RUTHFULLY YOURS

Anyone who believes in the Constitution and the primacy of individual rights and freedom should be relieved after the electoral beat-down administered to Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate. Over the last 6 years the federal Leviathan has grown fatter and fatter, every pound coming at the cost of our freedom and autonomy, not to mention the trillions of borrowed dollars burned in various Keynesian stimulus fires. At the same time, the imperial presidency of Obama, abetted by his courtiers in the Senate, has trampled the Constitution’s limits on government power, and extended intrusive, inefficient, wasteful federal bureaucracies into the business of the states and the rights of the people.

Anything that slows down or challenges this expansion in the next two years will be welcome. The President should be made either to sign or to veto legislation on reforming taxes, securing the border, and correcting the flaws of Obamacare, to name a few issues voters are concerned about. And every piece of legislation should make clear that its ultimate goal is to restore to our politics the ideals of freedom, and the virtues of self-reliance, self-responsibility, and prudence.

Yet there is a danger that many Republicans in the Senate will heed the siren song of “getting things done” and “bi-partisan cooperation” already being sung by the usual progressive mouthpieces. Here’s Tom Brokaw, mouthpiece emeritus of NBC news, on the implications of the Republican victory:

“They [the voters] are thinking that they would like to have Washington get something done. And the question is not just which party can get it done, but how can they change the tone in Washington so they can work together . . . The question then is what are they [Republicans] prepared to give to the Democrats to meet them at middle ground? What they are going to do about immigration? What are they are going to do about the minimum wage?”

Brokaw’s examples of immigration and the minimum wage tip his hand. The subtext is that “cooperation” and “working together” on these issues really mean that Republicans give ground to pass legislation the other side wants for ideological and political advantage. No matter how much evidence piles up, for example, that raising the minimum wage does little to help those who need it most, like working families––half of minimum-wage earners are 16-24 years old, and a quarter are teenagers–– the progressive mantra of “income inequality” continually exploits this issue for political gain. In Brokaw’s view, then, if Republicans ignore the fact that raising the minimum wage could cost half a million jobs, according to the CBO, and they go ahead and “compromise” with the Democrats and vote to raise it, then they will be doing the right thing. As usual, progressive harping on “gridlock” and “obstructionism” is usually code for the other side’s sticking to its principles.

Wipeout!

Voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Obama’s über-government. Republicans romped. They picked up (at this writing) seven seats in the Senate and 13 in the House while yielding zero Senate spots and only two in the House. Expected squeakers became GOP blowouts: Georgia’s David Perdue beat Michelle Nunn 53.0 percent to 45.1. Kansas’s Pat Roberts whipped Greg Orman 53.3 to 42.5. Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell trounced Alison Lundergan Grimes 56.2 to 40.7. Arkansas’s Tom Cotton flogged Mark Pryor, 56.6 to 39.4.

In the governors’ races, the loss of Pennsylvania’s Republican incumbent, Tom Corbett, accompanied two major surprises: Maryland and Massachusetts elected GOP governors. Obama’s own Illinois also will enjoy Republican management.

In neighboring Wisconsin, the highly effective governor, Scott Walker, endured his third baptism by fire in four years. He withstood ferocious, free-spending unions and ethically challenged, leak-happy prosecutors, surviving these flames by more than five points. He richly deserves the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

On October 2, Obama said his policies — “every single one of them” – were on the ballot. Voters then repudiated Obama’s in-your-face, deeply invasive, grossly inept, high-cost brand of government. The body politic regurgitated Obama’s poisoned meal. This was the first, convulsive step toward restored health.

Among 3,894 respondents in a Fox News exit poll, 41 percent believe that “Government should do more to solve problems.” However, 54 percent think “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” While 20 percent said they trusted Washington “to do what is right” “Just about always or “Most of the time,” 79 percent believe this occurs “Only some of the time” or “Never.”

November 24, the deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, approaches, and things aren’t looking good. With less than three weeks left, Iran is adopting a hardline negotiating position. And although there’s time left to reach a good deal, President Obama’s current strategy is problematic.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that last month Obama wrote his fourth “secret” letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. According to sources, he did so in an effort “aimed both at buttressing the Islamic State campaign and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.”

No problem, right? After all, what harm can a letter do? Actually, a lot. The Journal quotes a senior White House official who provides context for Obama’s outreach: “We’ve passed on messages to the Iranians . . . saying our objective is against ISIL. We’re not using this as a platform to reoccupy Iraq or to undermine Iran.”

Saying this to Iran is the diplomatic equivalent of telling an ill-reputed used-car salesman, “Money is no object, I don’t need a test drive, and I’m desperate to buy today.” It’s not very clever.

Iran’s hardliners are likely to see the president’s latest letter as a verification of increasing American malleability. But there’s a deeper issue here. As I noted in September, the administration’s willingness to see the best in Iran without challenging the worst manages to inspire only the latter. While we offer friendship, from Beirut to Baghdad, from Sanaa to Washington, Iran forges power through violent opportunism. Members of the Lebanese and Iraqi parliaments recognize Iran’s proclamations of peace for what they are: a thin veil concealing an absolutist agenda. Not incidentally, many American military personnel, through personal experience, share the same skeptical view.

Twenty years ago—on November 25, 1994—Isaiah Berlin accepted the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws at the University of Toronto. He prepared the following “short credo” (as he called it in a letter to a friend) for the ceremony, at which it was read on his behalf.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” With these words Dickens began his famous novel A Tale of Two Cities. But this cannot, alas, be said about our own terrible century. Men have for millennia destroyed each other, but the deeds of Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon (who introduced mass killings in war), even the Armenian massacres, pale into insignificance before the Russian Revolution and its aftermath: the oppression, torture, murder which can be laid at the doors of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and the systematic falsification of information which prevented knowledge of these horrors for years—these are unparalleled. They were not natural disasters, but preventable human crimes, and whatever those who believe in historical determinism may think, they could have been averted.

I speak with particular feeling, for I am a very old man, and I have lived through almost the entire century. My life has been peaceful and secure, and I feel almost ashamed of this in view of what has happened to so many other human beings. I am not a historian, and so I cannot speak with authority on the causes of these horrors. Yet perhaps I can try.

They were, in my view, not caused by the ordinary negative human sentiments, as Spinoza called them—fear, greed, tribal hatreds, jealousy, love of power—though of course these have played their wicked part. They have been caused, in our time, by ideas; or rather, by one particular idea. It is paradoxical that Karl Marx, who played down the importance of ideas in comparison with impersonal social and economic forces, should, by his writings, have caused the transformation of the twentieth century, both in the direction of what he wanted and, by reaction, against it. The German poet Heine, in one of his famous writings, told us not to underestimate the quiet philosopher sitting in his study; if Kant had not undone theology, he declared, Robespierre might not have cut off the head of the King of France.

He predicted that the armed disciples of the German philosophers—Fichte, Schelling, and the other fathers of German nationalism—would one day destroy the great monuments of Western Europe in a wave of fanatical destruction before which the French Revolution would seem child’s play. This may have been unfair to the German metaphysicians, yet Heine’s central idea seems to me valid: in a debased form, the Nazi ideology did have roots in German anti-Enlightenment thought. There are men who will kill and maim with a tranquil conscience under the influence of the words and writings of some of those who are certain that they know perfection can be reached.

Let me explain. If you are truly convinced that there is some solution to all human problems, that one can conceive an ideal society which men can reach if only they do what is necessary to attain it, then you and your followers must believe that no price can be too high to pay in order to open the gates of such a paradise. Only the stupid and malevolent will resist once certain simple truths are put to them. Those who resist must be persuaded; if they cannot be persuaded, laws must be passed to restrain them; if that does not work, then coercion, if need be violence, will inevitably have to be used—if necessary, terror, slaughter. Lenin believed this after reading Das Kapital, and consistently taught that if a just, peaceful, happy, free, virtuous society could be created by the means he advocated, then the end justified any methods that needed to be used, literally any.

On Thursday, thousands of mourners attended the funeral of Border Police Superintendent Jadan Assad, from the Druze village of Beit Jan. The 38-year-old officer was killed when Hamas member Ibrahim al-Akri — a resident of east Jerusalem and the brother of one of the terrorists released in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit — purposely plowed his minivan into a group of pedestrians at a Jerusalem light rail station, then left the car and went after police with an iron pipe.

Assad is survived by a pregnant wife and toddler. He is being honored in Israel for his dedicated service protecting innocent Israeli citizens.

Al-Akri, shot down during his terrorist rampage against innocent Israeli citizens, is survived by a wife and five children. He is being lauded by the Palestinian Authority as a hero and a martyr for sacrificing his life in the pursuit of mass murder.

Thirteen other innocent people were wounded in the vehicular attack, the latest fad in PA-backed terrorism.

The most recent excuse for the steady crescendo in Muslim violence against the “Zionist enemy” (including patriotic non-Jewish Israelis like Assad) is the desire of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount. Though the holiest site in Judaism, it also houses the Al-Aqsa mosque. This is why it is periodically employed as a propaganda tool to arouse Muslim wrath and international sympathy.

The start of the Second Intifada in 2000, the war of attrition characterized by daily suicide bombings in Israeli population centers, was falsely attributed to a visit to the Temple Mount by then-Opposition leader Ariel Sharon. In fact, not only had Sharon been given a green light by PA security chief Jibril Rajoub to arrive that day, but the “spontaneous eruption” of Palestinian violence throughout the country had been planned meticulously for months in advance.

The current throwing of rocks, firecrackers and Molotov cocktails that keeps being referred to in the media as a response to one incident or another is no different. It began with the kidnapping and slaughter of three Israeli teens in the summer; it continued throughout Operation Protective Edge in Gaza; and it has been going on unabated since then.

The real reason for what the PA threatens will be a third intifada is not one of cause and effect, however. It is not about the Temple Mount. It is not about the addition of Israeli housing or the purchase of apartments by Jews in an Arab section of Jerusalem. Nor is it about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu any more than it was about Sharon.

In the postmortems of the terrorist car attacks in Jerusalem, it is easy to see the writing on the wall.

Ibrahim al-Akary, the terrorist who on Wednesday ran over crowds of people waiting to cross the street and catch the Jerusalem Light Rail, was the brother of one of the terrorist murderers freed in exchange for IDF hostage Gilad Schalit. He had placed the photograph on his Facebook page of Moataz Hejazi, the terrorist killed by police after shooting Yehuda Glick outside the Begin Heritage Center last Wednesday.

A few days before Abdur Rahman Slodi got into his car and mowed down three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun and a dozen other pedestrians two weeks ago, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas exhorted the Palestinians to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, by all means possible.
Slodi had served time in prison for terrorist offenses and was active on social media where he expressed murderous hatred for Jews and a desire to kill them.

So yes, the writing was on the wall. But unfortunately, the writing is on all the walls, or Facebook walls. It is not at all clear how Israeli security services could have known to distinguish these men from the thousands of other Palestinians and Jerusalem Arabs who hate Israel, support the murder of Jews and identify with various terrorist organizations.

On Thursday security forces arrested several people in villages around Hebron with suspected ties to Akary. So he may not have been acting on his own. But all the same, neither he nor Slodi seem to have been directed to carry out their attacks by a cell commander who himself was directed by a higher level terrorist operative. Rather, in all likelihood, something triggered both men to carry out attacks in a wholly independent or semi-independent manner.
The question is, what was the trigger and how was it pulled?

Who dun it?????

Bombs exploded in the Gaza Strip early Friday, damaging fences and cars at the homes of senior members of the Fatah movement, which recently reached an agreement with Hamas to govern the Palestinian territory.

There were no immediate reports of casualties and no claim of responsibility for the attack, but Fatah spokesman Fayez Abu Aita immediately blamed Hamas for the bombings. The Islamist political and militant movement has ruled the enclave since 2007 and is a longtime rival of Hamas.
Mr. Aita said an unspecified number of devices had been planted in front of the homes of members of his party, including one that damaged his vehicle.

Local media reported a dozen explosions. Eleven targeted the homes of senior members in Fatah and a 12th was planted at a stage where Fatah had planned to hold a ceremony honoring the death of former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, the reports said.

Earlier this year, Fatah and Hamas, the two main rival factions in Palestinian politics, agreed to govern the Gaza Strip together, but the 50-day war between Hamas and Israel—as well as friction between the two groups—has slowed the planned integration of government ministries.

Tom Steyer became a billionaire by investing in fossil fuels, among other things, and maybe he should return to his roots. He may need the money after blowing at least $74 million trying to persuade voters to oppose Republicans who disagree with him on climate change.

If you want proof that money doesn’t buy elections, Mr. Steyer and his fellow green comrades are it. The San Francisco investor gave most of his money to his NextGen Climate Action Super Pac, which spent almost exclusively for Democrats. Environmental groups including NextGen spent $85 million to support President Obama ’s green agenda, especially his regulations targeting coal for extinction.

They didn’t even get a lousy T-shirt, and they aren’t taking it well. “Despite the climate movement’s significant investments and an unprecedented get out the vote program, strong voices for climate action were defeated and candidates paid for by corporate interests and bolstered by sinister voter suppression tactics won the day,” declared Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune.

Venting can be healthy, but self-deception isn’t. Mr. Brune should really blame the economic reality that the U.S. boom in fossil-fuel production is creating high-paying jobs and reducing energy costs across the economy. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s green agenda has created few jobs and raised costs for millions of Americans.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips on how the Democrats outspent the Republicans in the midterms and why they have nothing to show for it. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Voters in Pacific Heights or Manhattan may not mind paying more for their self-styled political virtue, but the average Debbie in Dubuque would rather not. The mistake too many Democrats made was listening to Mr. Steyer instead of Debbie.

This year’s environmental debate boiled down to Democratic support for Mr. Obama’s climate rules and green subsidies against full-throated Republican support for energy production of all sorts, including coal, oil and natural-gas fracking, more pipelines and greater fossil-fuel exports. These GOP candidates won nearly everywhere.

“But what good came of it at last?”Quoth little Peterkin.”Why, that I cannot tell,” said he,”But ’twas a famous victory.”

Robert Southey (1774-1843)The Battle of Blenheim

Elections have consequences and postmortems are revealing. They say as much about the person uttering them, as they do about what is being said. In saying to the nation on Wednesday, “I heard you,” Mr. Obama struck a conciliatory chord. However, when he added, “But for the two-thirds who didn’t vote yesterday, I hear you, too,” he was dismissive of those who did vote and exuded a phony sense of clairvoyance regarding those who did not. It suggested that the Country supported him and his policies by a two-to-one margin, despite Tuesday’s election.

Republicans should be pleased with the election, but they shouldn’t run wild; though Scott Walker’s win in Wisconsin was hugely important. The claim that Republican success was a “Tsunami” was too glib. It is a fitting metaphor in the “Twitter” world we inhabit, but misleading and divisive. Elections do have consequences, as Barack Obama famously sermonized in January 2009, but so do words. Mr. Obama concluded that paragraph with a fateful two-word sentence, which spoke to his unilateralism and, in my opinion, ultimate destruction, “I won.” In so saying, he removed any hope of compromise to help fiscally solve the nation’s economic problems.

Mr. Obama epitomizes what Joseph Epstein terms a “virtucrat” – one who derives “a grand sense of one’s self through one’s alleged virtuousness. Such people feel self-assured based on the moral certainty of their own goodness. However, in the world of governance, compromise is the essential ingredient. There are many on the right who feel much the same way – Ted Cruz comes to mind. They make effective legislators, but are not so good at governing.

The depth and breadth of Republican success on Tuesday could be seen, not only in the re-taking of the Senate, but in state houses across the Country. In my little corner of “very blue” Southeastern Connecticut, Republicans did well. Of the region’s fifteen seats in the state Senate and House, eight were captured by Republicans. Previously, they had two seats.

Two of New York’s grandest and most important landmark buildings – The Metropolitan Museum of Art and The New York Public Library – have now been trashed by commercial food and tchochke vendors. According to their mandate, The Landmarks Preservation Commission is charged with being “responsible for protecting New York City’s architecturally, historically and culturally significant buildings and sites by granting them landmark status, and regulating them once they’re designated.” The officers of the commission deserve impeachment for their dereliction of duty in what are undoubtedly, the two most significant examples of great civic architecture and cultural purpose in our city.

The New York Times has finally noticed what’s happened in front of the Metropolitan Museum but what they failed to report in their Nov 6th coverage of the 20 food carts that despoil the facade is that the carts remain in place long after the museum has closed and the neighborhood has reverted to being strictly residential. There are no comparable examples of multiple carts with glaring neon signs blinking in the dark along the stretch of Park Avenue, Central Park West or West End Avenue, to name just a few other great residential streets, and none in front of Gracie Mansion, residence of our mayor. In addition to adding a visual blight, the carts blare music and deposit their trash into corner sidewalk pails which are filled to overflowing and litter the street until pick-up the following day. They invite transients to come into a family neighborhood after dark when there is insufficient crowd or police presence to make that area feel safe.

If you haven’t been to Bryant Park lately, you may not be aware that it has been occupied by Bank of America’s Holiday Shops – 125 purveyors selling Christmas ornaments and other holiday gifts in what are described as “jewel box” kiosks lining the walkways and terraces of what is still called a park, though the remnants of green are hard to see through the density of these boxes. The statue of William Cullen Bryant, America’s great poet and newspaper editor, sits imposingly at the eastern terrace of the park, now looking out onto a field of shoppers and eaters instead of a beautiful swath of lawn and shrubbery. Far from being a peaceful and natural extension of the library – a place of contemplation and quiet enjoyment of the outdoors, Bryant Park has become another place for fast food and consumerism, no different than 42nd, 34th and 14th streets. Who was it who decided that what the library needed more than a park was an outdoor shopping center sponsored by a bank and some cafes shrouded in weather-proof plastic to offset the elegance of the Beaux Arts architectural gem of Carrere and Hastings? And who allowed it to happen