RUTHFULLY YOURS

He knows with whom he is dealing, that Caliph.

The caliphate is now at the “sublime door”, the Turkish borders of Europe, leaving behind piles of thousands of unburied dead. Yet the terrorist insurgency of the Islamic State does not lift an eyebrow on the faces of the self-righteous Westerners who unleashed hatred against Israel.

This summer there were two wars: the just war of Israel against the anti-Semitic terrorist regime in Gaza, which for two months tried to besiege the people of the Shoah, and the laconic war of the White House and the Western governments against the Islamic State.

The European governments, mirror of the idle self-righteous conscience, are reluctant to act against the Islamists of the Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and his terrorista, who want to scar the society in which they lived and that gave them birth, who take pride in fighting for the Prophet and who are trying to sweep away any sign of civilization through the imposition of a regime of submission.

It is part of a Western syndrome which revealed itself during the war in Libya, a caricature of the “France-à-fric” (the cash), the war of the assimilated Jew Bernard-Henri Lévy, a war that had the sweet, honey, reassuring, taste of humanitarian mediation.

In the name of the idiotic slogan “neither interference nor indifference”, France presented a war of eastern Libya’s tribes, which have always been hostile to the central government of Tripoli, as a liberation struggle of the entire people against a tyrant who did business with the West. That stupid citoyen, fed with the mantra of humanitarian intervention, hypnotized the Western public opinion to lead a war from above, skewed in substance.

Today the black flag of the Islamic State waves on some Libyan cities. The same scenario is repeated in the Nineveh Plains, the land of the two rivers, where the caliphate now governs a region as large as Great Britain.

Airstrikes and hypocrisy.

Arabs attack Light Rail with rocks, as “silent intifada” in the capital rages on.

In four separate incidents, Arabs threw rocks on Saturday night at the Jerusalem Light Rail, as it passed near Arab neighborhoods in the capital.

No one was hurt but the windows of the trains sustained damage.

In another incident in the capital, Arabs from the Abu Tor neighborhood hurled rocks at Border Policemen on the Mount of Olives. Two officers were lightly wounded and were treated at the scene.

The rock attacks are the latest in the ongoing “silent intifada” in the capital. On Friday afternoon, Arab terrorists attacked the Jerusalem neighborhood of Maaleh Hazeitim, targeting Jewish residents with fireworks and rocks.

The fireworks caused a fire in the nearby brush, which spread quickly but was extinguished by the residents and private security guards before the fire department showed up.

Ten days earlier, local terrorists attacked a day care center in Jerusalem. Three weeks ago, a school bus was attacked with rocks and paint, almost causing it to veer off the road.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat has turned to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in a letter demanding that the terror wave be ended.

Barkat’s letter also reached members of the government, Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino and recently retired Jerusalem District Police Commander Yossi Pariente.

First, I should say that I never win prizes. My name is never called. Wait. Years ago I won a bowling trophy. So don’t count me out.

Not so fast, for each year around this time comes the Nobel Prize for Literature. I sit and I wait. I wait by the phone…along with Philip Roth.

This is what people talk about in my business – the phone call. Yes, the phone call from Sweden. It’s supposed to come early in the morning and sure enough the phone rang. “Congratulations,” said the man. “It’s you.” Only it wasn’t Sweden. It was Moishe.

“You’re nuts,” I said.

“Your gloomy outlook on life stops as of today. You’re in. Mazel Tov. Though I’m told success ruins a writer.”

“So does failure,” I said. “Listen up. You’ve got to stop this.”

“Listen, Yankele. Why not you? I hear it’s a French guy who won moments ago, a Jewish Frenchman. Who else could it be?”

It could be Patrick Modiano, son of a Belgium mother and an Italian Jewish father. But that information only came later. Meanwhile…

“So are you at the computer, watching TV?”

“I’m still in bed. It’s five in the morning. Wait till I get my hands on you.”

“Islam is a religion of peace and has nothing to do with the ideology of our enemies.” — Home Secretary Theresa May, on the beading of David Haines by IS in Syria.

The documentary did not shed light on why the British government continues to allow Sharia law to take precedence over UK law by tolerating polygamy.

“You’ve got an eight, nine, 10-year-old child playing those kind of violent games with heads blowing off and limbs blowing off. What kind of mentality is that kid going to have?” — Convicted terrorist Shahid Butt blaming video games for radicalization of Muslim youth.

“Gangs raping children get let off and ignored, people making comments about it get chased down and treated more severely than the rapists.” — Angry citizen in South Yorkshire

Islam-related issues were widespread in Britain during the month of September 2014. What follows is a summary of the main stories, presented in three broad themes.

1. Islamic Extremism and Syria-Related Threats

The House of Commons on September 26 voted 524 to 43 to approve a request by British Prime Minister David Cameron to join the American-led coalition against the jihadist group Islamic State [IS], but only in Iraq, not in Syria where the IS has established its headquarters.

The vote came after IS jihadists decapitated the British aid worker David Haines in Syria on September 14.

In a politically correct statement on the beheading, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg claimed that the murder had nothing to do with Islam. “No religion could possibly justify such grotesque acts,” he declared.

There has never been a war in American history so strategically ill-conceived as the one currently developing against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria.
The Mexican war of 1846-47 was essentially an aggressive operation to take Alta California and New Mexico, and to cement the status of Texas. It was limited in its objectives, and it was conducted in a strategically sound manner. The goals – their legality apart – were achieved, and the balance between costs and benefits was never in doubt. Vae victis!
The Civil War (under whatever name) was a “rational” bid by Abraham Lincoln and his team – legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations notwithstanding – to create a centralized state. He won the war, and hugely expanded federal governmental power. This was a disaster for America, but it was a resounding success from the standpoint of its instigators.
The 1898 war against Spain was but another exercise in Realpolitik. It finally moved America from a republic to an empire, the “manifest destiny” now manifested in Admiral Mahan’s and Theodore Roosevelt’s geopolitical designs.
Woodrow Wilson’s 1917-1918 intervention against the Central Powers was the first overtly “ideological” war – to make the world safe for democracy etc. Its slogans were silly, but in the end it could be argued that the geopolitical purpose was well served: to prevent the dominance of the continent of Europe by a single hegemon. America did not make much difference to the outcome in the battlefield, but her entry signaled to the Germans that the Entente could not lose.
World War II was a convoluted affair that entailed FDR provoking Japan in order to provoke Germany. Considering Roosevelt’s Weltanschauung it worked beautifully. His goals were rational within that paradigm, and they were fulfilled beyond expectations.

NEW YORK (AP) — Mayor Bill de Blasio refused to take questions Friday about the latest revelations surrounding an embattled top aide who has become a flashpoint in his strained relationship with the rank-and-file in the New York Police Department.

De Blasio didn’t break stride as he walked past waiting reporters into City Hall after attending a memorial service for fallen NYPD officers. But controversy continued to swirl around Rachel Noerdlinger, a highly visible face of the administration, and what she revealed on background checks when she was hired for the $170,000-a-year position as chief of staff to first lady Chirlane McCray.

The Department of Investigation found that she declined to disclose that she was living with her boyfriend, Hassaun McFarlan, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in a 1993 shooting when he was 15 and later served time for drug trafficking. The news website DNAinfo reported that McFarlan’s Facebook page, now taken down, had several posts referring to police as “pigs.”
The DOI probe concluded without recommending that Noerdlinger be disciplined. De Blasio, who has repeatedly defended her, has snapped at reporters asking about the aide’s future, declaring on Monday that it was “case closed.”

But two more damaging stories appeared Friday.

DNAinfo reported that she and her underage son were in the car with McFarlan when he was pulled over in 2011 for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The officer smelled pot in the car, and McFarlan was arrested for marijuana possession. Police in Edgewater, New Jersey, confirmed the arrest and said Noerdlinger was given a summons for allowing someone to drive a car without a license.
Additionally, the New York Post reported that Noerdlinger left a $28,000 tax lien off her Conflicts of Interest Board disclosure form. De Blasio aides said she later updated her form.

Though the mayor remained silent, his spokesman voiced support for Noerdlinger later Friday.
“Rachel Noerdlinger is a valued member of our team,” said Phil Walzak, who praised her experience “fighting for social justice and equal rights.”
The rank-and-file police union has called for Noerdlinger to be fired. But it’s not just her association with her boyfriend that has made her a source of ire for many officers.
Before assisting McCray, the most prominent first lady in city history, Noerdlinger used to be a top aide to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been a fervent critic of the NYPD for decades. He took center stage again this summer by leading protests over the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed man who died after being placed in a police chokehold.

​VIDEO at LINK​
The Friday release of 10,000 pages of Clinton White House documents scored an enormous amount of media attention with broadcast and print news reporters scouring the pages and covering the sordid Monica Lewinsky affair and the Paula Jones allegations and civil case. However, hidden in the historical documents is evidence that Associate Justice Elena Kagan achieved her position on the nation’s highest court as reward for being a “good soldier” in the “war to defend President Bill Clinton.”

Elena Kagan and Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy holding a photo op during her confirmation hearings.
Elena Kagan and Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy holding a photo op during her confirmation hearings.
US Senate Photo Gallery
According to a section on Kagan, a Washington, D.C., lawyer, she served in the Clinton White House as a associate counsel to the president in 1995-96 and then deputy assistant to the White House Domestic Policy and then deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997-1999. While Justice Kagan performed duties with regard to AIDS, budget appropriations, campaign finance reform, education, health, labor, race, tobacco, Native Americans, and welfare, her most important job was the handling a lawsuit brought against President Bill Clinton by a woman who claimed then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton had sexually harassed her.

The released documents touch on how Elena Kagan as a White House counsel defended Bill Clinton against allegations in a civil suit brought by an ex-Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones. In one May 1996 memo, Kagan appeared to be more concerned with how it looked “unseemly” for the president to be represented in court by so many attorneys, but made no mention of how unseemly it was for a sitting U.S. President to be accused of bullying a defenseless low-tier employee.

In the documents submitted to the opposing counsel and to the judge in the case, Kagan had many of the attorney’s names — who worked on the case — removed from the cover-sheets for all documents and correspondence. “While not a criminal act or even a serious breach of civil law, [Kagan’s] actions in removing those names could be considered unethical. Let me put it this way, if you or I did such a thing with legal documents, the judge or judges would not act kindly towards us,” said political strategist and attorney Laurence Collier-Stevenson. “Ask yourself: is this the kind of person you want passing judgement on the entire government and nation?” he asked rhetorically

There is no one that the left hates more than a man who does not hate, who goes through the day without outrage and who does not spend his life stewing with vindictive resentments.

Leftists call it “privilege” now. They have called it apathy, escapism and a hundred other things.

They will find a thousand other names for it as they march through the future centuries grinding their teeth and cursing their country for its backwardness, their people for their provincialism and their culture for its mercantilism. But privilege is simply freedom from resentment.

To be of the left is to confuse perpetual outrage with righteousness. The professional leftist believes that the path to utopia on earth lies in constantly denouncing thought criminals until they have all been unthought so that only their kind of ethical and empathetic people walk the earth.

Like most utopians, they plan for a utopia that they could never actually live in.

Leftists without grievances are like an army without guns. That is why leftist experiments in communes dissolved into denunciations, power grabs and authoritarian rules as soon the drugs ran out. Often even before. The leftist isn’t seeking freedom from capitalism, religion, nationalism, racism, sexism, office dress codes, bar codes and any of the other great evils of the moment. These are just the outrage fuel of the willfully outraged whose resentment has become both culture and religion.

What he wants is to express an egotistical grievance at a world that is not built around him. His resentments came before his ideology. They are in a very real sense his ideology. The idealistic leftist is a passing phenomenon. He is useful for getting the actual work done while everyone else shouts. Unless he is very dim, he eventually realizes that and heads off to volunteer in Africa. The core is the aggrieved leftist whose grievances merge with his storytelling skills into the compelling narrative of a narcissist.

The sharp demarcation between cultural issues and economic ones is ultimately bogus.

Dear Reader (and the escort from Ipanema, who might feel ignored by this “news”letter),

As the Cartagena hooker said after getting paid up front, “Where should I begin?”

I love that even Jimmy Carter is turning on Obama. The headline from Time magazine:

Jimmy Carter: Obama Dropped the Ball on ISIS Threat

First of all, having Jimmy Carter out-hawk you is like having Joe Biden attack you for being verbally undisciplined. “He really should be more careful about what he says,” Biden advised, then added, “A great way to cool down on a hot day is to shove lime Jell-O in your pants. Be sure to remove the pants-squirrels first, though.”

Jimmy Carter is like a veterinarian who specializes in male puppies: He knows his ball drops. Just for Giggles (Giggles is a guy I know without Internet access), I googled “Jimmy Carter dropped the ball.” Among the results about how Jimmy Carter dropped the ball on Iran, the Soviet Union, the Metric system, etc., I found this Yahoo Answers page from 2011. The question:

“What did Jimmy Carter do as Chief Diplomat? Any example even if he did a horrible job at it.”

The “best answer” was: “Saying Jimmy Carter dropped the ball is a BIG understatement.”

Throughout the history of the American Republic, there has been a tension between two virtues necessary to sustain republican government: vigilance and responsibility. Vigilance is the jealousy on the part of the people that constitutes a necessary check on those who hold power, lest they abuse it. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those whom we are obliged to trust with power.”

But while vigilance is a necessary virtue, it may, if unchecked, lead to an extremism that incapacitates a government, preventing it from carrying out even its most necessary and legitimate purposes, e.g. providing for the common defense. “Jealousy,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, often infects the “noble enthusiasm for liberty” with “a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust.”

Responsibility, on the other hand, is the prudential judgment necessary to moderate the excesses of political jealousy, thereby permitting limited government to fulfill its purposes. Thus, in Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton wrote that those responsible for the nation’s defense must be granted all of the powers necessary to achieve that end. Responsibility is the virtue necessary to govern the republic and to preserve it from harm, both external and internal. The dangers of foreign and civil war taught Alexander Hamilton that liberty and power are not always adversaries, that, indeed, the “vigor” of government is essential to the security of liberty.

Lincoln and the War Power

Lincoln’s actions as president during the Civil War reflected his agreement with this principle. Owing to the unprecedented nature of the emergency created by a serious domestic rebellion, Lincoln believed that he had no choice but to exercise broad executive power.

The steps Lincoln took are well known. Under his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief of the military, he declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in certain locations. He blockaded Southern ports. He shut down some opposition newspapers. He created tribunals similar to the ones that George W. Bush established when he was president. At one point early in the war, convinced that the Maryland legislature was poised to vote an ordinance of secession, he ordered Federal troops to arrest and detain pro-secessionist lawmakers. Lincoln justified this last step on the grounds that there was “tangible and unmistakable evidence” of their “substantial and unmistakable complicity with those in armed rebellion.”