RUTHFULLY YOURS

Patricia Smith and Charles Woods, parents of two of the Benghazi dead, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, would disagree with the notion that history is a lie agreed upon. They do not agree with and do not consent to Hillary Clinton’s attempted rewriting of history and the attempted hiding of what is arguably her criminal negligence in what she calls the “fog of war.”

Family members of the Benghazi dead talked to Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly Wednesday night after viewing the world premier of 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. Charles Woods and Jeremiah Woods, father and brother of Ty Woods, and Patricia Smith. mother of Sean, repeated their consistent statements that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice all told them in front of their son’s caskets that Benghazi was the fault of a video and they would get, not the terrorist’s that killed their sons, but the filmmaker. As Matthew K. Burke notes on the Politistick blog:

The most powerful moment of the interviews — setting aside Charles Woods, whose son Ty Woods was killed in the Islamic attacks, who showed notes he took at the funerals of the victims which collaborate [sic] that Hillary Clinton told the families the known lie that the YouTube video was responsible, was a crying Pat Smith, who sadly declared the one thing she would like to say.

The poor lady couldn’t even make it through the whole movie, having to leave immediately upon seeing the actor portraying her son.

Almost like Bill Clinton’s multiple victims of his sexual assault victims who were labeled as liars, Hillary Clinton claimed to not have told the families that the YouTube video was responsible — in essence calling the families liars.

The more naïve members of the Hillary Clinton campaign have long dreaded the release of Michael Bay’s factual account of the Benghazi attack, 13 Hours. The more sophisticated members of that campaign were less worried. They were confident their friends in the media would scare off all but the most deluded “tea-baggers.”

Yes, the media will try. They are trying. I am not sure, however, that they will succeed. In the age of social media, word of mouth is much more significant a force than it ever was before. And the word of mouth on 13 Hours will be justifiably powerful. The movie is riveting from beginning to end.

I saw the movie without benefit of having read a review. I was further burdened by the fact that I know the story well; I have written extensively about Benghazi. When the movie begins with the words on screen, “This is a true story,” and not the usual “This is based on a true story,” I was prepared to hold the filmmakers to account. They were as good as their word.

In reading the reviews afterward, I sensed some relief among the critics that the movie was not overtly political. The names of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for instance, go unmentioned. In a feint at sophistication, some critics held this against director Bay.

WASHINGTON—Two months ago, Houston lawyer Joel Androphy got a call from an Iranian official in Washington requesting a meeting. They met a few days later at a federal detention center in Houston with Mr. Androphy’s client, Bahram Mechanic, a 69-year-old Iranian-American facing charges for shipping electronics equipment to Iran.

The Iranian official asked if Mr. Mechanic would be interested in being part of a clemency exchange between the two countries, a sentiment U.S. officials soon echoed. It remained unclear if the deal would come together until about a week ago.

“Everybody told me to keep my mouth shut, both the U.S. and the Iranians,” Mr. Androphy said in a phone interview from the detention center on Saturday as he waited for Mr. Mechanic to be released.

The U.S. and Iran consummated a historic—though controversial—legal deal Saturday that freed several Iranian-Americans facing charges in Iran and offered clemency to six Iranian-Americans and one Iranian either facing charges or convicted of charges in the U.S.

The lifting of the sanctions on Iran is significant not only because it rewards the regime with $150 billion, allowing to increase its global terrorist activities. It is significant because it marks President Obama’s success in remaking the United States into an indistinguishable country.

Choosing to ‘lead from behind’ and apologizing as U.S. major foreign policy tools, all but ensured the U.S. lost its power. His ‘turning the other cheek’ to provocations from Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, has done little to stop them from pursuing their violent agendas. Instead of making the Middle East into a safer place, as Secretary Kerry announced on Saturday, Obama has turned the region and the world into a much more dangerous place.

To detract attention, the Treasury Department announced on Sunday “it was sanctioning a eleven companies and individuals “for procuring items of Iran’s missile program.” The White House noted, “US statutory sanctions focused on Iran’s support for terrorism, human rights abuses, and missile activities will remain in effect and continue to be enforced.”

However, these new sanctions are meaningless because they apply only in the U.S. and only on U.S. companies, leaving European and other nations free to trade with whoever they like in Iran.The lifting of sanctions on the terrorist Islamic Theocracy of Iran has all but legitimized the funding of terrorism and turned the United States into its major funder.

The ITIC’s Spotlight on Iran highlighted the growing Crisis in Relations between Iran and the Arab States, as well as its intervention in the region. With $150 billion in its coffers, expect Iran to redouble its global influence and terrorist activities, as well as intervention in the region.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/6370/fullUtopias of abandoning the past and embracing a very different future have generally been the quickest route to dystopias of destruction, callousness and ignorance — not that that prevented New Labour from parroting the idea.

These two new editions of works first published in 1997 and 1985 respectively underline the duality of deep histories that structure and mould the present age and of the impact of current perceptions, concerns and assumptions in the reading of the past. This duality is scarcely new. Shakespeare’s Henry V (1599) tells us as much about an England under threat from Spain, the world-empire, and defining a new nationalism as about the pursuit of French territory by an early 15th-century ruler. The same is true of 20th-century portrayals of the monarch.

This transience makes any attempt to fix the past problematic. In particular, the element of transience ensures that books that the blurb-writers proclaim as definitive are anything but, and also means that the panoply of authority and reference in the shape of encyclopedias, historical dictionaries, historical atlases, companion guides and so on, is more fragile than it appears. And so with the Oxford Companion. The first edition reflected John Cannon’s particular version of left-of-centre politics, and the new edition, while cautious of partisanship, is not too different. It certainly shows the difficulties of prediction. The UKIP entry ends: “The expectation remained that the party could split the Conservative vote at the 2015 general election.” Ed Miliband is still leader of Labour, indeed “relatively secure in the post”. There is also a fair amount of uncritical praise. For example, the entry on the Olympics in Britain, which in practice is only on the 2012 Olympics, ignores the extent to which the Games did not promote exercise as anticipated. Yet, the piece on the welfare state correctly discerns concern over costs, dependency and affordability.

The book is presented as “the essential authoritative reference book on over 2,000 years of British history”. It is not of course that. In particular, there is too little on the local and the regional, on the places and spaces that are so significant to senses of identity and to the experience of the wider developments discussed. On the plus side, the writing is generally precise and concise, the level of detail good, and there is room for some of the more unusual episodes of national life.

A Modest Proposal to Buttress the Constitution, Restore Confidence in Government and Promote Domestic Tranquility By Rael Jean Isaac

Nothing is more melancholy than to see the level of contempt directed at one of the three key institutions of government established by our Constitution. A Rasmussen poll in December 2015 found only 9% of likely voters thought Congress was doing a good or excellent job-down from 56% in 2001. Strikingly, Republicans and Democrats are in agreement on these miserable approval ratings. Contrast this with the public’s approval level of the President and the Supreme Court: 46% rate Obama’s job performance favorably and 36% think the Supreme Court is doing a good or excellent job (both also according to 2015 Rasmussen polls). To be sure, these approval ratings are nothing to boast about, but even the Supreme Court is four times as well-regarded as Congress.

There is only one surefire step that can buttress the Constitution and restore public confidence in our institutions. Abolish Congress. Admittedly it is counter-intuitive to argue that we strengthen our Constitution by abolishing one of its crucial provisions. But hear me out. It is undisputed that, to quote Dr. Joseph Postell, writing for the Heritage Foundation, “over the past 100 years our government has been transformed from a limited, constitutional, federal republic to a centralized administrative state that for the most part exists outside the structure of the Constitution and wields nearly unlimited power.” This bureaucratic web of agencies and departments is frequently referred to as a “fourth branch” of government. By eliminating Congress we will in fact be returning to the vision of the founders, restoring a three part system of governance.

The Obama administration in recent days has proclaimed a “milestone” in its efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after achieving its long-held goal of reducing the remaining population to fewer than 100 detainees. With the expedited release this month of 14 detainees, the total now stands at 93.

This is nothing to celebrate.

In reducing these numbers, the White House has freed dangerous terrorists and set aside military and intelligence assessments warning about the risks of doing so. The Obama administration has deceived recipient countries about the threats posed by the jihadists they’ve accepted. And President Obama has repeatedly misled the American people about Guantanamo, the detainees held there, and the consequences of releasing them.

On Jan. 6, as part of the Obama administration’s accelerated Guantanamo process, Mahmmoud Omar Mohammed Bin Atef was transferred to Ghana, along with another detainee named Khalid Mohammed Salih al Dhuby. Ghana’s government portrayed the deal as an act of “humanitarian assistance,” likening the Yemeni men to nonthreatening refugees from Rwanda and Syria, noting that they “were detained in Guantanamo but have been cleared of any involvement in terrorist activities, and are being released.”

That description isn’t true for either of the men. Mr. Atef, in particular, is a cause for concern. Long before his transfer, the intelligence analysts at Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) assessed him as a “high risk” and “likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and allies.” (The JTF-GTMO threat assessments of 760 Guantanamo detainees, many written in 2008, were posted online in 2011 by WikiLeaks.) It is easy to understand the analysts’ worry about Mr. Atef. He was, they said, “a fighter in Usama bin Laden’s former 55th Arab Brigade and is an admitted member of the Taliban.” He trained at al Farouq, the infamous al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, “participated in hostilities against US and Coalition forces, and continues to demonstrate his support of UBL and extremism.”

Ruthie Blum is the web editor of The Algemeiner (algemeiner.com).

A few hours before U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his last State of the Union address on Tuesday evening, American sailors were captured and detained at sea by the Iranian navy.

Literally forced to their knees, nine men and one woman were held until the following day, when Tehran decided to release them, after determining that their boats’ GPS had led them astray. Had the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy reached a different conclusion, the U.S. “Marines,” as Iran referred to them, would have met a far more unpleasant fate.

While still under Islamic interrogation on the floor of an Iranian vessel, the 10 Americans were unable to listen to Obama’s speech to the nation from the podium of Congress.

This is just as well.

The last thing you’d want in such a situation is to hear the commander-in-chief of your armed forces not even mention it when the topic of Iran came up. Indeed, not even refer to it at all.

What rang loud and clear to the rest of the world who actually watched the speech on television — particularly the ayatollahs — was the president’s utter capitulation to the literal and figurative hostage-takers in the Middle East.

The Rashomon effect is contradictory interpretations of the same event by different people. I had to tear myself away from the dazzling and brilliant Israeli TV series “Prisoners of War” now available with subtitles to watch the debate.

I have scoured the news and commentary and agree that the media is lame and the format is ridiculous. I also agree that Jeb, Carson, Kasich and Christie are gone.

However, I think that Marco Rubio was the clear winner. While Cruz, whom I like and Trump whom I loathe were in their spitting match, Rubio was articulate, on point, and right on all the issues. More important, I like his manner and his youth and his smile and his optimism and his staunch patriotism. And…..all the foregoing remind me of Ronald Reagan…..yup…Is he perfect? Does he pass every litmus test? No….but he is way ahead of the others.