already in the European Union. Instead of a new round of guest workers, Germany has added hundreds of thousands of new dependents on the state, most with few job skills and no language preparation. The latter problem now taxes police departments, whoich have to find Pashto translators to investigate crimes such as the murder of Muslims for apostasy.

For years, Australia’s government had told the EU that they would have to look at Australia’s model for successful border enforcement. EU officials dismissed this, often with criticism of Australia’s approach. But earlier this year, just as Australian prime minister Tony Abbott had predicted, EU officials came to Australia for help.

On Friday, the European Union member states agreed to restrict visas for foreign countries that refuse to take back their own nationals who do not qualify as refugees.

Germany’s deal with Turkey, along with the enforcement position of Viktor Orban’s Hungary (which Germany still pretends to deplore) has mostly closed the land route into Europe through the Middle East – but now the Libyan coast is the main source of migration. The EU’s President Tusk described a 26 percent rise in the number of migrants arriving in Italy from Europe over the Mediterranean.

But it may finally be dawning on Europe’s elites that their attempts to rescue people at sea are endangering migrants as often as saving them. Migrants hoping for a European rescue are put on inflatable rafts (or worse) and launched off the coast of Tripoli. They make about one-sixth of the journey toward Sicily, and sometimes even less. Once they cross out of Libyan waters they enter what is commonly known as the “Search and Rescue” Zone or just “SAR Zone.” They then signal their distress and get European rides the rest of the way — or they collapse and capsize and the migrants drown. Over the weekend, the Irish navy, and its ship LÉ Eithne, took more than 700 migrants. The composition tells you the nature of the migration: a score of children, some pregnant women . . . and over 500 adult males.

Loyalty is generally a force for good, as it was in La Résistance, in 1940-44 France; but it can be a force for discord, as it is in The Resistance, in 2016-17 United States. In 1940s France, loyalty kept spirits high and helped achieve liberation from Nazi occupiers and Vichy collaborators. Today’s partisan advocacy for The Resistance has as its goal the destruction of Mr. Trump’s Presidency. Advocacy, however, should not be confused with loyalty. The latter implies an allegiance, to a nation – we pledge allegiance to our flag – a group, an individual or an idea – our Constitution. On the other hand, one who advocates does so for myriad reasons, perhaps out of loyalty or a desire to help, or possibly for personal gain or even vengeance.

Most of us are loyal in more ways than one. Loyalty is ubiquitous, but oft-changing in terms of to whom or to what to be loyal. Regardless, Webster’s describes loyalty as “unswerving in allegiance.” A soldier is loyal to his comrades, promising to leave no man behind. General George Marshall once said, “I can’t expect loyalty from the army if I do not give it.” “For God, king and country,” is a toast given by loyal officers of the British Empire. Dogs have unconditional loyalty for their masters. School and college homecomings are attended by alums loyal to their alma maters. Loyalty is the faithful allegiance to a nation, leader, cause, group, family or person. It is what prompts donations to schools, colleges, museums, churches and symphony halls. It can be as harmless as rooting for one’s college football team, or as malignant as the loyalty demanded by despots like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un and Fidel Castro.

Literature abounds with examples of loyalty: Virgil’s Aeneas would not leave his father Anchises behind, when he and his son Ascanius left Troy. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were loyal to one another. Shakespeare wrote of Desdemona’s loyalty to Othello, a fidelity that killed her. In Anthony Trollope’s “Framley Parsonage,” it was Reverend Mark Robarts’ misplaced loyalty that got him in trouble, Huck Finn was loyal to Jim, which saved the latter from being re-sold into slavery. Bertie Wooster and Jeeves project a dependent and devoted loyalty between a bumbling master and an omniscient servant. E.B. White’s Charlotte, was loyal to the animals in Mr. Arable’s barn, especially to Wilbur.

“Loyalty” in the corporate sector has withered. (I put loyalty in quotes because it was largely dependent on material comforts, not the typical allegiance to family, friends and soldiers.) Nevertheless, it wasn’t uncommon for one hired in the 1950s and ‘60s to expect their first job would be their last. Unions prospered, and health care and defined-benefit pension plans gave security to employees. But, by the mid 1980s things began to change. Corporate raiders, in the form of “green-mailers,” saw bloated companies, inefficiently run, so ripe for picking. Taking large equity positions, they forced managements to take on debt to buy them out, or to pay special dividends. Consequences included: the abandonment of unions, a move away from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pension plans, and an increase in disruptive technologies. Today, government employees have that same sense of self-satisfaction that corporate employees did forty years earlier – well-paying jobs, generous benefits, job security. But, government inefficiencies, burgeoning deficits, and bloated balance sheets will bring a day of reckoning.

Loyalty to the nation had been questioned in the mid 1960s, when television brought the horrors of combat in Vietnam into living rooms. It became impossible to explain and justify long-term foreign policy goals to those watching sons, husbands and fathers being killed on camera. News, which in earlier wars had been censored or filtered, was given raw. Reporters became commentators. Many questioned whether war was ever worth the price paid. Those questions affected our concepts of patriotism and loyalty. Today, we cringe, as we should, when we read that President Trump demanded loyalty of those in his cabinet. But, we should remember that his request wasn’t novel, that most Presidents have asked for and received the same. Nevertheless, in free societies loyalty should be offered, not demanded.

A bill in New York’s city council would require the New York Police Department to reveal crucial details about every surveillance technology that the department uses to detect terrorism and crime. Ninety days before the NYPD intends to implement a new surveillance technology, it would have to post on the Internet a technical description of how the new tool works, and how the department plans to use it. The public would have 45 days to comment on the proposed technology; the police commissioner would then have 45 days to respond to the public comments before he could actually start using the new capacity. Existing technologies would also have to be retroactively submitted to public review.

Perhaps aware that this moment may not be ideal for promoting what would be, in effect, a terrorists’ manual on how to evade discovery in New York City, the bill’s supporters have hilariously taken to casting it as a pro-illegal alien, anti-Trump gesture. New York is a “sanctuary city, now in open resistance to the Trump administration,” two members of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote in an op-ed advocating for the so-called Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act. (The Brennan Center wrote the POST Act for council members; the center has pushed similar bills across the country, including in Seattle and Oakland, two cities that have been particularly vulnerable to “anti-fascist” violence.) The city council press release claims that the bill “strengthens New York City’s commitment as a sanctuary city . . . as the Trump administration seeks to increase surveillance across America.”

In fact, the proposed law has nothing to do with New York’s deplorable status as a sanctuary city. Criminal illegal aliens avoid lawful deportation in New York because city and police officials release them back to the streets in defiance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests, not because of sophisticated surveillance technologies. But though the bill would have no effect on the city’s campaign to thwart immigration enforcement, it would impede the city’s ability to stay one step ahead of terrorist planning. Memo to the council: counterterrorism is not a leisurely activity compatible with lengthy public review and administrative red tape. It requires nimbleness and speed in the face of a rapidly evolving threat. And disclosing to the enemy the extent of, and details about, your surveillance capacities provides an invaluable blueprint for foiling those capacities.

Supporters of the bill are playing the race card as well, claiming that the bill is necessary to counter the NYPD’s historic tendency to oppress minorities. The managing director of the Bronx Defenders claims, without evidence, that the NYPD has illegally surveilled Black Lives Matter activists. Council members Dan Garodnick and Vanessa Gibson argue that “Surveillance technology often has a disproportionate, harmful impact on communities of color.” This claim is ludicrous. The radiation detectors that ring the city looking for nuclear threats, say, or the network of public cameras that protect critical infrastructure and sensitive buildings, have no disproportionate impact on minorities or any other group, other than on someone looking to do the city harm.

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, argued Monday that Trump should not face any criminal penalty just because he fired former FBI Director James Comey.

“The president of the United States should not be subject to criminal prosecution for merely exercising his constitutional authority,” he said on CNN.

“In the absence of any statute to the contrary, the president has the authority fire the director of the FBI, and the president has the power tell the director of the FBI who to investigate, who not to investigate,” he added.

Democrats have argued for months now that Trump fired Comey to disrupt the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election, which Democrats also say could show that Russia was colluding with Trump to bring down Clinton. Democrats admit there is no evidence of collusion so far, and recently have been arguing that Trump obstructed justice by encouraging Comey to drop the case.

But while Democrats have been saying Trump is trying to cover his tracks the way President Richard Nixon did, Dershowitz said the case is nothing like the Nixon coverup.

“This is not the Nixon case. This is the Bush case,” he said, referring to President George H.W. Bush’s pardon of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Weinberger was thought to have information linking Bush to the Iran-Contra affair.

“Nobody suggested obstruction of justice” in that case, Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz added it makes no sense to expand obstruction of justice to cover “constitutionally authorized” actions by the president.

On October 11, 1991 the Thomas-Hill hearings were called to explore alleged sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas, who had been nominated by President George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. They were called to “investigate” Anita Hill’s claim that some “salty talk” by the nominee amounted to “sexual harassment” which rendered him unfit to serve among the Brethren. Among those who questioned/lectured Clarence Thomas was that paragon of probity Senator Edward Kennedy, the prince of Chappaquiddick.

This was the response of Clarence Thomas:

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

To paraphrase Clarence Thomas:

If you leave out the race issue, this statement can be easily applied to the Mueller/ Comey /Mainstream Media circus for which American taxpayers are paying a fortune.

“It is a high-tech lynching for a legally elected president who deigns to think for himself, to do for our nation, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a special prosecutor and his cronies.”

rsk

“The Sheik of Araby” is a song that was written in 1921 by Harry Smith and Francis Wheeler with music by Ted Snyder. It was composed in response to the popularity of the Rudolph Valentino movie ” The Sheik.” It was recorded and sung by almost 100 famous performers and even included in “The Muppets” and the Beatles.

Here are the lyrics:
“I’m the Sheik of Araby,
Your love belongs to me.
At night when you’re asleep
Into your tent I’ll creep.
The stars that shine above,
Will light our way to love.
You’ll rule this land with me.”

In November 1936, Don Albert’s band recorded the first version with the chant “Without no pants on” between the lines of lyrics. This got Albert’s record generally banned from radio.

No URL Jacques Godfrin appreciates what our country has always stood for and is alarmed at how so many who were born here are willing to see so much of what made America great disappear.

…..When Joe hurt Jim because he was goaded into action by Jeff, of course Joe is guilty, but isn’t Jeff the more guilty party? Before Jeff started nudging, Joe wasn’t thinking about actually doing anything. Jeff committed incitement, which is influencing someone to do what you yourself won’t risk because it’d get you in trouble.

There is a lot of incitement going on these days, which does not speak well of the actors’ maturity nor of their honorability. We read and hear of many people who don’t like our current president and let their discomfiture go to extremes that are not only dangerous but bordering on the criminal. Why criminal? Because what they are bandying about – indirectly of course – is nothing less than ending a life, this accompanied by a cloud of insults and vulgarities.

It started with the usual abuse: “dumb,” “incompetent,” “monster,” “trash,” “Hitler”, and escalated with “piece of sh…” and Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, saying that Republicans just wanted to elect “any mammal,” implying the president rates no better than subhuman.

It was also suggested that the White House should be blown up. In case that notion lacked clarity, we have been regaled with a photo showing a woman holding by the hair the severed bloody head of the president. And in case that was not sufficiently direct for some, now we have a play, “Julius Caesar,” staged in Central Park in New York City. Written about 400 years ago, it’s about the assassination of the prominent Roman Julius Caesar. However, this particular play is acted with current clothing styles, all the way down to Trump’s long tie, and the actor playing the role of Julius Caesar (who gets murdered, remember?) noticeably looks like Trump. What do you think is being whispered in your ear?

With this background, these incitements, how long will it take before some simpleton, sufficiently brainwashed, attempts to kill this president? It’s not impossible, other presidents have been killed; should our nation see one more atrocity stemming from nothing more imperative than an electoral defeat? Is this what we have come to? Goodbye democratic republic, hello Middle-Eastern hell-hole?

While campaigning in Virginia in 2008, President Obama said, “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Later, in the same speech, he did mention the need for individual initiative. While Mr. Obama stated his belief that government is instrumental in individual success, he was also referring to the roles mentors play.

A mentorship can be defined as a relationship in which a more experienced or more knowledgeable person helps guide a less experienced or less knowledgeable person. Young people who do well in school and in sports often attribute their success to the dedication of a teacher or coach. The same can be said for those beginning their careers, and it is true even for old goats who, late in life, take up writing essays. Mentors help turn doubt into determination, aspiration into accomplishment. Earlier this year, in the Harvard Business Review, Anthony Tjan wrote that “mentors need to be givers of energy, not takers of it.”

Mentoring is a way of giving back. Five years ago, I was invited to join a small group of retirees in Old Lyme, people who realized their experiences and talents could be of use to those in need. While I was not then retired, I was spending most Fridays in the country, so Friday morning meetings worked. We called ourselves Mentoring Corps for Community Development (MCCD), a 501(c)3 organization. Our website speaks to the “sparkle” we try to add to our town and the region – Old Lyme and southeastern Connecticut. Over the years, we have worked with schools and students, with families who have experienced natural disasters, and individuals who have suffered hardships. We have aided non-profit organizations and helped small businesses. We try to abide by advice Robert Frost once gave: “I am not a teacher, but an awakener.”

We all have had mentors in one form or another. Mistakes are a form of mentoring. Certainly, that has been true for me. While I was not smart enough to learn from them all, I have learned from some: my rudeness, when I was fourteen, to a young girl who was not very popular; a wise man who gently advised my 16-year-old self about the risks of speeding on back roads; a group of construction types who separated me from my paycheck when I was seventeen; I learn from my grandchildren who chide me when I mess up.

But, I also benefitted from those who mentored me: a teacher of English at Williston Academy, Horace “Thugsy” Thorner, whose class on Macbeth and Hamlet I have never forgotten; an instructor in journalism in college, and the editor of Foster’s Daily Democrat in Dover, NH, for whom I wrote a sports column. I recall being told by my first real boss – Jim Donnelly of Eastman Kodak – that, if I set my mind to it, I could achieve anything. I was taught the basics of selling equities to institutional investors by Andy Monness, who thirty years later encouraged my fledging writing career. He often disagreed with my opinions, but liked the way I expressed them. As important as anything, in terms of my writing, have been the hundreds like you who have corrected me when I was in error, challenged my opinions when yours differed, and emboldened me in offering praise, not all of it deserved. I consider you all mentors.

As David illustrates, it took about a nanosecond after the shooting-spree targeting congressional Republicans for slaughter for the Left to roll into its anti-gun riff. Rep. Mo Brooks capped off his demonstration of personal valor with a flawless, spirited defense of the Second Amendment and the gun regulations that already exist in law. Bravo … and prayers for Rep. Steve Scalise for a speedy recovery, and for his family and the others who’ve been injured and traumatized.

At Powerline, Paul Mirengoff adds to his observation about the Left’s “stronger gun laws” response what he sees as the similar inevitability that “conservatives will blame overheated anti-Republican rhetoric.” I’m sure that’s true of some conservatives, but I doubt it’s true of most.

To put a finer point on it, what is blameworthy is the failure of government, academia and the media both to condemn the appalling notion of violent suppression as acceptable political expression, and to take enforcement and punitive action against instances of it. That is the problem here.

Of course conservatives don’t like obnoxious and fiery expression directed at us. But we do not seek to ban such speech as long as it remains on the right side of the line between argument and incitement, a line the First Amendment has always recognized. But if we are to have ordered liberty – a free society reliant on the rule of law – then the laws have to be enforced.

We used to say proudly to those with whom we disagree that, while we object to what they say, we would fight to the death for their right to say it. Now, the danger of death envelops those who have the temerity to say things that the radical Left finds objectionable. It is time to ostracize, and where possible prosecute or otherwise discipline, people who suppress speech through violence, intimidation, and other means of shutting down rather than engaging speech they find disagreeable.