RUTHFULLY YOURS

The characterization of Islamist jihadist attacks as “spontaneous” or committed by “self-radicalized Lone Wolves” seems inaccurate and misleading. All attackers we

have seen in recent years were radicalized in mosques or Muslim schools they attended, online, in chatrooms and by social media they share with others.
While sometimes only one shooter, or stabber, was caught, they have relied on associates and networks for financial and tactical support. Moreover, they have chosen their targets and victims to “send a message.” The tight-knit Muslim communities supply a rich diet oh hatred to infidels and the Jews, and serve as a fertile ground for nurturing martyrs. Instead of pointing the finger at those who invite youngsters to join then train and support them, we seem to be overtaken by political correctness thus refusing to blame entire communities, which have done nothing to curb jihadist incitement, and from which the jihadists are setting out to attack us. Instead we parented that they are just a small group of misfits. This attitude will do little to stop such attacks – Rachel Ehrenfeld

The director of the Military and Strategic Affairs Program and Cyber Security Program at INSS, Gabi Siboni, has his own scholarly take on “Confronting Spontaneous Terrorist Attacks”:
“A prominent feature of many terrorist attacks in recent months by Islamic radicals is their independent, spontaneous, unplanned nature – sometimes called the work of lone wolves. The phenomenon presents a serious challenge to the security establishments in the nations where there has been a rise in the scope of spontaneous attacks, the West in general and Israel in particular. A critical review of the spontaneous attacks and some of the perpetrators points to two key characteristics that could help formulate a current doctrine of preventing attacks. The first is the basic profile of the attacker; the second is the behavior of the attacker just before the attack. Based on the combination of both factors, it is possible to construct a profile of the potential attacker and assign him/her a risk threshold that if crossed would indicate the intention to act. This in turn would raise the level of the risk to one that must be foiled….

There are two models for fighting terrorism. We can see the terrorists as an external invading force that has to be destroyed or as an internal element in our society to be managed.

In the War on Terror, Bush saw terrorists as an external force that had to be fought while Obama sees them as an internal element to be managed. And while both men signed off on some of the same tactics, their view of the conflict at the big picture level was fundamentally different.

The differences express themselves in such things as detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay or backing Islamist democracy. If Muslim terrorists are an alien force, then detaining them without trial is no more of a problem than detaining Nazi saboteurs was during WW2. And if Islamic terrorism is driven by alien impulses, then it has nothing in common with us and attempting to accommodate it cannot succeed.

Obama and the Europeans see Islamic terrorism as a social problem whose root causes need to be resolved rather than defeated. It’s the old model used for the radical left which was “fought” by mainstream parties adopting elements of its program to compete with it… with disastrous results.

“We live in fame or go down in flame. Hey!
Nothing’ll stop the U.S. Air Force!”

General Norton Schwartz (Ret.) He was the first Jewish Chief of Staff of the Air Force and was a member of the U.S. Air Force Academy Jewish choir before his 1973 graduation. In 2004 he was awarded the Jewish Community Center’s Military Leadership Award. In accepting the award, he said he was “proud to be identified as Jewish as well as an American military leader.” In 2008 Press TV, an Iranian English language media outlet, published a column titled “U.S. Names Jew as Air Force Chief.”

General Norton Schwartz served as the 19th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from August 12, 2008, until his retirement in 2012. As Chief of Staff, he served as the senior uniformed Air Force officer responsible for the organization, training and equipping of nearly 700,000 active-duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian forces serving in the United States and overseas. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Schwartz functioned as a military adviser to the Secretary of Defense, National Security Council and the President. He previously served as Commander, United States Transportation Command from September 2005 to August 2008. Schwartz is a command pilot with more than 4,400 flying hours in a variety of aircraft.

He has won twenty nine medals and badges.

When my family first came to New York, in the aftermath of World War 11 ,we went to nightclubs….my parents, my brother Hilel and I. I have the photographs with their covers from the Copacabana and the Latin Quarter and others. They had great brass bands, and Latin American music and dancing, which my parents loved while my brother and I sat embarrassed by their fancy steps. They also had shows and in a hokey example we often heard a Chinese man singing a song in Yiddish. “Wo Soll Ich Geh’n. ” Translation: “Tell Me Where Shall I Go?”

“Where Shall I Go?” was written before WWII by S. Kortnayer & Oscar Strock. Kortnayer, a Yiddish actor and the song’s lyricist, died in the Warsaw ghetto in 1942. There were devastating words.

“Where to go, where to go, Every door is closed to me. To the left, to the right It’s the same in every land. There is nowhere to go And it’s me who should know Won’t you please understand.”

A second verse was added by Lazarus ‘Leo’ Fuld a popular Dutch singer who specialized in Yiddish songs in 1948.

“Now I know where to go. Where my folks proudly stand. Where to go, where to go. To that precious promised land.I am proud, can’t you see. For at last I am free.No more wandering for me.”

“I would like to think he was “a normal bloke”. But I worry these days that your “normal bloke” is fretting about micro-agressions in the safe space at Wesleyan University. The gulf between those who fight and those they fight for has never seemed wider.”

The Victoria Cross is the Commonwealth’s highest decoration for valour on the battlefield. Yesterday it was awarded to the first living Briton for action in the Afghan war (if memory serves, three living Aussies have been so honoured). Lance-Corporal Joshua Leakey was with the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment on a joint UK/US operation in Helmand when it all went pear-shaped, and he found himself having to rescue a fallen American Marine captain while fending off 20 Taliban single-handed:

L/Cpl Leakey, a member of the elite Paratrooper regiment first broke cover to give first aid to a fallen United States Marine, and continued to expose himself to fire as he recovered and fired from two machine guns, running up and down a hill in the high heat of the Afghan summer. Although he ran through machine gun fire and exploding grenades three times, he survived and was able to engage 20 Taliban fighters and save the life of the American officer.

Actually, only five have complained so far, but why not apply warmist statistical methods to allegations of roving hands, lurid texts and an obsession with ‘voluptuous breasts’ that have seen the world’s premier alarmist resign? One possible defence: climate change makes bureaucrats hot to trot.

This is a message allegedly sent in mid-October, 2013, by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, to a 29-year-old female staffer at his TERI think-tank: “Here I am sitting and chairing an IPCC meeting and surreptitiously sending you messages. I hope that tells you of my feelings for you.”

The IPCC meeting was the 37th Plenary Session, at the Sheraton in the seaside resort of Batumi, Georgia. It was attended by 229 politicians and officials from 92 countries, plus the usual conservation and activist hangers-on and free-loaders. TERI stands for The Energy and Resources Institute, which has 1200 staff. Pachauri, 74, has been Teri’s Director General for 34 years, almost since its inception. He has also led the IPCC for 13 years.

The TERI staffer, 43 years his junior, was so much on Pachauri’s mind that he allegedly continued to pursue her until she filed a 33-page harassment case last February 13. He resigned abruptly from the IPCC on February 24.

The emissions-reduction campaign sponsored by the IPCC is currently a $US1 billion-a-day exercise. But obviously Pachauri wasn’t taking it all that seriously in the five-day Georgia talk-fest.

They were the winners of CPAC. Here are some impressions from the candidate speeches during the first two days of CPAC, in no particular order: Carly Fiorina: She followed up on her strong Iowa performance with another really good, tough speech. She is an adept public speaker and is obviously auditioning for the role of anti-Hillary attack dog. Scott Walker: It was a barnburner of a speech. He lit up the crowd and handled a heckler adroitly. His record in Wisconsin is a roll call of achievements to thrill conservatives. A few weeks ago, I thought there were three questions about Walker: Would he be up for a national race as a performer? Could he scale up his Wisconsin operation?
And what are his national positions? There shouldn’t be any more doubt on the first. But he is still especially wobbly on the last. I think he is getting unfairly dinged on comparing union protestors to terrorists — that’s clearly not what he meant — but he said what he did because he’s straining for national-security credibility. He’d be better off just having clear, sound answers to foreign-policy questions rather than reaching to extrapolate from his Wisconsin experiences. In the meantime, based on CPAC, the Walker wave will probably only keep building. Ted Cruz: Oddly, the quotient of applause lines to applause seemed off. His jokes were clunky and he was a little shouty.

“Netanyahu’s refusal to back down in the face of political and media pressure, his insistence in making his case directly and emphatically, is as much a statement as any of the technical and strategic and moral claims he will make in his speech. And by going to war against Bibi, the White House has inadvertently raised the stature of his address from a diplomatic courtesy to a global event. Netanyahu’s commitment to warning America about a nuclear Iran has given him the opportunity to explain just how devoid of merit the prospective deal is. His speech is proof that Congress is a co-equal branch of government where substantive argument can triumph over vicious personal attacks and executive overreach and utopian aspirations. Of course Barack Obama can’t stand it.
It exposes the Iran deal as indefensible — and Obama’s politics as bankrupt.”
The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is indefensible. The White House knows it. That is why President Obama does not want to subject an agreement to congressional approval, why critics of the deal are dismissed as warmongers, and why the president, his secretary of state, and his national-security adviser have spent several weeks demonizing the prime minister of Israel for having the temerity to accept an invitation by the U.S. Congress to deliver a speech on a subject of existential import for his small country. These tactics distract public attention. They turn a subject of enormous significance to American foreign policy into a petty personal drama.
They prevent us from discussing what America is about to give away. And America is about to give away a lot. This week the AP reported on what an agreement with Iran might look like: sanctions relief in exchange for promises to slow down Iranian centrifuges for ten years. At which point the Iranians could manufacture a bomb — assuming they hadn’t produced one in secret. Iran would get international legitimacy, assurance that military intervention was not an option, and no limitations on its ICBM programs, its support for international terrorism, its enrichment of plutonium, its widespread human-rights violations, and its campaign to subvert or co-opt Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. Then it can announce itself as the first Shia nuclear power. And America? Liberals would flatter themselves for avoiding a war. Obama wouldn’t have to worry about the Iranians testing a nuke for the duration of his presidency.

Alas, Bush himself ignored the Bush Doctrine, falling all over himself to declare that Islam was a “religion of peace” hijacked by a teeny, tiny, weenie minority of meanies….rsk
There is a path to victory in the fight against radical Islam, and our next president should embrace it. What should be our strategy against ISIS? We ask the question without ever considering Iran. What concessions about centrifuges and spent fuel should we demand to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power? We ask the question never linking the mullahs’ weapons ambitions with its sponsorship of the global jihad . . . the only reason we dread a nuclear Iran.
What should be the national-defense strategy of the United States against radical Islam, the most immediate and thoroughgoing security and cultural threat we face today? I had the good fortune to be asked to participate in a CPAC panel Friday on defending America against rogue states. With 2016 hopefuls crowding the halls, it got me to thinking: What should we hope to hear from Republicans who want to be the party’s standard-bearer? It is often said that we lack a strategy for defeating our enemies. Actually, we have had a strategy for 14 years, ever since the fleeting moment of clarity right after the 9/11 attacks. That strategy is called the Bush Doctrine, and it remains the only one that has any chance of working . . . at least if we add a small but crucial addendum — one that should have been obvious enough back in 2011, and that hard lessons of history have now made inescapable.

An African-American scholar says that emphasis on STEM education is bad for blacks. Earlier today on Sirius XM Urban View, an African-American talk station, the guest was Daryl Scott, president of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. The conversation turned to STEM — science, technology, engineering, and math — education, and the origins of the ongoing push to encourage institutions and students to focus on those subjects. Can you guess what happened?
In 1983, the guest explained, a commission empaneled by the secretary of education issued a report titled “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform.” In a memorable phrase, it warned of “a rising tide of mediocrity” in the nation’s public schools. That phrase, he said, was a “euphemism.” A euphemism for what? “For us — for African Americans.” There is nothing that happens in these United States that will not be impugned as secret racism. Nothing. “A Nation at Risk” is in fact full of memorable phrases — “unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” is redolent of the Cold War concerns of the day — any of which might be read as racist code by a 21st-century progressive, because a 21st-century progressive can read the ingredients on a pack of Bazooka bubble gum as racist code.