RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Military Colonist” is a term that has gone out of fashion in this brave new world of “No Human Being is Illegal” and “Every Refugee Deserves to be Resettled.”

The university history professor with an office full of fake Indian jewelery and a view of the parking lot will lecture on the military colonies of the Roman period, always careful to emphasize their eventual fate. And he may even get up to the 16th century. But he’ll stay away from the present.

But if you are going to take land or seize power, you will need military colonists to hold it. The military colonist may be an ex-soldier, but he’s more likely to be someone the empire, present or future, doesn’t particularly need or have a use for. The Czars used serfs. The present day military colonist who shows up at JFK or LAX may also be a peasant with even less value to his culture.

Mexico’s military colonists are not military. Often they aren’t even Mexican. But they have managed to take back California without firing a shot. Unless you count the occasional drive by shooting.

While the United States sent tens of thousands of soldiers to try and hold Iraq and Afghanistan only to fail; Mexico took California with a small army of underpaid handymen who claim entire cities and send back some 20 billion dollars a year. As conquests go, it’s not hard to see who did more with less.

In 2009, 417 Mexican migrants died trying to reach America, and 317 American soldiers died in Afghanistan. But Mexico has more to show for it than America does. Every Mexican who settles across the border is a net gain who sends back money and spreads political influence. Meanwhile America is spending trillions on a much smaller army in a country whose land no one actually wants.

In 2009, the year Obama approved a 30,000 man troop surge, 3,195 Afghans received permanent legal status in the United States.

In the decade since the US invaded Afghanistan, 24,710 Afghans successfully invaded the United States and received permanent legal status. That is an occupying force larger than US troop numbers were at any point in time in Afghanistan until the very end of the George W. Bush’s second term.

Madeleine Albright: ‘To Put It Mildly, the World Is a Mess’ By Katherine Connell

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright thinks that there have been two “huge game-changers” in world affairs recently: Putin’s actions toward Crimea and Ukraine and the unraveling of the Middle East.

In an interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, she described the unrest in the Middle East as a result of an Arab awakening and reaction to the artificiality of borders that were drawn in the region following World War I. As for Russia, “Putin is living in his own world,” she said. “He has made up a lot of lies,” and seeks to “reestablish himself as the identification of Russian nationalism” and to recreate “something akin to the Soviet Union.”

When asked for her thoughts on the conflict in Gaza, Albright said that while she was a believer in Israel’s moral authority and its need to ensure its security, she is “concerned about Israel . . . in terms of their image,” given the mounting Palestinian casualities. She lauded Secretary of State John Kerry “for all the effort” he has put in to attempting to broker negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, while acknowledging that it had not succeeded.

Schieffer noted that in the face of all this turmoil, President Obama has seemed to be otherwise occupied. “Every time you turn on a TV he’s en route to a fundraiser,” he said, asking if Albright agreed that that was a fair criticism.

“I don’t think it’s fair,” she said. “He has his advisers around him” and “has been on the phone,” she said.

While Albright disputed the idea that the U.S. is “stepping back” from world affairs, she said that what has changed is Americans’ attitude to engagement: “We don’t want to be the world’s policeman.”

The fighting in Gaza and Israel this month has been nothing less than a battle for civilization itself. On one side is the civilized, humane, morally serious state of Israel. The other side, Hamas, is a fetid, rotten branch of international Islamist terrorist evil. The United States should be doing all it can to help Israel wipe Hamas from the face of the Earth.

Moreover, if the corrupt and two-faced Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) will not help Israel destroy Hamas, then Fatah itself should be targeted with sanctions, while the United States should conduct a merciless diplomatic offensive against the PA.

Under the presidency of Barack Obama, of course, the United States will do none of these things. Obama’s sympathies seem to lie with the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a part. But Obama’s moral obtuseness (or worse) provides all the more reason for the rest of us to raise our voices in support of Israel’s morally urgent attempts to eliminate most or all of Hamas’s illegitimate military/terrorist infrastructure in Gaza.

Israel is on the side of the angels in this current warfare. Some angels are avenging angels, and if those avengers are needed, so be it.

Perhaps never since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 has the utter moral superiority of Israel been more distinct, even to many of the usual foggy-thinking chatterers who accept the fiddle-faddle that Palestinians are oppressed. In that 1973 war, Israel was clearly the victim of a perfidious surprise attack by multiple Arab states at once; for a few days, the tiny Jewish nation seemed in mortal danger (especially on and from the Golan Heights). With its usual military prowess, Israel then reversed the tide and, in effect, won a signal victory and preserved its entire territory.

What’s worth noting about that event is that, after the war, Israel controlled the Sinai peninsula, the West Bank, and Gaza. Since then, it has willingly relinquished the entire Sinai in return for peace with Egypt and generously relinquished governance of both Gaza and the West Bank in sincere but vain hopes for peace with Palestinian terrorists. It even went out of its way, in multiple respects, to try to help Gaza become a thriving area under Palestinian control — “a new Singapore,” as Israeli spokesmen are wont to say — only to have its good will repaid with hatred and violence again and again and again.

The Nullifier-in-Chief The border crisis is government without consent of the governed, brought to us by President Obama.

‘Government by consent of the governed” is under attack. The crisis on our southern border tells us that American immigration policy is not decided by the American people through our constitutional process but by foreign criminal organizations, foreign citizens who pay those organizations to transport illegal immigrants, and foreign governments that permit (voluntarily or involuntarily) the transportation of illegal immigrants through their territory.

Not only is immigration policy determined outside of American constitutional democracy, it occurs without the consent of the governed. On the first page, of the first paragraph, of the first Federalist paper, Alexander Hamilton explains the purpose of the American experiment in self-government. It is to “decide the important question” of whether people are capable of “establishing good government from reflection and choice” or whether “societies of men” are “forever destined to depend” upon “accident and force.” In contemporary America, “We the People” do not determine our immigration policy through “reflection and choice”; instead, as Hamilton feared, it is determined for us by “accident” and “force.”

Shortly before the 2012 election, President Obama unilaterally declared an amnesty for those illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. under the age of 18, after Congress had explicitly rejected his proposal. This executive ukase DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) has encouraged a massive new influx of illegal immigration from Central America, according to the migrants themselves. Official U.S. Border Patrol statistics reveal that about 22 percent of the illegal immigrants are “unaccompanied alien children”; the other 78 percent represent family units and adults. The Pew Research Center reports that 84 percent of the children are teenagers. Representative Michael McCaul (R., Texas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, stated: “About 80 percent, though, of these so-called children are about 16 to 17 years old, mostly male. That, from a security standpoint, greatly concerns me.”

Today, the Obama administration (again without congressional approval) promises another — but much more massive — amnesty for around 5 million to 6 million people, about half of all illegal immigrants in the country. The original DACA amnesty (of approximately 600,000) was merely a “down payment,” Representative Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) told a National Council of La Raza conference. Obama, Gutierrez contends, has promised to expand the amnesty by a factor of ten.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) declared that Obama’s proposed tenfold increase in amnesty “threatens the foundations of our constitutional republic.” It essentially constitutes not only the nullification of the Immigration and Nationality Act but also, Sessions says, represents “executive nullification” of our borders themselves, thus “creating the very open-borders policy explicitly rejected by Congress and the people.” Unfortunately, in the sixth year of the Obama presidency, it has become necessary to explain to our fellow citizens that the Constitution does not give the executive the right to nullify acts of Congress.

‘Let me just tell you,” says Joan Rivers: “If New Jersey were firing rockets into New York, we would wipe them out. If we heard they were digging tunnels from New Jersey to New York, we would get rid of Jersey.”

Rivers — comedienne, fashion maven, Botox cautionary tale — has never been known for subtlety, so when a TMZ reporter seeking celebrity reactions to the conflict between Israel and Hamas snagged her, Rivers was characteristically frank: “Palestinians — you cannot throw rockets and expect people not to defend themselves!”

How has it come to pass that the host of E! Network’s Fashion Police and author of Men Are Stupid . . . And They Like Big Boobs: A Woman’s Guide to Beauty Through Plastic Surgery thinks more clearly about the Jewish state and its terrorist neighbors than the bulk of the American entertainment industry, the majority of the global media, and the president of the United States? For someone on the crest of every trend, doesn’t Rivers know she is dangerously out of fashion on the subject of Israel?

Consider the statements of her fellow celebs: Actors Mark Ruffalo and John Cusack, actress and UNICEF ambassador Mia Farrow, and celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain have all tweeted support for Gaza, as has comedian Rob Schneider, who added, “To not be outraged at the killing of children is to risk your very soul. #Gaza.” Under pressure from Palestinian academics this spring, scientist Stephen Hawking withdrew from a conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder interrupted a performance in the United Kingdom for a profanity-filled criticism of Israel, Comedy Central host Jon Stewart has earned accolades for his relentless criticism of Israel, and actress and pop star Selena Gomez posted “It’s about humanity. Pray for Gaza” to her Instagram.

Support for Israel is hard to come by. In 2011 singer Katy Perry replied to an Israeli follower’s “please pray with us” tweet — sent after Hamas rockets left eight Israelis dead and more than 30 wounded in the Red Sea town of Eilat — with “I am! My prayers are for you guys tonight, SHALOM!!!” Twitter users responded mercilessly: “You heartless lesbian,” wrote one. “Israel has killed THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS, yet you’re gonna pray for Israel? You shiz [sic].” Perry “spits on Gaza and it’s [sic] murdered children,” wrote another. Or a third: “I hope your private jet crash lands in Palestine so they can stamp on you like the whore you are.” A similar response greeted Kim Kardashian, who, during a Gaza flare-up in 2012, tweeted “Praying for everyone in Israel.” She subsequently removed her tweets and issued an apology.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely 100 percent pro-Israel.Except for the parts where she opposes Jews living in Israel. Also she takes pride in being the “designated yeller”.

Speaking to Fareed Zakaria on CNN Sunday morning, Hillary said that the continued settlement activity is “my biggest complaint with the Israeli government.”

“I’m a strong supporter of Israel, a strong supporter of their right to defend themselves. But the continuing settlements, which have been denounced by successive American administrations on both sides of the aisle, are clearly a terrible signal to send if, at the same time, you claim you’re looking for a two-state solution,” she said.

During the interview, Hillary also took pride of her complicated relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I was often the ‘designated yeller,’” she said.

That’s an attempt at putting a cutesy spin on ugly scenes like these.

In March 2010, Clinton made a now-infamous phone call to Netanyahu in which she berated and threatened the prime minister for 45 minutes, issued a list of demands he would have to meet to salvage the U.S.-Israel relationship, and then instructed the State Department press secretary to boast to the press of just how harshly she had treated Netanyahu.

“The announcement of the settlements on the very day that the vice president was there was insulting,” Clinton told CNN on Friday.

After the Clinton phone call, then-Israeli ambassador Michael Oren commented that relations between the two countries had hit their lowest ebb in 35 years.

The pattern is the same. Muslim violence and hate is rewarded. Opposing voices are silenced.

During Friday prayer in the Al Nusra mosque in Berlin on July 11, Danish imam Abu Bilal Ismail urged listeners to kill Jews, Die Welt reports.

In a Youtube video clip of the sermon to which English subtitles have been added, the imam is filmed saying that all Jews should be killed.

“Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don’t spare a single one of them. Make them suffer terribily,” the subtitles read. He urged God “to destroy the Zionist Jews … to kill every last one of them and not have pity on any of them … Shake the ground under their feet, make them suffer.” He also said Jews “act like sole rulers of the entire world and disseminate corruption.”

Ismail is a regular speaker at the Grimhøj Mosque in Aarhus. He has previously been accused of encouraging young Muslims to travel to Syria and fight in the civil war.

Meanwhile things are getting uglier on the street.

Jonatan Møller Sousa, deputy head of the national zionist organisation revealed some of the threatening Facebook messages he received after he went on TV2 News on Saturday to discuss the Gaza conflict.

“Unfortunately no jews died: We are going to change that in Denmark,” one of them read, while another said: “I hope you and your zionist friends will burn in hell and suffer an even more painful death than all the kids in Gaza that were killed.”

And now a pro-Israel rally was shut down.

Also on Friday, police in Copenhagen cut short a demonstration of support for Israel and peace in the Middle East that the Danish Zionist Organization had organized near parliament with a group of Iranian dissidents, according to an account of the event by Vilhjalmur Orn Vilhjalmsson, an Iceland-born academic who attended the rally.

As the war in Gaza rages, Hamas—the Palestinian terror organization that rules Gaza and also enjoys great popularity in the West Bank—is naturally resorting to propaganda imagery to try to portray Israel as a vicious, immoral slayer of civilians. Of course, some Gazan civilians are getting killed and injured—for reasons that many have pointed out, particularly Hamas’s systematic use of the civilian population as human shields [2].

Palestinian propaganda has a long and inglorious history, and now is a good time to look at the most egregious examples and get an idea of what Israel is up against. Along with the “Pallywood” genre of fraudulent claims against Israel, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, the Fatah-led government of the West Bank, systematically cultivate outright hatred of Israel and Jews.

The case of the supposed killing of the Palestinian boy Muhammad al-Dura by Israeli forces in a September 2000 firefight in Gaza was Pallywood’s greatest triumph, because the alleged crime was used to incite a whole population into murderous rage and attacks against Israelis. But as was proved by the intrepid French media analyst Philippe Karsenty and others, the charge was a fraud; not only could al-Dura not possibly have been shot by the Israeli troops because of their physical location, but it turned out he was not shot—or killed—at all. See al-Dura’s supposedly dead form miraculously “move” at 2:40, and note the total absence of blood.

Illegal immigrants are a minor annoyance; America’s shift towards European fertility is a catastrophe from which we may never recover. The demographic crisis isn’t at our borders but at home. It’s easy to blow off steam about illegals on the border, and tough to address the fundamentals. I’ve tried to do so in the past, for example here, but the real problems and prospective solutions don’t make easy sound-bites.

Just to make things clear: I want super-tough, restrictive immigration laws. I’d prefer a Canadian-style system that favors highly-educated immigrants with capital to invest. But I don’t think the best immigration law in the world is going to do much good.

The latest dip in fertility below replacement might be driven by economics, but the economics don’t appear to be getting any better.

Barack Obama is apparently very angry with Bibi Netanyahu.

We have known for some time, via hot mike and other methods, that neither he nor his secretary of State much care for the Israeli prime minister. But — perhaps exacerbated by a multiplicity of foreign and domestic policy failures, plus atrocious poll numbers, one this weekend showing Romney beating him handily [1] were the election held today — Obama seemed more irked than usual.

He needed someone to beat up since the world was beating him up. And the Israelis had just hugely embarrassed his secretary of State (and by extension him) by pointing out their absurd bias in favor of Hamas in ceasefire negotiations, so absurd in fact that they outraged even Israel’s most famous liberal/left politician, Tzipi Livni, who would normally do almost anything for a chance for peace. (Ironically, the details of the pro-Hamas negotiations in which Israeli security concerns — the tunnels, demilitarization, etc. — were ignored were exposed by Barak Ravid in Israel’s most liberal newspaper, Haaretz.)

Further, they had outraged the Egyptians [2], who were dumped from the negotiations by Obama and Kerry in favor of Turkey and Qatar. Our administration seems to have a preference for the more extreme Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood societies, although you would think, given their professed loyalty to women’s and gay rights, these cultures would be anathema to them. Never mind. Obama is an equal opportunity narcissist and everything’s fine, unless you cross him.

Which, according to sources in Israel, is where Netanyahu found himself when the American president called Sunday to admonish him about Gaza. Obama reportedly used or implied the threat of withholding the resupply of weapons — don’t know if this includes the Iron Dome itself — if Israel didn’t fall into line and stop attacking Gaza immediately.

What Obama is doing, in effect, is saving Hamas. It’s almost mind boggling to think, but it’s true.

The standard excuse is that if Hamas is obliterated, what replaces it will be even worse. Oh, really? ISIS or similar may be waiting in the wings to step in, but it’s doubtful if Israel (given its huge 87% public support for the current war) will ever let something like that happen, at least in the near future.