RUTHFULLY YOURS

How could Hillary Clinton’s staff let her get away with it?

It’s one of the most perplexing questions surrounding the massive scandal over Clinton’s use of an unsecured, private e-mail server when she served as secretary of state. How could it be that no one in the State Department pointed out that Clinton was violating government policy and putting sensitive information at risk? Why didn’t her closest advisers warn that the move could torpedo her resurgent presidential ambitions?

State Department staffers aren’t talking — not yet, at least. But the thousands of Clinton e-mails reluctantly released by the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit are illuminating. They reveal a Secretary of State heavily insulated from her agency’s rank-and-file by a devoted inner circle, one which relentlessly lavished praise on Clinton and sometimes functioned more like receptionists than top strategic advisers. Many of the same confidantes appear set to take high-level jobs in a future Clinton White House, meaning her “yes-man problem” is likely to persist should she become president.

Leftwingers’ taunts in 2008 and 2012 have come back to haunt them.
In the jubilation of the Obama election victories of 2008 and 2012, the Left warned Republicans that the party of McCain and Romney was now “too old, too white, too male — and too few.” Columnists between 2008 and 2012 ad nauseam berated Republicans on the grounds that their national candidates “no longer looked like America.” The New York Times stable crowed that the Republicans of 2008 were “all white and nearly all male” — not too long before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. In reaction to the defeats of McCain and Romney, Salon and Harper’s ran stories on the “Grand Old White Party” and “Angry White Men.”

For Democratic progressives, Hawaiian Barack Obama could not be of mixed ancestry and decidedly middle class, but simply “black” or “African American” — as if he had shared the Jim Crow experience of Clarence Thomas. Nor was there any allowance that race itself had become hard to sort into neat categories in a nation of immigration, intermarriage, and assimilation, in which millions of Americans were one-half this and one-quarter that. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King proved that well enough by successfully constructing themselves as white for quite a long time.

It has been a while since I’ve contributed anything meaningful to Wikipedia. My last encounter there ended badly and resulted in an “indefinite topic ban,” Wikipedia jargon for the Siberian gulag. Essentially, an anti-Israel administrator decreed that I can no longer contribute or edit the Arab-Israeli topic area and if I attempted to do so, my account would be blocked. An appeal proved to be an exercise in futility, drawing on the same swarm of malcontents who made their appearance in the initial proceeding clamoring for a ban. I thus joined the lot of countless other editors who have tried and failed to insert a modicum of balance into Wikipedia’s Arab-Israeli topic area.

The rise and continuing popularity of Donald Trump reminds us that “class warfare” is an eternal constant of democracies, for as Plato said, every city is in fact two cities, “one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.” But possession of wealth is not the only factor in this eternal conflict between the few and the many. The masses of course resent the elites’ greater wealth, but even more they dislike the assumption of superior wisdom and virtue that elites have always claimed as justifications for their status. It is this galling assumption and the anger it arouses in people that Donald Trump has brilliantly exploited.

Many Republicans correctly see that this popular anger is usually directed against progressives. The typical Democrat reflexively assumes that he is smarter and better educated, thinks more “scientifically,” and has more cultivated tastes than the masses in flyover country who cling bitterly to their guns and religion, as the President once said. All true, but many in the Republican elite often display the same attitudes. We saw this in some of the responses to Trump’s remarks on immigration. Lindsey Graham called Trump a “wrecking ball,” and Jeb Bush said Trump’s remarks were “unfortunate” and advised, “We must have a more civil policy debate in this country.” In other words, it wasn’t the truth of Trump’s remarks that mattered, but their déclassé tone. Similarly, John McCain has called Tea Partiers and Trump followers “crazies” and “wacko-birds.” The implication is that social inferiors and ignoramuses are meddling in the business of their betters.

Senator Markey has announced his support for the Iran deal that will let the terrorist regime inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, buy ballistic missiles, fund terrorism and have a near zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb.

There was no surprise there.

Markey had topped the list of candidates supported by the Iran Lobby. And the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) had maxed out its contributions to his campaign.

After more fake suspense, Al Franken, another IAPAC backed politician who also benefited from Iran Lobby money, came out for the nuke sellout.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the Iran Lobby’s third Dem senator, didn’t bother playing coy like her colleagues. She came out for the deal a while back even though she only got half the IAPAC cash that Franken and Markey received.

Britain’s problems with Scotland and the EU have a common origin: an ancient constitution ill-adjusted to our democratic age. The solution: federalism at home, intergovernmentalism abroad and, most of all, the manifestation of a national will to effect much-needed change
During last year’s Scottish referendum, a shocking 45 per cent of voters showed themselves in favour of independence from the United Kingdom, whilst during the recent general election Britain’s first-past-the-post system ensured that the Scottish National Party won almost all of Scotland’s seats at Westminster. That is not a sign of a happy, healthy polity.

Abroad, in its relations with Europe during the last sixty years, Britain has vacillated. On the one hand, it has been a largely reluctant participant in the supranational, confederal project of European political integration represented by the European Union (EU) and its forerunners; on the other hand, before finally joining this project it had set up its own intergovernmental institutions focused on free trade rather than political integration, notably in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which it subsequently abandoned but has never quite forgotten. This, too, suggests unhappiness, as well as an inability to shape events and uncertainty as to how to proceed.

It has become increasingly clear that these questions are intertwined. Not, as frequently said, because an allegedly pro-EU Scottish population would be more likely to exit the UK if the UK voted to exit the EU, but because many who support Scotland leaving the UK are not in favour of Scotland actually going it alone, but of swapping one union for another. They wish to cut out the UK “middle man”, anchoring an “independent” Scotland to the EU instead. And, contrary to conventional wisdom, pulling this off would be far easier if the UK stayed inside the EU than if it left, since far less would be at stake. Survival of the UK and British membership of the EU are hence likely mutually exclusive in the long run. All of this raises profound questions of identity in a country (or a nation?) consisting of four home nations (or countries?) in which it is still not uncommon to speak of Europe as the Continental Other (as in “Australia, Britain, and Europe”).

Within two weeks of the July 14, 2015 announcement of the dangerous and destabilizing [1] Iran nuclear deal, expatriate Iranian journalist Amir Taheri revealed [2] the recent publication of a 414-page tract, largely a compendium of speeches delivered over the past 25 years by Ayatollah Khamenei.

Despite the publication of the Iranian Ayatollah’s vitriolic tract entitled Palestine, Khamenei was recognized by the avatar of moderate Islam, the Jordanian Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre’s [3] 2014/15 “World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims” (issued annually), as the third most important international Muslim figure [4].

Shortly after Taheri’s revelation, my colleague Daniel Akbari — a former leading Iranian Sharia lawyer credentialed [5] to argue potential death penalty cases in the Islamic State, and now an intrepid human rights activist — procured the full Farsi text (posted here [6]), and translated extensive excerpts [7].

Although unabashedly targeting both Israel and the U.S. — on p. 40 [7] he calls for “Breaking the Back of the Oppressive Americans and Their Zionist Servants (i.e., Israel)” — Khamenei’s opprobrium rivets upon destruction of the Jewish State.

Khamenei elucidates [7] why Israel must be destroyed:

The centrality of Palestine for the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim world is undeniable. Even before to the Islamic Revolution, Palestine, the Palestinian people, and the injustice they were experiencing were important issues for [his theocratic predecessor, and leader of the retrograde [8] 1979 “Revolution”] Imam Khomeini and the movement he led. We cannot observe and tolerate the existence and presence of the [Israeli/Jewish] enemy who has occupied the land …

While this foul wound and infected gland called “the Israeli Government” remain in the heart of Islamic territories, we cannot feel we have won. … Palestine is the most important issue of the Islamic world. Palestine is the most important issue of the world of Islam. There is not any other international issue in the world of Islam more important than the issue of Palestine.

Citing an authoritative, traditionalist interpretation of jihad [9] — as applied with broad, modern jurisprudential consensus to the issue of “Palestine” (i.e., all of modern Israel within the 1949 armistice borders, Gaza, Judea and Samaria) — Khamenei, explaining why “Jihad is the answer,” further declared [7]:

The Obama administration lauded as “historic” Monday’s first-of-its-kind meeting at the UN Security Council on gay rights, organized by the U.S. Missions at the UN and Chile.

Much of the meeting focused on the murder of homosexuals by ISIS, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and other groups in the region including the Al-Nusra Front, but UN Ambassador Samantha Power made clear that they want the agenda to be broader.

According to reports, Chad and Angola skipped the closed meeting.

Subhi Nahas escaped execution by fleeing to Lebanon after ISIS took his city, Idlib, Syria. “At the executions, hundreds of townspeople, including children, cheered jubilantly as at a wedding,” Nahas said. “If a victim did not die after being hurled off a building, the townspeople stoned him to death. This was to be my fate too.”

As buzzards circled around Hillary Clinton’s dying campaign over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden met with left-wing darling Sen. Elizabeth Warren (aka Fauxcahontas) in his residence at the Naval Observatory.

CNN reported that Warren and Biden “discussed economic policy during a meeting that lasted about two hours.”

A person familiar with the discussion told CNN that “the presidential campaign or Biden’s future” was not the focus of the discussion.

Uh-huh. He singled out Senator Warren to have a private meeting with him on economics — just out of the blue for no particular reason whatsoever.

Beloved by liberal Democrats, Warren decided to sit out a campaign of her own, but she has yet to formally endorse a candidate. In an interview on Friday, she told WBZ in Boston: “I don’t think anyone has been anointed.”

Well — no one has been anointed YET.

Jeb Bush seems to have a self-destructive impulse. No, not the same self-destructive mechanism that causes Scott Walker to announce contradictory policy positions with the speed of a tennis ball machine, but rather the urge to express sentiments that seems to show him to be more sympathetic to illegal aliens than he is to American citizens.

This urge could first be seen with his comments that illegal immigration is an “act of love.” Never mind the thousands of illegals who have taken jobs from Americans and consumed our taxpayer dollars for education and health care, and the thousands more who have committed crimes, including murder. That was extremely tone-deaf. But it was only one comment.

Now Bush has done it again. He’s gone to the border, presumably to show that even he would be tough on border security. Instead, he’s made headlines by saying the Asian illegal aliens, not Hispanic ones, are the real problem.