RUTHFULLY YOURS

We’re Turning Japanese Now

It’s an article of American faith that Japan is an incredibly strange place. The world has been mapped and GPS’ed to death ruining much of the thrill of discovery. There probably aren’t any hidden cities with remnants of lost civilizations lurking in the deserts of Africa or the jungles of South America. That just leaves the land of the rising sun as the X on the map, the strange place that suggests that the world that we know all too well, might still be odder than we can imagine.

But Japan isn’t really all that strange. We are.

Depressed post-industrial economy, low birth rate, social disintegration and a society obsessed with pop culture and useless tech toys? A country that has embraced pacifism to the extent that it can hardly defend its own borders? A nation where materialism has strangled spirituality leaving no sense of purpose?

We are Japan. And so is Europe. Or rather Japan is the place we all reach eventually.

Japan is strange because it aggressively hurled itself into a postmodern void without knowing what was on the other side. It did this with the same dedication that its soldiers once marched into machine gun fire.

Japan had been in a race with the West, as it had been ever since Commodore Perry showed up with a fleet to open up a closed nation. It wasn’t unique in that regard. A lot of countries tried to do the same thing. Most found that they couldn’t keep up with either our technology or our decline. Japan shot past us in both areas. It beat us technologically. And then it outpaced our decline.

Dear Reader (including Rand Paul, who has no place in this “news”letter because he’s so low in the polls),

I’m writing this sentence (who can say where I’ll be in an hour) at the Brooklyn Diner off Times Square (the pastrami frittata is fantastic!). I’m about a block away from the set of Good Morning America, where hundreds of decent, normal Americans are willingly turning themselves into meat props for a three-hour spectacle, two hours and forty-five minutes of which is dedicated to something someone named Kanyé said about someone else; the troubling rise in Pilates injuries; J-Lo’s ass; and breaking news of a puppy making friends with a stuffed toy — from someone’s Facebook page somewhere out in America. I don’t actually know that’s what’s on today’s show, but I’m pretty confident it’s not that far off either.

I don’t mean to single out Good Morning America — The Today Show is equally vapid. It’s just that Good Morning America is fresh in my mind because I happened to watch an hour or so of it earlier this week while waiting for my car at the shop. I would have blown my brains out, but the show depleted my IQ so rapidly I couldn’t manage even the most rudimentary tasks. I got so dumb, Debbie Wasserman Schultz could have beaten me at checkers. But I did learn how Victoria Beckham struggles to have it all as a working mom. I don’t know how she does it. She’s a trooper.

And then there was the long segment on Suzy Favor Hamilton, the courageous former Olympic runner who married her college sweetheart, won a bunch of medals, started a family and a business, and then, “after one night with a Vegas call girl,” decided to become a hooker herself.

Defying all common sense, President Obama remains desperate to rush a $150 billion bailout to al-Qaeda’s allies. Specifically, Obama’s nuclear “deal” would unfreeze Iranian assets and deliver them to the Ayatollah Khamenei and Tehran’s terror regime. Obama is, at best, holistically oblivious or metaphysically negligent about financing Islamo-butchers who cooperate closely with al-Qaeda.

Just as FDR and Stalin collaborated to defeat Hitler, al-Qaeda’s radical Sunnis and Iran’s militant Shiites have buried the scimitar and now conspire against their common enemy: America. As the 9/11 Commission concluded, “There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”

According to former Defense Intelligence Agency chief General Michael Flynn, the reams of records captured during the Navy SEALs’ May 2011 raid that liquidated Osama bin Laden include “letters about Iran’s role, influence and acknowledgment of enabling al Qaeda operatives to pass through Iran as long as al Qaeda did its dirty work against the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

My Hoover Institution colleague Kori Schake wrote about last Wednesday’s GOP debate that, when it comes to foreign policy, the contenders still have a lot to learn. The same is true about vaccines and vaccination policy.

Donald Trump claimed that pediatric vaccines have caused an alarming increase in autism, and that the pediatric vaccination schedule should be attenuated — that is, spread out with smaller doses over a longer time period. Trump is wrong on both counts, which is not surprising for someone who has no expertise in this area and tends to shoot from the hip on all manner of subjects; but the unwillingness (or inability) of the two physicians among the candidates — ophthalmologist Rand Paul and pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson — to set the record straight was appalling.

This contretemps follows similar recent missteps about vaccination by Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul (again), all of whom have suggested that parents should have the right to withhold vaccines from their kids. That makes sense only if you think parents should be permitted to let toddlers play with double-edged razor blades and cigarette lighters.

The most important facts relevant to the debate’s misapprehensions are these:

• There is no evidence that vaccination is in any way related to autism, more accurately called “autism spectrum disorder,” or ASD. Although it has been known that ASD runs in families, the underlying genetic determinants have been elusive, but a 2010 study published in the journal Nature offers some new insights. Drawing on data from 60 research institutions in twelve countries, the researchers analyzed the genes of 996 children with ASD and 1,287 children without the condition. They found that each affected person carried his or her own individual assortment of mutations. This contrasts with the situation in sickle-cell anemia, for example, where the disease is caused by a unique mutation — a change in one specific nucleotide of DNA, which in turn causes a single amino-acid change in a gene that codes for the protein of hemoglobin. (Genes are made up of DNA, which is a template that, after an intermediate step, directs the ordering of building blocks — amino acids — into proteins.)

‘Why on earth would Republicans do that?” That is a question I’ve been asked at least a dozen times since illustrating that the GOP has played a cynical game in connection with President Obama’s Iran deal.

“Follow the money” is a common answer to questions about political motivation. It may not explain everything in this case, but it is certainly relevant.

This spring, Republican leadership colluded with the White House and congressional Democrats to enact a law — the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act — that guaranteed Obama would be authorized to lift sanctions against Iran (the main objective of the terrorist regime in Tehran). The rigged law authorized Obama to lift sanctions as long as Republicans could not pass a resolution of disapproval. As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and other GOP leaders well knew, there was no way they would ever be able to enact a disapproval resolution over Obama’s veto. But the process choreographed by Corker-Cardin meant they would be able to complain about the deal and vote to disapprove it — thereby creating the impression that they were staunchly against the lifting of sanctions that they had already authorized.

Why on earth would Republicans do that? Well, their incentive to obscure the earlier approval vote with the theater of a futile disapproval process is clear: The Iran deal is intensely unpopular among the GOP’s base supporters, just as it is unpopular across the country. Incumbents who hope to be reelected want to be perceived as staunch opponents of the things their constituents abhor. But why isn’t this perception the reality — why wouldn’t GOP congressional leaders actually be staunch opponents? Why wouldn’t they zealously use their every power to stop the deal?

There is a complaint against Obama foreign policy that goes “all our allies have been alienated, and are scared by the lack of American leadership and our indifference to their security, and all Obama does is cozy up to our enemies.” Jeb Bush has asked audiences, “Name a country where we have a better relationship now than we did seven years ago,” and audiences answer back “Iran!”

In pursing this policy of cooperating with our enemies rather than our friends, Obama is now going to include the horrific issue of Syria. A central pillar of American foreign policy for over 50 years has been to keep the Russians out of the Middle East. Now we appear to be welcoming their return as a military power there. The Obama reaction has been first to have Secretary of State John Kerry telephone Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to express concern, then to have Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter call his own Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu, and next to have military-to-military talks with Russia.

This is amazing. It undermines a half-century of policy and broadcasts weakness and irresolution to both enemies (Iran, China) and friends (Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf states). But it certainly isn’t surprising: Weakness and irresolution have in fact been the heart of U.S. policy in Syria in the Obama years. When the (mostly Sunni) people of Syria rose up peacefully against the Alawite, Iran-and-Hezbollah backed Assad regime in 2011 and Assad began to kill his own population, Obama did nothing. As the deaths mounted and his own advisers — Clinton, Panetta, Petraeus, Dempsey — advised action to build a non-jihadi rebel force, he did nothing. When Assad did not react to Obama’s chemical-weapons red line, Obama backed down, not Assad. And so the deaths and the refugees have mounted into a humanitarian catastrophe that was avoidable.

He was told that his daughter refused to change her religion, so she was buried from the neck down, and then stoned to death. — Nigeria.

Nearly 300 Christian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram last year were being beaten, forced to convert to Islam, and indoctrinated into believing that their mission is to “slit the throats of Christians and to carry out suicide attacks.” — Nigeria.

Christians kidnapped and held for ransom continue to be slaughtered even after their ransom is paid. — Pakistan.

“In most instances the victims are minors, young adolescent girls. They suffer sexual violence, forced prostitution, domestic abuse and even sold to human traffickers.” — Sardar Mushtaq Gill, human rights lawyer, Pakistan.

“If the West wants to do something about the present crisis, the most effective thing would be to support local governments, which need sufficient armies and forces to maintain security and defend respective populations against attacks.” — Moran Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, Patriarch of Antioch.

Not only is the Islamic State (IS) persecuting Christians but so are the U.S.-supported “rebel” forces in Syria, which the Obama administration assures are “moderate.” According to a recent National Public Radio (NPR) report, “With backing from U.S. allies, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, this [U.S. supported] rebel coalition fights both the Syrian regime and the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS. But the coalition has extremists in its own ranks who have mistreated Christians and forced them out of their homes”—just as IS has done.

Fiorina referenced this support during the Sep. 16th GOP debate….you can read the ad at https://carlyforamerica.com/blog/icymi-former-hp-board-member-tom-perkins-the-truth-about-carly/…rsk

A “super PAC” supporting Carly Fiorina is defending her record as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard in a full-page ad in The New York Times that promotes her strength as a leader of the technology company.Tom Perkins, the founder of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and a member of the board that ultimately ousted Ms. Fiorina in 2005, described the Republican presidential candidate as a visionary executive who helped to revive the company during hard times.

“Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth,” Mr. Perkins wrote, pointing to an increase in revenues and patents during her time there.

A lot has been said and written about this week’s presidential debate hosted by CNN. Many people have focused on exchanges between Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump, or between Rand Paul and The Donald, and between Chris Christie and the two “outsiders.” Of course there was also the confrontation between Trump and Jeb Bush. Great: all good, interesting exchanges.

One exchange that hasn’t nearly received the attention it deserves though, is a debate between Ohio Governor John Kasich and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. The subject: the nuclear deal with Iran.

This deal is perhaps the most horrific deal ever made with any authoritarian regime, but Kasich stood on the podium and defended it nonetheless. He admitted that it’s likely that the mad ayatollahs don’t keep their part of the agreement, but that didn’t matter much to him; he believes it’s much more important to get “the international community” (whatever that may be) to support any action the United States takes. If that means that there first has to be an agreement with the terrorism-supporting radical thugs in Tehran, so be it.

Kasich:

Let me make clear, let me make clear, if we think they get close to developing a nuclear weapon and we get that information, you better believe that I would do everything in my power as the Commander-in-Chief to stop them having a nuclear weapon.

Of course, the problem with that is that it’ll be too little, too late. When that happens, Iran will have material already to produce a bomb in little to no time — faster than anyone can act. It’s the North Korean nuclear story all over again.

Politico, for once, said it best:

If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton,” Carly Fiorina quipped at Wednesday’s Republican debate. The line got hearty applause—but it also cut to the core of one of the defining lines of attacks against the former first lady and Democratic presidential frontrunner. After nearly forty years in public life, what exactly has she accomplished.

It’s a question that even, at times, has tripped up Clinton herself: During her 2014 book tour, when ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked her about her “marquee achievement,” Clinton changed the subject and she fumbled over a similar question during a women’s forum in Manhattan last year. “I see my role as secretary—in fact leadership in general in a democracy—as a relay race. You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished,” she told Thomas Friedman.

The question Fiorina posed has also tripped up members of the Obama administration. When State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked last year to “identify one tangible achievement” accomplished through one of Hillary Clinton’s key projects as Secretary of State—the first-ever audit of the department—Psaki punted, “I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one.”

Hillary’s supporters have been stumped too. When Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin asked a focus group of Iowans this summer about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments, one Democratic supporter said, “I honestly can’t say I followed along [with] everything that was going on.”