RUTHFULLY YOURS

During a recent Heritage Foundation event on Benghazi’s unanswered questions, Brigitte Gabriel, President of Act! for America, proclaimed that the peaceful majority have been irrelevant to history’s outcome when tyrannists have had the power and motivation to destroy freedom. But a Muslim audience member whose question prompted Brigitte’s comments, insists she’s not irrelevant.

On June 16, 2014, The Benghazi Accountability Coalition, spearheaded by Ginni Thomas, held a half-day seminar with a series of speakers to raise issues regarding unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four American patriots at Benghazi.

Brigitte Gabriel was one of three speakers on the first panel. During Q&A, a hijabbed Muslim woman standing in back of a packed audience complained, “Salam Alechim, peace to you all. We portray Islam and all Muslims as bad, but there are 1.8 billion followers of Islam. We have 8 million plus Muslim Americans in this country and I don’t see them represented here.” She asked how the jihadist ideology can be fought with weapons and stressed the need to bring Muslims to the table in order to solve the problem.

After one panelist asserted that nobody on the panel thinks all Muslims are the problem, Brigitte responded to the question. She noted in her emphatic and dynamic voice how interesting it was that the panel had not discussed Islam or Muslims, but the murder of those at Benghazi and yet the questioner asked about Islam out of context. “Of course not all [Muslims] are radical, but it’s 15 – 25% according to all the world’s intelligence, which equals 180 – 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization.” Brigitte went on to explain that we should worry about the radicals because it is they would kill, behead and massacre. Throughout history it was the radicals that drove the agenda and “the peaceful majority were irrelevant”. This was true in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, and pre-World War II Japan. Additionally, on September 11, 2001, it took only 19 hijackers out of 2.3 million Arab Muslims living in the U.S. to bring America to its knees and kill almost 3000 Americans. “I’m glad you are here” Brigitte said, “but where are the others speaking out?”

Bill, Hillary, Michelle, and Obama equal narcissism gone berserk, but is President Jarrett waiting in the wings?
Blood Feud [1], Ed Klein’s new book on the Clintons and the Obamas currently rocketing to the top of the Amazon best seller list even before its official publication day, is a lurid, irresponsible work of yellow journalism filled with suppositions, inaccuracies, myriad anonymous sources, made-up dialogue and (often extreme) bias.

In other words, it is essentially like your average front page story in the New York Times.

But unlike the Times, Klein gets it essentially right about his subject — the Clintons and the Obamas despise each other.

And unlike the Times, Blood Feud is a compulsive read. I dare you to put it down. The book reminds you of nothing so much as an episode of Shonda Rhimes’ [2] television series Scandal [3] — and a particularly excessive episode at that. Even at its most seemingly illogical, Klein’s work has the ring of truth. He’s on to something, even if he hasn’t hit the bull’s eye.

The main characters here — Hillary, Michelle, Barack, Bill and, to an extraordinary extent, real “power behind the throne” Valerie Jarrett — read like a group of Borgias set free on today’s Washington, loathing each other and plotting revenge while living a lifestyle even the one percent could barely dream of.

The idea that these people could even utter the words “income inequality” is farcical. At some point they may have had political ideas of some sort — who knows — but that was in a galaxy far, far away and has been lost forever in the latest round of golf, $200,000 speeches to Arab potentates or spur-of-the-moment trips to Maui to woo Oprah at her mansion.

A lot of the book too reads like a companion piece to Hillary’s latest — well, not exactly, since no one appears to be interested in that door stopper –because most of the leaks appear to be from people anxious to differentiate Hillary from Obama. POTUS, as we know, is not exactly popular these days and anyone seeking the presidency would be well advised to separate herself from him as far as possible. This accounts for much of the amusing dish in the book, Hillary even dropping the F-bomb in front of some of her amazed old classmates from Wellesley when referring to Obama’s undeniable executive incompetence.

The Maliki government in Iraq fueled anti-Americanism as it systematically destroyed the coalition government that the Americans had created and protected by the surge. Maliki, who had once been hunted by the genocidal Saddam Hussein, in a sense was a creation of the United States and its commitment to consensual government in Iraq. So was the pluralistic idea of a Shiite majority for the first time gaining ascendency on the principle of one person, one vote — and through the blood and treasure of American soldiers during the surge. No foreign leader in recent memory has been so lucky to have an American patron.

By 2011, Maliki thought he could pose to Iraqis with cheap anti-Americanism while bluffing the Obama administration into agreeing to a status of forces renewal agreement that both sides knew was in their mutual interest. But the fool Maliki did not realize that politics for the Obama administration (“ending one war, winding down another”) was even more a first principle than it was for Maliki. The result is Obama pulled every American out of the hard-won and stable Iraq (“stable” is Obama’s characterization, not mine alone), found his reelection narrative, and now Maliki is close to losing his country.

Maliki failed to grasp that Obama had even less trust in the influence of America to do good things abroad than did Maliki himself. But the larger irony is that now Maliki is begging for a return of American hard power to save his government from those killers that his policies helped create. In extremis, he understands that no other country would depose an oil-rich tyrant, stay on to foster democracy, leave the oil to its owners, and then leave when asked — and finally consider coming back to the rescue of an abject ingrate.

The Latin America narrative in the age of Obama — often best characterized in Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, or Venezuela — is little empathy south of the border for the Yanqui paradigm of free-market democratic capitalism. The stale 1960s rhetoric of colonialist, imperialist, racist, etc. is back in vogue in much of Latin America, and Mexico as well, encouraged by an administration that itself is unlikely to defend present or past U.S. conduct.

Likewise the themes of most Chicano-Latino studies programs in the U.S. are American culpability, racism, and colonialism — the same old, same old whine [1] of the myriad faults of the U.S. In my community, the time it takes a first-generation foreign national to cross the border illegally, and then to develop a sort of resentment toward the U.S. and a romance about the birthplace he abandoned, seems about five years.

Why then are tens of thousands of Latin Americans willingly flooding into a supposedly racist country where cutthroat capitalism ignores the poor and the oppressed such as themselves? In most past polls of Mexican citizens, two general themes often show up: the majority of Mexican nationals believe that the American Southwest still should belong to Mexico, and a sizable minority would like to leave Mexico for the U.S. You figure out the mentality. I cannot but I do detect the vague paradox: Mexico wants Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California back so that it resembles Mexico, which many Mexican citizens would then leave because it had become, well, Mexico. What is this strange attraction toward a country that, in so many formal announcements both south of the border and among open-borders advocates north of it, is supposedly suspect?

“It neither helps us nor hurts us, but exactly the opposite,” Mexican President Luis Echeverria is supposed to have said (“Ni nos benefica ni nos perjudica, sino todo lo contrario”). In the case of Iraq, as so often, it depends: the winner is the side best able to bear the burden of uncertainty. America should be the winner when our prospective enemies fight each other (as I argued in the February 2012 essay reposted below). In the language of option trading (see here), we should be long volatility, but instead are short volatility. That is because neither the Obama administration nor the Republican mainstream can admit that Iraq and Syria are not to be stabilized, and are stuck with the onus of apparent policy failure.

Iraq’s woes surely are good for the Russians and the Iranians. Russia just delivered five Sukhoi 25′s, their nimbler but less powerful competitor to our Warthog close-air-defense fighter (that’s the one the Pentagon proposes to eliminate), the first installment on a $500 million contract for a dozen of them. Russia also is selling $2 billion of arms, including attack helicopters, to Egypt, and with Saudi funding. The Iranians meanwhile have sent in special forces and armaments.

All of this makes our leadership in both parties look like idiots, and that is bad for America. Even those of us who think that our leadership are idiots cringe when it becomes obvious to the rest of the world. The American public by a margin of 71:22 thinks that the Iraq War wasn’t worth it. They are against any sort of intervention because there is no-one they trust to conduct intervention sensibly.

Putin is not smarter than we are. He is simply unburdened by the illusion that most of the countries in the region should or will succeed, and he is willing to stay one jump ahead of the game, maneuvering for advantage as opportunities emerge. We are fettered by Obama’s affirmative-action approach to the Muslim world as articulated in his July 2009 Cairo address and numerous subsequent statements, and the Republicans’ ideological belief that the mere form of parliamentary democracy fixes all problems.

The intrusion of reality benefits the likes of Putin, because Putin is a realist. It hurts us, because we refuse to accept reality. Our leaders live in ideological bubbles; they are incapable of considering the consequence of their errors, because they believe in their respective causes (the innate goodness of Islam or the innate propensity of people towards democracy) with religious intensity.

The U.S. needs to draw a line around its allies — the Gulf states and the kingdom of Jordan — and ensure that the ISIS problem is contained at their borders. What happens inside Iraq is not our concern, although we might want to quietly tweak this or that aspect of the facts on the ground. But it is pointless for another American to die in that miserable place. The Balkans, said Bismarck, wasn’t worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. All the less so Mesopotamia.

What should we do in Iraq? Be the bad guy in the “Three Musketeers.”

You can tell a lot about a society by watching what kind of people it puts into positions of power and influence.

Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Prime Minister of Norway from the Norwegian Labour Party. Since 2009, he has been the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (CoE). He was reelected to this position for a second term, with the support of parliamentarians from across Europe, on June 24 2014.

The CoE was established in 1949. It is distinct from and less powerful than the European Union. However, it has a formalized cooperation with the EU on a range of issues, for instance those related to immigration. This cooperation has been strengthened under Jagland’s lead. The CoE further enjoys friendly relations with many Islamic organizations and has made combating so-called “Islamophobia” in Europe one of its stated priorities.

In addition to heading the Council of Europe, for years Mr. Jagland has also been the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the annual Nobel Peace Prize. Under his leadership, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 2009 to Barack Hussein Obama, when he had only been US President for a few months. In 2012, Jagland and the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the European Union (EU). The Socialist Jagland has for decades been a passionate supporter of supranational organizations such as the EU.

One of the three women who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011, Tawakkol Karman from Yemen, has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Norwegian Nobel Committee knew about this and thought it was fine. Jagland told reporters in Oslo that he disagrees with the widespread “perception” in the West that the Brotherhood is a threat to democracy. The very same man has warned repeatedly for years against the allegedly great dangers presented by “Islamophobia” and people who peacefully voice anti-Islamic viewpoints.

In Jagland’s view, being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood makes you a potential partner worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. If, on the other hand, you peacefully oppose Islamic inroads into the Western world then that makes you virtually a threat to world peace.

On August 1 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland “attacked the Norwegian press for allowing the extremist blogger Peder ‘Fjordman’ Jensen to air his anti-Islamic views.” He warned against letting the ideology allegedly held by the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik to enter the mainstream:

There is more bad news for moderate Muslims who deny any connection between Islam and terror and who insist on convincing the West that no one should interpret Quranic commandments to kill, behead, torture, terrorize, humiliate, belittle and never befriend the non-believer, as violent.

As I was watching an Arabic Aljazeerah TV show, which did not have a date, called “Sharia and Hayaa,” meaning Islamic law and life, the topic was “Dawaa Baina Al Tarhib Wal Targhib,” Arabic for “Preaching between Terror and Lure.” The word “dawaa” means preaching or spreading Islam. “Tarhib” is derived from the word “irhab” or terror, and “tarhib” means to instill terror. Incidentally, the Quran encourages Muslims to “instill terror through the hearts of unbelievers.” The word “targhib” means luring or making something attractive. I am sure Islamic apologists will dispute the interpretation since they never admit that the word “kill” in the Quran means “kill” anyway.

“Tarhib Wal TarghibI” is an Islamic doctrine that the West and many Muslims are unfamiliar with but that demonstrates yet another clear connection between Islam and terror. This doctrine promotes the use of two extreme tools to bring people and nations to submit to Islam. Such polar opposite and extreme techniques penetrate Islamic society from top to bottom; they are encouraged in child rearing, in the relationship between men and women, leaders and citizens, mosque preachers and the congregation, Arab media and the public, and even between Islamic nations and the West — the nations they wish to conquer or lure to Islam.

A Quranic verse (The Rock 49-50) was mentioned at the beginning of the show stating that Allah said: “tell my worshippers that I am the beneficent the merciful and my torture [Athab] is a painful one”; two opposite extreme descriptions of Allah, or more accurately Mohammed himself, that became the foundation of the contradictory doctrine of Islam.

It must be noted that Arabic Aljazeerah discusses Islam in a totally different light from English Aljazeerah, which is designed to lure Westerners to the idea that Islam is peaceful while defending terror as freedom fighting.

This doctrine is a summation of what the Quran is all about, terror and lure, and promotes such extremely but powerful and raw cultural attributes of Muslim society; shame and pride. Such a doctrine has also evolved from Mohammed’s character when he failed to peacefully evangelize through persuasion and “lure” and therefore had to flip tactics, going straight to pure terror. Thus his famous saying “I have been victorious through terror.”

If We Want to Beat Al Qaeda, We Have to Stop Arming It Posted By Daniel Greenfield

Obama’s call for $500 million to arm and train Syrian Jihadist fighters couldn’t have possibly come at a more inappropriate time as Al Qaeda in Iraq menaces both countries.

It wasn’t the Iraq War that made the Al Qaeda affiliate so dangerous. In 2008 it specialized in suicide bombings. It wasn’t marching on Baghdad with an army behind it.

The Arab Spring destabilized the region while money, weapons and recruits poured into Libya and Syria. Obama’s regime change war in Libya led not only to the takeover of entire Libyan cities by Al Qaeda, culminating in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, but to an Al Qaeda affiliate seizing much of neighboring Mali. Libyan terror training camps also led to an attack on the Amenas gas plant in Algeria.

Three Americans were killed in that attack bringing the US death toll from Obama’s Libyan War up to seven.

But that was last year. This year it’s the Syrian Civil War that turned its local Al Qaeda affiliates into breakout Jihadi stars seizing entire cities and terrorizing the region.

Obama’s solution is to direct money intended for counterterrorism partnerships to terrorists in Syria.

This may be one of the worst ideas that he has ever come up with. Attempts to control the flow of weapons likely played a role in the Benghazi attacks. NATO forces enforcing an arms embargo on Libya had been told to ignore Qatari weapons shipments that were meant for “moderates”.

Instead they went to Al Qaeda.

Obama and Kerry, not to mention Graham and McCain, believe that weapons can be directed to “moderate” Syrian groups and that by arming the “good” terrorists, we’ll stop the “bad” terrorists.

But there are no “good” terrorists. Promises of delivering weapons only to “pre-vetted” groups are worth as much as Obama’s assurances that Al Qaeda was on the run and that ISIS is only a jayvee team.

The fixation of Israeli governments on “land for peace”, a policy that has resulted in the murder and maiming of more than 10,000 Jews, puzzles the pundits. They puzzle over the fact that regardless of which party or coalition of parties controls the government, the policy of land-for-peace continues, despite its obvious futility and fatal consequences.

They wonder what animates Israel’s ruling elites? Why do they continue to negotiate with terrorists, with Arabs or Muslims steeped in a fourteen- century religion driven by hatred of “infidels”…

[They] also wonder why the people of Israel, who exercise the franchise, tolerate their ruling elites? …why don’t the voters elect statesmen possessing enough courage, wisdom, and integrity to face the truth about the implacable nature of the enemy – statesmen who can pursue a strategy whose goal is to defeat the enemy? Why do the voters repeatedly elect governments that appease the enemy via the futile and fatal policy of land for peace?

– Prof. Paul Eidelberg, The Fixation of Israel’s Elites on “Land for Peace”, 2007.

If the proponents of the discredited land-for- peace principle and the two-state prescription for resolving the Israel-Arab conflict had any intellectual integrity, they would hang their heads in shame.

If the political discourse in Israel were conducted with decency and honesty; if substantive truth determined public stature in the country, these merchants of fraudulent, foolhardy fantasies would have been marginalized, consigned long ago to the enduring irrelevance, ignominy and commensurate ridicule they richly deserve.

Dramatic discontinuity in Zionist endeavor

We are now approaching almost a quarter- century since the fatal concoction of the noxious, Oslowian brew in the early 1990s, that culminated in the so-called “Declaration of Principles” (Oslo I) on the White House lawns in September 1993.

In effect, these events marked a dramatic discontinuity in the evolution of Zionism, fostering the previously spurned notion of Palestinian statehood as an acceptable – even preferred – policy option for the mainstream.

Not only did the event grossly distort the founding ethos of Zionism, it inverted its essence and the thrust of Zionism’s fundamental principles. What was once vaunted as virtue became vilified as vice.

Every society is ruled by a consensus. The consensus rarely comes from the bottom up. Usually it’s imposed from the top down.

The United States is not run by the voters. It’s not run by the people. It’s run by a consensus. That consensus is what the elites think is true. That consensus is not exactly the same among Democrats and Republicans, but it does overlap in significant ways.

The first point of the consensus is that bigger institutions are better because they are smarter. This isn’t limited just to government. It also encompasses the corporate world. And the merger of governments, corporations, academics and non-profits into one large conglomeration of consensus.

The movement of executives from the non-profit, to the political to the corporate spheres, in no particular order, is really how our society is run. Even when each group remains in its own sphere, they make interdependent decisions with companies and government institutions acting as executive leaders and treating non-profits and academics as the expert class.

Pull back and we’re run by a single giant corporation whose leadership is very complicated and competitive, but whose leaders come from a common culture and who call on the consensus for their ideas.

Using elections to shift that consensus is very difficult because at the top the consensus extends across both parties and much of the governing of the consensus is not subject to voter review.

You can elect Congressman Y to represent your interests. But the system isn’t run by Congressman Y. It is highly unlikely that Congressman Y will ever be president. Even if Congressman Y becomes a Senator, he will have to win over donors whose worldview is a product of the consensus. If he manages to make it to the Senate without accepting the consensus, his legislation, should any of it make it past the Consensus Senators, will then be dumped into a pile managed by Consensus regulators and Consensus Federal judges who will reject it if doesn’t meet the Consensus.

That’s the interdependency of the Consensus. It’s a single massive system made up of individuals who are diverse in demographics, but share the viewpoints of the Consensus or shut up about it.

Making the Consensus bigger has made American government and business extremely inefficient. It’s why we can’t seem to get anything done anymore and our only products that matter come from the occasional young visionary who challenges the system with a new company. But it also makes it very hard to beat.

Dr. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

In her Political Diary item on June 26, Allysia Finley wrote that California has “insane water rationing” policies and that Californians “pay dearly for their government’s green sanctimony.” She’s correct. And there’s another example: Santa Cruz, Mendocino and Marin counties—all of which boast politically correct, far-left politics—are among the local jurisdictions that have banned a proven technology that could conserve vast amounts of water.

The technology is genetic engineering performed with modern molecular techniques, sometimes referred to as genetic modification (GM) or gene-splicing, which enables plant breeders to make old crop plants do spectacular new things, including conserve water. Throughout the U.S. and in about 30 other countries, farmers are using genetically engineered crop varieties to produce higher yields with lower inputs and reduced impacts on the environment.

Because irrigation for agriculture accounts for roughly 70 percent of the world’s fresh water consumption, the introduction of plants that grow with less water would allow much of it to be freed up for other uses. Especially during drought conditions such as those found throughout California, even a small percentage reduction in the use of water for irrigation could result in huge benefits to farmers and consumers.

Plant biologists have identified genes that regulate water use and transferred them into important crop plants. These new varieties grow with smaller amounts of water or with lower-quality water, such as that which has been recycled or that is high in natural mineral salts. For example, Egyptian researchers showed a decade ago that by transferring a single gene from barley to wheat, the plants can tolerate reduced watering for a longer period of time. This new, drought-resistant variety requires only one-eighth as much irrigation as conventional wheat and in some deserts can be cultivated with rainfall alone.

One genetically engineered, drought resistant corn variety has been commercialized in the U.S., and many more are in advanced field testing. How successful they’ll be might depend on whether green activists and politicians have enough sense to come in out of the rain.