RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Democracy exists to give people the kind of government they deserve. If the American people do not have the moral fibre to extirpate corruption on the Clinton scale, they will deserve what’s coming to them.”

I have been reading Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash with brief pauses to wipe the puke off the computer screen. For the past fifteen years, there has been no sewer too stinky for Bill and Hillary to bathe in. Most of Schweizer’s research has already made the mainstream media, but the sheer mass of it still amazes. It’s not one malfeasance or three, but an unbroken pattern of overtly corrupt behavior trading half-million-dollar speaking fees and multi-million-dollar payoffs to the Clintons’ foundation in return for billion-dollar mining concessions and corporate takeovers staged by the most revolting gangsters in the jungle of Third World governance. The English language needs a word like the Yiddish term “chutzpah” to describe them, but without the connotation of modesty and discretion.

What kind of people are we Americans, that we allow these kleptocrat’s hirelings to persist in public life? The answer, I fear, is that we have become corrupt ourselves. I’ve seen enough corruption in the Third World to know that it requires the consent of the governed. Between 1988 and 1993, I directed a Mexican research project on tax and regulatory reform. In 1990, I advised Violeta Chamorro after her election victory over Nicaragua’s Sandinistas for exactly one week, coaching her team in negotiations with the International Monetary Fund. Back then I was chief economist for the consulting firm Polyconomics, and I canceled the contract after one of Mrs. Chamorro’s advisers handed me our fee in the form of an envelope full of $100 bills–duly declared and reported to the U.S. tax authorities. In 1992, I was asked to advise Russian Finance Minister Yegor Gaidar on currency stabilization after the fall of Communism, and made several trips to Moscow. I never did meet Gaidar, but I saw enough of the looting of state assets to persuade me to get out of Dodge. Rather than pursue emerging markets, I shifted to quantitative modeling of high-grade bonds. Even that field turned rotten in the subprime scam two decades later, but that’s another story.

On Wednesday, while President Barack Obama gave a commencement speech for the graduating class at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in which he decried the growing threat of climate change. A top military aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, announced his nation was prepared to rain thousands of missiles on the Jewish State, according to reports emanating from the Middle East media on Wednesday.

Ironically, on the same day Obama discussed global climate change at a military academy, the commander of the Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, told a class of graduating cadets that the Iranian nation’s enemies understand the language of force and weapons better. “The enemies are more familiar with the language of weapons and we also intend to confront them with the same language,” Jafari said, addressing Iranian cadets in a ceremony in the presence of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei at Imam Hossein University, the IRGC military academy in Tehran.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/21/obama-explains-how-its-acceptable-to-broker-deal-with-regime-that-wants-to-annihilate-jews/?print=1

“…I consistently received overwhelming majority support from the Jewish community, and even after all the publicity around the recent differences that I’ve had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the majority of the Jewish American community still supports me, and supports me strongly.”

President Obama told The Atlantic that ISIS is not winning, but “the training of Iraqi security forces, the fortifications, the command-and-control systems are not happening fast enough in Anbar, in the Sunni parts of the country.”

“I don’t think we’re losing,” Obama said. “There’s no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced.”

Obama spoke with Jeffrey Goldberg on Tuesday, after the fall of Ramadi and well into the White House spin operation on the ISIS gain.

Perhaps you remember when litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees were frowned upon, even by the most ideological candidates. That was when the litmus-testing came from the right on abortion. Hillary Clinton broke through that barrier on the left this week when she announced that support for restrictions on political speech would be make- or-break for her Supreme Court choices.

“The Supreme Court made a grave error with Citizens United,” Mrs. Clinton said of the 2010 case restoring the First Amendment right of businesses and unions to participate in politics. “I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court Justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections.”

The agency digs deep for excuses—and not very good ones—to explain its veto of an Alaskan mine project.

Government agencies have a certain descending order of excuses they employ as a scandal grows. When they reach the point of quibbling over semantics and blaming low-level employees, it’s clear they know they’ve got a problem.

The EPA has a problem: its pre-emptive veto of the Pebble Mine, a proposed project in southwest Alaska. The law says that Pebble gets to apply for permits, and the Army Corps of Engineers gets to give thumbs up or down. The EPA, a law unto itself, instead last year blocked the proposal before applications were even filed. The agency claims it got involved because of petitions from Native American tribes in 2010, and that its veto is based on “science”—a watershed assessment that purportedly shows the mine would cause environmental harm.

How the most notorious Clinton flack of them all helped Hillary spin the murder of a U.S. ambassador in Libya.

It’s a scenario too weird and twisted even for one of Christopher Buckley’s satirical novels: Sid Blumenthal, a lifelong political hatchet-man considered too nasty and dishonest to work in the State Department by President Obama’s staff, ended up advising Hillary Clinton on Libya and shaping her public characterization of the Benghazi attack.

Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), who heads up the special committee investigating the Benghazi attacks in the House, intends to subpoena Blumenthal for a private interview. When they became public in the wake of the scandal over Clinton’s private e-mail account earlier this year, Hillary Clinton characterized e-mails she’d received from Blumenthal when she was secretary of state — at least 25 detailed, lengthy memos — as merely “talking to my old friends.” But at the time they were sent, Clinton distributed the e-mails to her staff at Foggy Bottom — and it appears that one of Blumenthal’s memos, sent a day after the Benghazi attack, told her just what she wanted to hear about the attack’s connection to the supposed protest, quickly revealed to be nonexistent, over an anti-Islamic video.

Which is more shocking — that Hillary Clinton used an unsecured, private e-mail system to get alleged “intelligence” about Libya’s political leaders and the Benghazi attack, or that her primary source was the one man the Obama team deemed too dishonest and unethical to work in the State Department?

Hillary Clinton wanted Blumenthal to have an official role at Foggy Bottom, but the Obama team deemed Blumenthal unfit for any administration role, sending Rahm Emanuel to tell her that he was persona non grata in their eyes. In their minds, he crossed the line far too many times during the Clinton–Obama primary fight.

This time, there was no request for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council; no talks with the EU, NATO, Obama or Merkel. Instead, the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a weak protest note.

President Erdogan’s reaction to an attack on a civilian Turkish vessel by a foreign army was revealing: “Things would have been different had the ship carried a Turkish flag.”

By the way, what flag did the Mavi Marmara carry? Comoros.

For Turkey’s Islamists, “what was done” does not matter much. “Who did it” does.

“This is the first time in history that a foreign army has killed civilian Turks in peacetime!”

This is how government-friendly media justified Turkey’s reaction to Israel when, in May 2010, the Israel Defense Forces raided the “Mavi Marmara,” a ship in a Turkish-led flotilla off the Gazan coast, and killed nine pro-Palestine activists aboard.

Any reader could be tempted to believe that Turkey was preparing to go to war with Israel.

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, then foreign minister, insisted that “This is Turkey’s own 9/11.”

Turkey asked the United Nations Security Council to summon an emergency meeting. It knocked on other doors too: NATO, the European Union (EU), the Arab League and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Then Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan called to discuss the Mavi Marmara crisis with U.S. President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Could it be that two generations from now our grandchildren are going to be watching a documentary about the consequences of America’s retreat in the Middle East?

That’s the question I am pondering this week on the 40th anniversary of the communist conquest of Indochina.

The event is being marked by the broadcast on PBS of Rory Kennedy’s documentary “Last Days in Vietnam.” It is a stunning scoop that recounts the desperate scramble — by our GIs, spies and diplomats — to save our Vietnamese friends as a communist army descended on our ally.

Kennedy has come up with film clippings and interviews that are unbelievably harrowing.

They show Vietnamese clambering to get into the American embassy compound in Saigon and onto helicopters, to be ferried out to American warships standing off shore.

Napoleon Bonaparte purportedly said “Let China sleep, for when China wakes, she will shake the world.”

As Thomas J. Christensen, the author of his recently published “The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power”, reminds us, “For millennia China was arguably the greatest civilization on the planet and for many previous centuries its most powerful empire.”

China is no longer an empire, but it remains a huge nation geographically and huge in terms of its population.