RUTHFULLY YOURS

Did Mike Huckabee Actually Compare Obama to Hitler?
It’s been a hard time for politicians not named “Trump” to get any attention, but Mike Huckabee managed it. He did it by comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler.

At least that’s what I gathered from headlines like this one from Gawker:

“Mike Huckabee Compares Obama to Hitler”

I don’t put huge amounts of stock in Gawker headlines (or really any headlines on the Internet), but then I saw that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said Huckabee had “essentially likened [Barack Obama] to Adolf Hitler.” National Journal’s Ron Fournier went on a tear on Twitter, insisting that Huckabee apologize for comparing Obama to Hitler. And of course, Hillary Clinton and Obama himself denounced Huckabee for making a Hitler comparison. Clinton even said she was “really offended personally,” as if her feelings are what really matters.

Here is what Huckabee said in full during an interview with Breitbart News:

When Four Corners re-visited the Charlie Hebdo massacre, straight-bat journalism was trumped by propaganda and blatant reportorial bias. Mention the murder of Jewish schoolchildren? Don’t be silly! That might have clouded the message that Muslims, and only Muslims, are the real victims.
Watching Their ABC’s Four Corners last week I was once again impressed by Aunty’s adroit, manipulative touch in the art of a subtle propaganda. Introduced by compere Kerry O’Brien as “provocative and personal”, the show purported to examine the fallout in France from the Charlie Hebdo massacre. An insult to common sense, to balanced reporting and even-handedness, it was an abrogation of journalism’s responsibility to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. What I saw instead was a master class in how to gloss over inconvenient facts, air tendentious assertions unchallenged and present the ideological commitment of the story-tellers as the base line from which all further discussion should, and must, proceed.

More than 500 Hamas members of Hamas’s armed wing, Ezaddin al-Qassam, are supervising the military training and religious education in the camps to train future jihadis in the war against Israel. Hamas’s religious education is aimed at teaching the children about Islam and its sharia laws. They are also being taught that making peace with the “infidels” is prohibited under the teachings of Islam.

It is disturbing to see how international and Palestinian human rights organizations, especially those claiming to defend children’s rights, are turning a blind eye to this large-scale child abuse by Hamas. These organizations only care about children’s rights when there is a way to throw all the blame on Israel.

The Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, are also poisoning the hearts and minds of their people by constantly inciting them against Israel. These children will never accept the two-state solution that Abbas is talking about. Nor will they ever recognize Israel’s right to exist in this part of the world.

“Teach your children how to play, how to smile… Build for them an institution…on the love of Palestine and not how to get themselves killed.” — Palestinian activist Eyad al-Atal, criticizing Hamas for “depriving an entire generation of Palestinians of their childhood.”

Rather than a Folie à Deux, call it a Folie à 5+1: a mutually reinforcing delusion involving Iran, the United States, Russia, China and the Europeans. What makes the outcome of the Iran nuclear deal so dangerous is that none of the parties to the agreement has thought through the consequences of its actions, least of all Iran itself. They are not so much sleepwalkers, as historian Christopher Clark characterized the combatants who stumbled into World War I, as waking fantasists.

There is one state of the world in which things go right, namely, Iran’s passive acceptance of national decline. There are innumerable ways in which everything can go terribly wrong. Game theorists who try to construct a decision tree from these criteria would assign a very low probability to a good outcome and a very high probably to a bad one.

Iran believes that it will lead the Shi’ite Muslims of the region to restored power; America believes that Iran’s enhanced status will foster a beneficial balance of power; China believes that the balance of military power between the Sunni and Shi’ite states (and between Iran and Israel) will prevent war; Russia believes that Iran will serve as a counterweight to the Sunni jihadist that threaten its southern flank; and the Europeans as usual close their eyes and hope for the best.

A near-indecipherable tattoo on a woman’s leg helps unravel a mystery surrounding the 1943 anthem of the Jewish resistance.

The photograph of a tattooed pair of women’s legs appearing atop this column was e-mailed to me by a friend after having been sent to him by an acquaintance who’d taken it in New York. The legs—belonging, apparently, to a feministically inclined Jewish patriot—bear three inscriptions. On the left calf are “Never Again” and a barbed-wire Star of David. The left ankle (not pictured here) has two words in Hebrew or Yiddish that I can’t make out. On the right calf are the faces of two young women wearing military-style berets and lettering that, though a bit difficult to decipher, spells the Yiddish words dos lid geshribn iz mit blut, “the song is written with blood,” above the faces, and un nit blay, “and not lead,” beneath them. Or is it, on the contrary, un mit blay, “and with lead”? It’s hard to tell—and thereby hangs a tale.

The words of this tattoo come from the well-known song Zog nit keynmol az du geyst dem letztn veg, “Never say the road you’re on will be your last,” also known as the Partisans’ Song. Written in the Vilna ghetto in May 1943, it quickly became the anthem of anti-German Jewish partisan units all over Eastern Europe. After the war it was widely performed and recorded, and it continues to be sung in various languages at Holocaust commemorations and other events to this day. In its accepted version, the fourth of its five stanzas goes:

Obama’s first hope was to reach a deal with his Iranian friends that would leave the Assad regime in place. But the Iranians blew him off.While Israel and much of official Washington remain focused on the deal President Barack Obama just cut with the ayatollahs that gives them $150 billion and a guaranteed nuclear arsenal within a decade, Obama has already moved on – to Syria.

Obama’s first hope was to reach a deal with his Iranian friends that would leave the Assad regime in place. But the Iranians blew him off.

The Clintons rarely feel obliged to obey the normal rules, whether for email security, the Lincoln Bedroom, or even the expectation that potential Presidents will comment on the issues of the day so people know what they believe and how they would act in office. Try to parse Hillary Clinton’s blanket refusal to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline, as if it is ridiculous for anyone to ask.

“If it’s undecided when I become President, I will answer your question,” Mrs. Clinton advised a voter on Tuesday in Nashua, New Hampshire. That seems likely given that the oil project that may one day connect Canada to the Gulf Coast has been waiting for a State Department permit since 2008, and President Obama—who vetoed a bipartisan approval bill in February—has extended regulatory review to infinity to appease the green lobby.

The Cold War almost seems a forgotten era these days, but its stalwarts deserve recognition as they now pass from American public life. One of them was Rosanne Klass, an American who led the fight to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets and who died this week at age 86.

Born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Klass joined her husband to teach English in rural Afghanistan in the 1950s, among the first Western women to do so. She became an authority on Afghan culture and politics and wrote a well received account of her experiences in that country, “Land of the High Flags.”

After the Soviet invasion in 1979, she became an advocate of U.S. support for the Afghan insurgents and chronicled the many Soviet depredations. She joined Freedom House, that great advocate of human liberty in authoritarian states, and wrote books and op-eds, including for these pages.

The nuclear deal with Iran’s fanatical anti-Jewish regime will fuel racism on a global scale.

Barack Obama’s election to the presidency represented to many Americans this country’s final triumph over racism. Reversing the record of slavery and institutionalized discrimination, his victory was hailed as a redemptive moment for America and potentially for humankind. How grotesque that the president should now douse that hope by fueling racism on a global scale.

The Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism. Comparisons to Nazi Germany are always a last resort, since even with all the evidence before us it is hard to fathom the evil the Nazis perpetrated. Yet Iran’s frank genocidal ambition dwarfs its predecessor’s. Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias.

Everyone—from her aides to the State and Justice departments—is bending over backward to protect her.
‘Friends of Bill” was a 1990s Washington catchphrase, shorthand for President Clinton’s favored inner circle. His wife, it turns out, has a far bigger fan club. “Friends of Hillary”—the people looking out for her welfare, and benefiting in turn—seem to occupy the highest echelons of government and business.

That’s one way of synthesizing this week’s slew of disparate Clinton revelations. The Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee is grappling with a range of scandals, from her use of a private email server while secretary of state, to actions she took while in office that look to have financially benefited her family’s foundation. But what ties all these stories together is the extraordinary number of people who continue to run cover for Mrs. Clinton’s ambitions.