RUTHFULLY YOURS

The off-duty, undercover cop who watched while members of a bike gang hauled the driver out of an SUV on New York’s West Side Highway last year and beat him was asked why he did nothing. His response: “If I knew what was going to happen, I would not have gotten out of bed”.

The question currently being asked of candidates – knowing what we know now, would you have invaded Iraq in 2003? – does little to reveal the judgment, temperament or character of the one being asked. It serves no purpose, other than to fill the questioner with supercilious indignation, and to make the interrogatee, no matter the response, look foolish.

The current uproar began when Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked Jeb Bush, “knowing what we now know,” would he have authorized the invasion of Iraq? Governor Bush answered what he thought was the question, but ignored the hypothetical introductory phrase. From a political perspective, it was a mistake on Mr. Bush’s part, but it was the question that was absurd. How does one answer such a hypothetical question? Ms. Kelly was surely trying to trap Jeb Bush and, unfortunately for him, she succeeded. But did her audience learn anything of importance? Was it newsworthy, or did she and the question become the news? On Sunday evening, Chris Wallace asked the same question of Senator Marco Rubio. When Mr. Rubio pushed back, Mr. Wallace became exasperated; so the Senator gave the answer Mr. Wallace wanted. The audience learned nothing, other than that Chris Wallace, whom I generally admire, can be an ass.

Cyrus McGoldrick wasn’t at his home in Florida this past week. He spent the week in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Part of his time was devoted to sightseeing, and part of it was spent cursing his home country, the United States, while shilling for Iran on Iranian TV. He is currently back on U.S. soil, but his actions suggest that he instead renounce his citizenship and take up permanent residency in the terrorist state, where his mom was born. But before he leaves, he needs to be investigated.

Cyrus McGoldrick converted to Islam, while attending Columbia University at the age of 20. It did not take him long to become radicalized, as following his graduation in 2010, he became the Civil Rights Manager for the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Prior to that, he had served as an intern for CAIR-NY. He has also served as CAIR-NY’s Advocacy Director.

The Very Reverend Gary Hall declared “one of the great blessings” in his life as being able to “encounter Islam” while introducing in Washington, DC, an April 21 National Cathedral presentation on “Islam and Politics in the U.S.” The National Cathedral dean’s words once again set in this “spiritual home for the nation” a politically correct tone for a subsequent discussion naively presenting Islam as morally equivalent to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

An Islamic prayer service in the National Cathedral indicates that total lack of obedience to Jesus Christ in this alleged church which is now more more than a general for rent auditorium.

Like the previously analyzed first session of the National Cathedral’s “Exploring Islam in America” series, Hall emphasized ecumenism before about 60 mostly middle- and senior-aged individuals in the Perry Auditorium. His opening prayer invoked the “God of the Prophet Muhammad” along with the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and the “God of Jesus.” He then cited religion scholar Huston Smith for the proposition that a Martian “would see one religion with three branches” in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. “Deep continuity” and “respect” marked in his view the relationships between these three faiths claiming ancestry from Abraham.

“There Is No More Molly.” Or Luz.

Five years ago, a cartoonist with The Seattle Weekly, shocked by the way Comedy Central had censored “South Park” after the usual threats from violent Muslims, proclaimed May 20th as “Everybody Draw Mohammed” Day. What was novel about this particular promotion was that the cartoonist, Molly Norris, was not a “right-wing” “Islamophobe” but a liberal progressive, and therefore a rare if not all but unique example of a feminist leftie recognizing that the Islamic enforcers were a threat to her way of life. This was a very welcome development.

Unfortunately, Miss Norris was not so much recognizing reality as blissfully unaware of it. When the backlash against her idea began, she disassociated herself from it and signed off with – Lord help us – a peace symbol. We had some correspondence on the matter, and I write about her in The [Un]documented Mark Steyn (personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available and help to prop up my own free-speech campaign against the climate mullahs) in a chapter entitled “There Is No More Molly”:

Now The Seattle Weekly informs us:

‘You may have noticed that Molly Norris’ comic is not in the paper this week. That’s because there is no more Molly.’

Longtime Clinton attack dog Sidney Blumenthal is under fire over allegations that he used his connection to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to promote an unusual business scheme involving Libya and possibly the embattled Clinton Foundation.

Blumenthal, Bill Clinton’s legendary hatchet man who earned the richly deserved sobriquet “Sid Vicious” for his scorched-earth assaults on Clinton’s enemies, is now at the center of yet another percolating Clinton scandal that promises to be, like all Clinton scandals, extraordinarily messy and drawn out.

All the details of Blumenthal’s would-be transactions aren’t yet known, but at first glance his half-assed plotting bears more than a passing resemblance to the cockamamie business deal [2] that the late Billy Carter, President Jimmy Carter’s always embarrassing brother, tried to broker in Libya decades ago.

“Orwell changed the intellectual climate by demonstrating that a free spirit would oppose fascism without becoming a Communist. Is it any different in today’s intellectual climate? The media are full of lies about what’s going on in the Middle East. Censorship, more usually self-censorship, is common. A free spirit who opposes Islamism and the vile things done in its name does not become a racist, or an “Islamophobe” in that meaningless phrase. Repair that trench, then!”

Left and Right in Spain do not forget or forgive the Civil War. A so-called Law of Historical Memory banned statues and tributes to General Franco, and set up funds for identifying the victims buried in mass graves. Franco’s mausoleum in the Valley of the Fallen is pure kitsch and its loss might not be regretted. The trenches where George Orwell fought are another matter — they are in disrepair and the Right would not regret their disappearance. Huesca is the site where Orwell survived a bullet through the neck, something he prophesied “will happen to us all in the near future.” Orwell’s son, Richard, 71, now a retired businessman, is trying to enlist the Left in a campaign of restoration and preservation.

There are few things the Left loves more than a college liberal “speaking truth” to conservative power. Days ago, 19-year-old University of Nevada student Ivy Ziedrich seemed to enjoy just such a moment and “made headlines around the world” when she confronted Jeb Bush about ISIS. Ms. Ziedrich had the gumption to confront Bush in the midst of a scrum of reporters and confidently recite leftist conventional wisdom about the current Middle East crisis, declaring: “Your brother created ISIS!” After all, according to accepted academic conventional wisdom, the war in Iraq is the source of all (recent) jihadist evil.

And with that statement, the clock started running on 15 minutes of fame — no, 15 minutes of public adulation. Interviews with ABC News, the New York Times, and other outlets followed, with reporters eager to hear her thoughts on the Middle East. And while Ms. Ziedrich is no expert, there is one thing she said that is all too true: “It’s frustrating to see politicians ignore the origins of our conflicts abroad.”

Progressives Want You to Think Like a Liberal—Or Else
What happens when the public does not wish to live out the utopian dreams of its elite leaders? Usually, the answer for those leaders is to seek more coercion and less liberty to force people to think progressively.

Here at home, President Barack Obama came into power in 2009 with a Democratic Congress, a sympathetic press, and allies in Hollywood, academia, unions, and philanthropic and activist foundations.

Yet all that support was not sufficient to ensure “correct” public attitudes about Obama’s agenda on health care, entitlements, taxes, guns, abortion, and cultural issues.

In the 2010 midterm elections, the Democrats forfeited their majority in the House. In the 2014 midterms, they lost their Senate majority and also lost ground in state legislatures and with governorships across the country. Since early 2013, President Obama’s approval rating has been consistently below 50 percent.

How, then, do politically correct planners force the people to think and act properly when they push back?

Extra-legal executive orders can help a president bypass supposed troglodytes in Congress and among the public.

“We’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues.”
— President Obama

We should never allow ourselves to be intimidated. And here, in America, you are allowed to make pictures and drawings, no matter what the Sharia says. … If we react to threats over cartoons by no longer making cartoons, the terrorists have won. … The jihadis want to kill me, but others want to silence me… by legal or political harassment. All this is happening not in third-world dictatorships, as you might expect, but in Western democracies.

And may I ask: Where are the demonstrations of Muslims who do not agree with the violence committed in the name of Islam and its prophet? I have not seen any of them, have you? The majority may not commit violence, but they do not oppose it either.

A free society should not grant freedom to those who want to destroy it. We should stand with every nation and every people who are threatened by jihad. This includes Israel… whose conflict with the Arabs is not about land; it is a conflict between freedom and tyranny.

If we allow ourselves to be self-censored about anything we say about Islam, then soon Islam will start telling us how to live, how to dress, how to breathe. … That is how civilizations decay.

Freedom of speech is under threat today. Not only in Europe, where I come from. But also here, in America.

Pope Francis has suffered a serious blow to his spiritual and moral authority following the Vatican’s recognition of the “State of Palestine” in a new treaty announced on 13 May.
The Vatican’s latest slippery slide into political and legal chaos represents a clear breach of clause 11(2) of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement Between The Holy See And The State Of Israel which provides:

“The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders.”
Vatican officials openly admitted that this new treaty did not constitute the Holy See’s first breach of the Fundamental Agreement – Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi pointing out:

“We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook”
This latest challenge to the Pope’s spiritual and moral authority – first transgressed by his predecessor Pope Benedict arises from the fact that the United Nations recognition of the State of Palestine on 29 November 2012 affirmed:

…the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967…
600000 Jews presently live in this designated territory. PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas – warmly welcomed by Pope Francis this week as a potential “angel of peace” – has insisted upon their total displacement and removal as a condition of any peace agreement.