RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle East’s failure to grapple with modernity and Europe’s failure to defend its ideals.

The migration crisis enveloping Europe and much of the Middle East today is one of the worst humanitarian disasters since the 1940s. Millions of desperate people are on the march: Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end. Parents are entrusting their lives and the lives of their young children to rickety boats and unscrupulous criminal syndicates along the Mediterranean coast, professionals and business people are giving up their livelihoods and investments, farmers are abandoning their land, and from North Africa to Syria, the sick and the old are on the road, carrying a few treasured belongings on a new trail of tears.
It is the first migration crisis of the 21st century, but it is unlikely to be the last. The rise of identity politics across the Middle East and much of sub-Saharan Africa is setting off waves of violence like those that tore apart the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries. The hatreds and rivalries driving endangered communities to exile and destruction have a long history. They probably have a long future as well.

In two prior postings (here and here), I listed flaws in the constitutional arguments of opponents of birthright citizenship for children of aliens living here illegally.

For children to be American citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, they must be born within American territory and they (or rather their parents) must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Those opposing birthright citizenship hurt their own case by basing it principally on the claim that visiting foreigners never qualify as “subject to the jurisdiction.”

The problems with that claim are:

The congressional debates cited to support it represent only weak evidence of meaning and are ambiguous on the subject, at best.
Before adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, many (probably most, perhaps all) African-American were legally foreigners, so the Amendment had to include foreigners to achieve its purpose of extending citizenship to them.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided twice that the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” is governed by the English common law doctrine of allegiance. That doctrine grants local citizenship to the children of most visiting foreigners.

I do not have a dog in this hunt. But if I were legal counsel for opponents of birthright citizenship, I would take their legal argument in an entirely different direction. And I would try to square my case with precedent instead of arguing that precedent should be disregarded.

You’ve heard of “redistribution of wealth.” We are now watching in Europe something even more ghastly take shape.

It’s a phrase I’d never heard of before this week (although we suffer from the syndrome, too): the “redistribution of refugees.” It is even worse than the redistribution of wealth because it makes you a stranger in your own land.

I have seen this before on my travels in Europe. There is vast pyscholgical and spiritual dislocation. There is permanent destruction of the cultural home. Such costs, such losses are gigantic, incalculable, but never considered — at least not by our leaders.

Meanwhile, the masses of foreigners, to use the old-fashioned word, coming to Europe (or the US) from the Islamic world, from Africa (from South America), will always be able to “go home again.” Their homes, their cities, their countryside remain unchanged. Leave an 98 percent Islamic country? Return to a 98 percent Islamic country (maybe 99 percent). That Islam now dominates sectors of many of Europe’s once Christian town and cities, from Rotherham to Amsterdam, is fact. After decades of Islamic immigration — the demographic jihad of the “hijrah” — so many neighborhoods and communities are already strange, and dangerously so, to their natives. And now?

Europe is rightly regarded as one of the more prosperous, free, and safe regions in a world that is still largely unfree, contaminated by war, and scarred by serious poverty in areas. It seems to follow from this that Europe is well governed by global standards. So it is mysterious that the continent should be experiencing social turmoil and economic hardship on a massive scale as a result of two of its most carefully thought-out decisions. These are Europe’s common migration policy and the creation of the European single currency, the euro.

The woes of the euro have been so thoroughly canvassed here in recent months that all we need do at present is note in passing that the Greek government has announced that it will not achieve its target for privatizing state concerns this year, a move that was supposed to help finance its latest bailout (while confidently predicting that it will do so next year). Europe’s common policy on migration, however, has been covered by media more fitfully. When a boat ferrying refugees from Libya to Italy or Spain has sunk, drowning its passengers, the tragedy has rightly been an important news story. But it is only in recent weeks that media have noticed that most migrants enter Europe not by the dangerous sea route but by rail and road through Europe’s southeast borders.

After so much footage of desperate migrants clinging to sinking ships in the Mediterranean, the scenes in the railway stations of Budapest in Central Europe —where angry migrants without travel documents rioted to demand passage to Germany — have shown the full chaotic effects of Europe’s migration policy on land and sea. Some commentators seem to believe that the decision angering the migrants was taken by Viktor Orban, Hungary’s “hardline” prime minister, as he is always described, as part of some “authoritarian” crackdown. In fact Hungary is under attack for obeying the EU rule that migrants have to be registered in their first EU country of arrival and can travel on only to countries where they have a substantial hope of asylum.

Government fears brain drain could leave the country deprived of future business leaders and investors.

HAIFA, Israel—When French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron visited Technion, the Israel Institute for Technology, this past week he asked a group of students originally from France if they would ever consider returning home.

“For the holidays,” one student quipped. Another, a computer-science major, questioned whether France was doing enough to address a recent spate of anti-Semitic attacks.

The remarks point to an uncomfortable reality for the French government. Israel has become a nesting ground for precisely the kind of talent the eurozone’s second-largest economy needs: budding tech entrepreneurs.

“Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings.” — Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, an Oslo-based Palestinian academic, blasting Arab the world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians.

The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel’s problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as “animals in the jungle” than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship.

It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.

The two white beams memorializing the lost towers cut diagonally across the sky. On the empty white panel of a broken phone booth someone has scrawled “Free Kim Davis”. And on another one and another one following someone’s zigzag route through the East Village’s maze of hipster joints.
This is the America we live in now.

We will spend 9/11 debating the merits of letting a terror state that helped the 9/11 hijackers go nuclear. #PeaceWins #LoveWins. The heat and humidity is broken by a thunderstorm. The faint lights vanish behind the clouds.
History must have grown tired of repeating itself because no one talks about it. That old kind of news has become a formality. Our news is a crazed jumble of Kardashians, pet videos and social justice outrages. Media is an ADD lifestyle section where all the outrages that matter are petty.

The big stuff, wars, moon landings, civilizations, doesn’t matter. Everything has been reduced to the lowest common denominator of personal insecurities masquerading as politics and entertainment reduced to fame for fame’s sake celebrities. All of it is calculated to match the workday routine of a twenty-something female college graduate working in media. Because that is mostly who writes it.

“There Was a Crooked House….”

…called our Cultural Establishment. Of crooked little men and cash-flush caitiffs and assorted other denizens of the ongoing cultural scam with their crooked little smiles and crooked sixpence.

Have you ever wondered where all the trashy literature and modern anti-art comes from? Or, rather, have you ever scratched your head in wonder about who paid to have it produced? In large part, we, the taxpayers pay for it, through Federal, State, and local taxes. These unreadable, boring, super-naturalistic or unclassifiable novels, those “controversial” or shock-jock or feminist shock-crotch plays, the sculpture that looks like debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11, the crucifixes in jars of urine, the welded-together auto parts, the cheapjack, hand-held camera movies one can find by the wheelbarrow-load on Netflix, each crediting half a dozen or more oddly-named production companies – these are also the products of private grant money.

Private sector grants are made annually in the billions of dollars. So, we can’t blame the Federal, state, or local governments for everything that’s rotten. The boards and selection committees of dozens of “charitable” foundations, big and small, are also responsible for littering the cultural landscape with consumable, throw-away rubbish.

The White House is claiming victory in the fight over the Iranian nuclear deal following Thursday’s Senate vote which fell short of cloture on a Democratic filibuster blocking an up or down vote on the deal.

Critics continue to express concerns that the agreement paves the way for Iran to eventually develop its own nuclear weapons. And it is beyond dispute that the agreement fuels the Islamic Republic with as much as $150 billion in relief from what had been crippling economic sanctions. That money can be used to fund terror proxies seeking to attack Israel.

Those concerns prompted the U.S. House on Friday to reject the Iran deal by a vote of 162-269.

It is little surprise, therefore, that the deal enjoys strong support from prominent American Islamists with a history of support for Iran or who espouse rabid anti-Israel rhetoric, including radicals who see Zionist conspiracies at nearly every turn.

On Friday, Sept. 11, The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted down approval of the Iran Deal and voted to block implementation of the deal.At the very last minute the House of Representatives is acting as if the house is on fire. Finally.

First, the House voted on Friday – the day after the Senate seemed to hand the President a victory – against the approval of the Nuclear Iran Deal. The vote was 269 to 162.

The House also acted on a bill which was introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) on Wednesday, Sept. 9.

That bill, HR 3460, blocks U.S. President Barack Obama from in any way lifting sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, or from releasing individuals from specially designated terrorist lists which would otherwise be released under the proposed terms of the Nuclear Iran Deal.