RUTHFULLY YOURS

CAIR attempts to present itself as an organization defending freedom and faith…and fails

The slogan for last weekend’s Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Philadelphia banquet, “Defending our freedom, living our faith,” sounds like an innocuous promotion of all-American values. Conference graphics were flanked by the Statue of Liberty and a minaret, while the event claimed to promote the peaceful intersection of the American and Islamic identities, featuring a former Obama adviser and a comedian for the adults and Mad Science and story time for the kids. However, behind the event’s playful, unassuming façade lay a sinister truth: that CAIR and its banquet represent Islamist apologists.

The keynote speaker, Dalia Mogahed, is a former member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and is now the director of research at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU). ISPU claims that it conducts “objective, solution-seeking research that empowers American Muslims to develop their community and fully contribute to democracy and pluralism in the United States.”

Despite her organization’s ostensible commitment to Western values, we’re not sure Mogahed is the best choice for an example for American Muslims seeking to “fully contribute to democracy.” For instance, Mogahed once granted a friendly interview on a radio show hosted by the Islamist movement Hizb ut Tahrir, which advocates the “eradication” of Jews. In her interview, Mogahed insisted that sharia law promotes “gender justice.”

Yet Mogahed appears downright moderate in comparison to the CAIR banquet’s master of ceremonies, Zahra Billoo.

President Trump has said he is at last assembling a Cabinet team to his liking, and late Thursday he announced that John Bolton will replace General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Adviser. It is a solid and experienced choice.

General McMaster, like others, reportedly had fallen out of favor with Mr. Trump. But there should be no doubt that General McMaster helped the President through a challenging first year, which included an array of problems inherited from the Obama Administration, not least the North Korean nuclear threat.

Mr. Bolton’s critics often accuse him of belligerence and reactive saber-rattling. He is indeed direct. No listener comes away from a conversation with John Bolton in doubt about where he stands. That must include Mr. Trump, who had Mr. Bolton under consideration to be his first Secretary of State last year and has discussed foreign issues often with him since.

The charge that Mr. Bolton can be an unguided missile misconstrues his ideas and experience. He served in the State Department during both Bush Presidencies. Under George W. Bush he created the multinational Proliferation Security Initiative in 2003, a useful effort explicitly designed to deter North Korea’s efforts to smuggle weapons materials.

Those wanting an understanding of John Bolton’s thinking on security issues should read the many essays he has written for these pages in recent years—most recently “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First” on Feb. 28.

Mr. Bolton’s first job will be to prepare the President for an historic meeting with Kim Jong Un. We may assume Pyongyang knows now that bluffing the U.S. won’t work.

Even in the mostly egalitarian city-states of relatively poor classical Greece, the wealthy were readily identifiable. A man of privilege was easy to spot by his remarkable possession of a horse, the fine quality of his tunic, or by his mastery of Greek syntax and vocabulary.

An anonymous and irascible Athenian author—dubbed “The Old Oligarch” by the nineteenth-century British classicist Gilbert Murray—wrote a bitter diatribe known as “The Constitution of the Athenians.” The harangue, composed in the late fifth century B.C., blasted the liberal politics and culture of Athens. The grouchy elitist complained that poor people in Athens don’t get out of the way of rich people. He was angry that only in radically democratic imperial Athens was it hard to calibrate a man by his mere appearance: “You would often hit an Athenian citizen by mistake on the assumption that he was a slave. For the people there are no better dressed than the slaves and metics, nor are they any more handsome.”

The Old Oligarch’s essay reveals an ancient truth about privilege and status. Throughout history, the elite in most of the Western world were easy to distinguish. Visible class distinctions characterized ancient Rome, Renaissance Florence, the Paris of the nineteenth century, and the major cities of twentieth century America.

A variety of recent social trends and revolutionary economic breakthroughs have blurred the line separating the elite from the masses.

First, the cultural revolution of the 1960s made it cool for everyone to dress sloppily and to talk with slang and profanity. Levis, T-shirts, and sneakers became the hip American uniform, a way of superficially equalizing the unequal. Contrived informality radiated the veneer of class solidarity. Multimillionaires like Bruce Springsteen and Bono appear indistinguishable from welders on the street.

Donald Trump’s sins do not absolve you of yours.

Former CIA chief John Brennan is a liar. And he’s not the kind of garden variety dissembler that we see in Washington all the time, either. Rather, Brennan is the kind of man who feels comfortable brazenly misleading the American people about an attack on democracy, and then shamelessly lecturing them about civic decency.

You may recall, as director of the CIA, Brennan oversaw an operation of illegal spying on a staffer of the legislative branch of the United States government. At least five agency officials under his watch broke into Senate computer files, viewing drafts of a report on torture and reconstructing emails of at least one staffer. Brennan would attempt to cover up the agency’s actions by doubling down, blaming the Senate, and pushing to fire at least one staffer charged with investigating his agency.

It wasn’t until the CIA’s inspector general confirmed this wrongdoing that Brennan began negotiating with the senators about owning up to the spying (which we still don’t fully understand). Even then, however, he was lying about it to the public. When asked about the CIA hacking into Senate computers at an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, the intelligence chief responded that “nothing could be further from the truth. I mean we wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s just beyond the – you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.” Brennan went on to contend: “Let me assure you the CIA was in no way spying on [the committee] or the Senate.”