RUTHFULLY YOURS

Foreign-policy strategists say they would oppose agreement if certain tough terms weren’t included

WASHINGTON—A group of influential U.S. foreign-policy strategists, including five former confidants of President Barack Obama, warned the White House Wednesday they would oppose a nuclear agreement with Iran if tough terms weren’t included in a final agreement.

Among the requirements identified by the former diplomats, military officers and lawmakers were intrusive snap inspections of Iran’s nuclear and military sites, a resolution of questions surrounding secretly developed nuclear-weapons technologies and a phased reduction of international sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

When it comes to national security, perception matters. Ultimately, American adversaries assess two things: America’s stated policies, and how those policies are pursued. From these assessments, our adversaries shape their perceptions of U.S. resolve and develop strategies to overcome it.

That’s why President Obama’s abandonment of longstanding U.S. hostage-negotiation policy is so problematic. The president says that the U.S. government will only communicate and facilitate hostage negotiations but not directly pay ransoms. But that’s a qualification without meaning. Again, perception is key. And the perception here, joined to reality, is that America is now willing to negotiate with terrorists. It’s another red line breached and another sign that intimidation finds reward. Whatever the administration might claim, today’s decision to allow U.S. officials to facilitate communications between terrorists and the families of hostages eviscerates America’s “no-negotiation” red line.

Jonah’s post quoting from The Hill on American rules of engagement against ISIS is deeply disturbing. If it is true that we’re refraining from air strikes if there’s a risk “of even one civilian casualty” (and I say “if” because rules of engagement are supposed to be classified), then the administration is imposing a deeply immoral standard on American forces.

Jonah’s exactly right that this standard — especially now that it’s announced — drives ISIS much deeper into the civilian population, incentivizing the use of human shields and creating — as he says — “safe zones” for ISIS operations. All of this, of course, means that more civilians will die — not from the American pilots who are forbidden to drop their ordinance — but from ISIS. Every month that it endures and grows, it kills more innocents, often in the most horrible ways imaginable.

Hillary Clinton’s reticence is drowning out her message, which is that she is the cure for the many ailments that afflict America during a second Democratic presidential term. Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) has called her “the most opaque person you’ll ever meet in your life,” but when opacity yields to the necessity of answering questions, here are a few:

Your first leadership adventure was when your husband entrusted you with health-care reform. Using a process as complex as it was secretive, you produced a proposal so implausible that a Democratic-controlled Congress would not even vote on it. Your legislation was one reason that in 1994 Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years. What did you learn from this futility and repudiation?

Three times in your memoir Hard Choices you say that as secretary of state you visited 112 countries. Do you think “peripatetic” is a synonym for “effective”? You tell readers that at a 2009 meeting with Chinese officials you said, “We need to build a resilient relationship that allows both of us to thrive and meet our global responsibilities without unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict.” Does it trouble your environmental conscience that trees died to produce the paper on which you recycled that thought?

“Sweden, to a much larger extent than other countries, allows hate preachers to enter the country and give lectures to spread their message. Sweden should deal with this.” — Haras Rafiq, President of the Quilliam Foundation.

Every year, about 60,000 Swedish passports are reported stolen or lost. Police estimated last year that about 180,000 Swedish passports are touring the world. There are people who have “lost” up to 20 passports, yet have no problems acquiring new ones. One cannot but wonder why people should be allowed to have three passports issued over a five year period.

Stockholm’s politicians want to “include” homecoming jihadis into Sweden’s “infidel” society by giving them health care, jobs, welfare benefits and housing.

Despite Foreign Minister Margot Wallström’s promises, when Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine, assuring everyone that this move would give Sweden more leverage to make demands on the Palestinians, Sweden continues to send money their way with no strings attached.

“You can’t draw me,” says Muhammad.

“That’s why I draw you,” says Bosch Fawstin, the winner of the cartoon contest.

That says it all. What is not allowed by Islam and by the violence of terrorists, we will do it anyway. And we call that: Freedom of speech.

A few weeks ago, I was in Garland, Texas, at a conference and an exhibition of Muhammad cartoons. Shortly after I had spoken, a terrorist attack took place. Islam and the terrorists do not want us to show these cartoons. But terror and violence may never defeat freedom of speech. That is exactly the reason why we should do what the terrorists want to prevent us from doing.

A book has appeared that ought to become a primer for all future studies of the subjects of marriage, romantic love, and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. This is Ron Pisaturo’s Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage.

On April 7th, when Masculine Power first appeared on Amazon for sale, I wrote there:

I recommend this book highly for anyone confused by today’s “sexual politics.”‘ Pisaturo gets down to the basics of gender and gender identity. Those wishing (literally) to be something else are sure to disagree with Pisaturo’s fact-based discussion on the nature of the male and female genders. One’s gender is not disposable, it is not a suit of clothes one can discard and adopt another. One can’t discard it just because one doesn’t “feel right” in it.

CONTENTS
1. Isis snuff movie plumbs new depths
2. Leading media close their eyes
3. ISIS crucifies two children, accusing them of breaking Ramadan fast
4. ISIS offers Yazidi sex slaves as prizes for Ramadan quiz
5. Female suicide bombers murder 30 at crowded Ramadan mosque that wasn’t Muslim enough
6. ISIS begins blowing up ancient shrines in Palmyra
7. Meanwhile at the NY Times: Erekat: Jerusalem is Israel’s capital; NYT says Tel Aviv is
8. New York Times’ Rosenthal and colleagues act out mass killings at work
9. Former President Ahmadinejad: U.S. seeks to arrest the Hidden Imam
10. Video: Pepsi uses Seinfeld character to film ad in Israel

I just listened to President Obama’s announcement about his new, changed, unchanged negotiating, and non-negotiating strategy with hostage takers. As usual, you could pick out sentences to support any position that you think he has taken.

President Obama claims that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. However, we know that he has negotiated with:

· The Taliban

· The Palestinian Authority

· Hamas

· Hezbollah

· The Muslim Brotherhood

· Iran

President Obama negotiated with the Taliban to trade 5 high high-ranking terrorist held in Gitmo for a deserter. He then held a Rose Garden ceremony with the deserter’s parents. The father praised Allah in Arabic.

A recent poll [2] found that 51 percent of Democrats supported criminalizing hate speech. It also found that the same number of self-described liberals supported its criminalization.

Liberal self-identification has hit its highest mark [3] in decades while the ranks of the moderates have declined. And while the idea that the liberal and the moderate are opposites may be a troubling one to those who still think of liberalism in classical terms, the modern liberal is really a leftist in denial.

When William Voegeli writes in the Claremont Review [4] about the crisis of political correctness, it is about a clash between liberals and leftists that no longer really exists. The liberal backs the same censorship agenda as the leftists that Voegeli discusses.

And under his control, the Democratic Party has signed on the dirty dotted line.