David Brooks, "Choosing Leaders: Clueless or Crazy": One Set of Laws for the Clintons, Another for the Hoi Polloi

Tweet

Hands off Hillary!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Choosing Leaders: Clueless or Crazy," David Brooks points an accusing finger at Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn, and tells us of the rise of "crazy incompetence" in the US and the UK. Primarily concerning himself with Brexit, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove in the UK, Brooks goes on to say in his opinion piece:

"The big historical context is this: Something fundamental is shifting in our politics. The insiders can’t see it. Outsiders get thrown up amid the tumult, but they are too marginal, eccentric and inexperienced to lead effectively.

Without much enthusiasm, many voters seem to be flocking to tough, no-nonsense women who at least seem sensible: Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton and, now, the Conservative Party front-runner, Theresa May."

Hillary Clinton is a "no-nonsense" woman who seems "sensible"? Grant it, I don't view Hillary as dangerous. (Donald's little fingers should not be allowed anywhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal.) On the other hand, don't go telling me that Hillary's home email server was sensible. Rather, it stands as further stark evidence of her willingness to contravene governing rules of conduct that apply to all other Americans.

Bill's "chance" meeting with Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix tarmac? Yet another Clintonian scandal and further destruction of the rule of law in the US.

Commentary from Brooks regarding the charade in Phoenix? I'm still waiting, David.

Roger Cohen, "The Great Jewish Exodus": Cohen Should Return to London!

Some three and a half years ago, Roger Cohen wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled "Jews in a Whisper," concerning his departure from the UK for the US, where he took on citizenship, and the insidious anti-Semitism which permeates all levels of British society. Well, today Cohen is back with a new Times op-ed entitled "The Great Jewish Exodus," in which he imagines a Europe whose Jews have left for Israel:

"Israel is indeed the home of every Jew, and that is important, a guarantee of sorts. It is equally important, however, that not every Jew choose this home. That is another kind of guarantee, of Europe’s liberal order, of the liberal idea itself. So it was shattering when millions of Jews, every one of them in fact, as if entranced, upped and left their homes in Milan and Berlin and Zurich.

The leader himself was overcome: Where was he to house them? Many of the liberal Jews of Europe, long strangers in strange lands, knowing statelessness in their bones, mindful of Hillel’s summation of the Torah — 'What is hateful to yourself, do not to your fellow man' — refused to be part of the spreading settlements in the West Bank, Israeli rule over another people.

The prime minister awoke, shaken. It had been such a vivid nightmare. Too vivid! To himself he murmured, 'Careful what you wish for.'"

"Spreading settlements in the West Bank"? Cohen fails to mention that built-up settlements amount to less than two percent of the West Bank.

"Israeli rule over another people"? Cohen forgets to say that Palestinian President Abbas is responsible for refusing to allow democratic elections in the West Bank. Cohen is also unwilling to tell us about Palestinian honor killings against women and Palestinian persecution of homosexuals.

Netanyahu should be careful about what he wishes for? Israel did a marvelous job of providing homes for more than a million Russian and Ethiopian Jews over the past decades, and there is no shortage of land within Israel to house Europe's surviving Jewry.

Jews must remain in Europe to guarantee its "liberal order"? Cohen should lead by example and return to London!

Shmuel Rosner, "France’s Jews Have No Choice but Israel": The Writing Is on the Wall

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "France’s Jews Have No Choice but Israel," Shmuel Rosner begins:

"A government [Israel's] that never misses an opportunity to lecture the Western world about the pitfalls of surrendering to terrorism is proposing exactly that — surrender — to the Jews of France."

Rosner, however, concludes:

"If the only way for Jews to live in France today is behind barracks and guards with guns, perhaps it makes more sense not just for the dead to go to Israel, but also for the living to move to a place where we are the guards, we are the army and we are the government."

So which is it? French Jews must not surrender to terror, or, it makes no sense for Jews to live with armed guards in France?

For me the answer is clear: Europe is dying. As Muammar Gaddafi once declared:

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Sadly, Gaddafi was correct, and ultimately there will be no place left for Europe's Jews.

Refuse to surrender to this demographic trend? Ignore the reemergence of anti-Semitism throughout Europe? As reported two days ago by The Telegraph in an article entitled "Survey shows anti-Semitic views are common among Britons" by Gregory Walton:

"Antisemitic views have been shown to be rampant among British people according to the results of a new polls.

One in four Britons were shown to believe that Jews 'chase money more than other people', according to a poll by YouGov.

Meanwhile the new survey showed that 17 per cent of respondent believe that Jewish people think themselves better than others.

A similar proportion felt that Jewish people have too much power in the media.

A separate poll also revealed that more than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism has begun to echo the widespread anti-Jewish hatred of the 1930s, according to the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA).

Over half of British Jews (58%) surveyed said they feared that Jews may have no long-term future in Europe, said the CAA."

Yes, the writing is on the wall. Wait for better times, as did many German Jews in the 1930s? Good luck.

[Rosner additionally states in his op-ed:

"It is heartbreaking to witness a great Jewish community in a great country slowly losing its ability to thrive in a hostile and violent environment. And it is unfortunate that all the Jewish state has to offer them is escape."

All the Jewish state has to offer is escape? Rubbish! Notwithstanding all its sorrows and shortcomings, Israel is also a place where hi-tech dreams come true, where there is freedom of the press, where women can attain leadership positions in government and industry, and where the gay community can live proudly.

Is it really so bad for you in Israel, Shmuel? Maybe you should move to New York and write full-time for the Times - at least until it goes under and you must find your way back to Israel.]

New York Times Editorial, "A British Message to Israel ":

In an editorial entitled "A British Message to Israel," The New York Times declares:

"Israel and the United States have dismissed Monday’s vote in the House of Commons in Britain that endorsed diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state as a symbolic gesture that won’t change British policy.

. . . .

Israel and its allies should not ignore the message. The vote is one more sign of the frustration many people in Europe feel about the failure to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement despite years of promises."

The Times doesn't bother to consider that it is difficult to reach a peace agreement with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews and rejects negotiation with Israel. It is also difficult to reach a peace agreement with Fatah, whose chairman, Abbas, demands that Palestine be free of "Israelis", but refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Israel should listen to Europe's message? This is the same Europe that did nothing some 70 years ago when Hitler murdered some six million Jews, i.e. two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population.

More specifically, Israel should not ignore Monday's vote in the House of Commons? Oh really? Consider, how following an investigation by Britain's Crown Prosecution Service of an August speech by MP George Galloway, declaring his district, Bradford, an "Israel Free Zone," the CPS last night concluded:

"Given the context and setting in which the speech was made, including its overall content and the audience discussion which followed, we have determined that the speech did not indicate a desire to encourage others to hate a racial group.

“There is also insufficient evidence to show, in all the circumstances of this case, that it was likely that people would have been motivated to hate people of Israeli origin as a result."

Galloway's use of "Israel Free Zone" had no connection to the Nazi term "Judenfrei"? Fascinating.

What about anti-Semitism in the UK? In July 2014, it was at record levels. In August, a London branch of the Sainsbury supermarket chain removed all kosher food from its shelves for fear that the store would be attacked.

Consider also how in August of this year, as reported by Reuters in an article entitled "UK says to suspend some Israel arms exports if Gaza truce fails":

"Britain said on Tuesday it would suspend 12 licences to export military items to Israel, including tank, aircraft and radar parts, if hostilities with Hamas in Gaza resumed, citing concerns the exports may be used to breach international laws.

Britain said last week it was reviewing all arms export licences to Israel after fierce fighting which has resulted in heavy civilian casualties in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza.

That review concluded on Tuesday that 12 licences would be temporarily suspended pending further investigation if the current truce breaks down and heavy fighting resumes."

Of course, the UK didn't care that Hamas was responsible for repeatedly violating the ceasefires. Thousands of rockets fired at Israeli population centers? Also of no consequence.

The reality is that anti-Semitism has never lost its hold over Europe, and for Israel to do Europe's bidding is no less than a call for Jewish suicide.

Mohamad Chatah, Former Lebanese Ambassador to the US, Assassinated in Beirut by Hezbollah

Mohamad Chatah, who was the Lebanese Ambassador to the US from 1997 to 2000 and who also served as Lebanon's finance minister and as an adviser to Prime Minister Saad Hariri, was assassinated today in Beirut by Hezbollah. No such action by Hezbollah is perpetrated without the express permission of Iran.

Meanwhile, the UK is mediating secret talks between Hezbollah and Washington, following the "success" of secret talks between Washington and Iran held in Oman.

Thanks, Obama.

Geller and Spencer Refused Entry into the UK: Is Bill Maher Also Persona Non Grata?

As reported by the BBC yesterday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355):

"Two prominent US bloggers have been banned from entering the UK, the Home Office has said.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America.

They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was killed.

A government spokesman said individuals whose presence 'is not conducive to the public good' could be excluded by the home secretary.

He added: 'We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.'

Ms Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog, and Mr Spencer, of Jihad Watch, are also co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, best known for a pro-Israel 'Defeat Jihad' poster campaign on the New York subway."

On his website, "Jihad Watch," Spencer shows us the letter he received from the UK's Home Office, which bars his entry into the UK. The letter, dated June 25, 2013, states in relevant part:

"You are reported to have stated the following:

• '. . . it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal mode that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.'

. . . .

You are therefore instructed not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival."

Query: Is Bill Maher also being banned from entering the UK? Consider Bill Maher's interchange with Brian Levin, director of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism, following the Boston Marathon bombing. "Could they do the 'Book of Islam' on Broadway?" No way.

Now consider the hate speech of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, who calls Jews "blood-suckers" and "descendants of pigs and apes."

Hate speech? You bet! There is no way of knowing if Morsi's regime will survive the protests planned for this coming Sunday (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Two-killed-in-Egypt-street-clashes-as-Mursi-readies-speech-317848), but was there ever talk of banning his entry into the UK?

And ignoring the belief system of Islam for just a moment, what does the home secretary have to say about Patrick Mercer's shameful description of a young girl serving in the Israeli army? "You look like a bloody Jew." My goodness, she was wearing open-toed sandals! Hate speech? No doubt. But Jews today are fair game, whereas Islam is off limits.

Have I also been barred from entering the UK? Am I also "not conducive to the public good"? I can only wonder . . .

New York Times, "‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror": A "Terrorist Incident"? Aren't You Being a Bit Rash, Mr. Cameron?

Read today's New York Times article entitled "‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/europe/london-attacks.html). We are told:

"In an attack that raised new fears of terrorism in Britain, a man walking near a military barracks in south London on Wednesday was rammed by a car and then hacked to death by two knife-wielding assailants, according to witness accounts carried by British news media."

"Rammed by a car and then hacked to death"? Seems fairly mundane to me. Why should that "raise" fears of terrorism?

The article continues:

"One of the men shouted 'Allahu akbar,' or 'God is great,' as the attack proceeded, government officials said."

Of course, no need to go to the trouble of saying in what language "Allahu akbar" means "God is great," given that everyone who reads The New York Times speaks Arabic.

A bit further down, the article tells us:

"'There are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident,' Mr. Cameron said. He interrupted his European tour to return to London on Wednesday night."

"Strong indications" of a "terrorist incident"? Isn't that going out a bit on a limb, Mr. Cameron? So what if one of the attackers said: "You people will never be safe. Remove your governments!" So what if "Witnesses said two men had gotten out and attacked the prone victim with large bladed weapons"? So what if "Some said the men had beheaded him"? Don't you think you've lost your head, David, and are being a bit rash?

Don't you know that it's all because of Israel's unfair treatment of Palestinians? Stephen Hawking, who recently support of a boycott of Israel, can explain it to you. Maintain relations with Israel, and more heads will roll!

A soldier was beheaded? So? As Hawkins knows, It's only a trifling matter relative to the cosmos as a whole . . .

Benny Morris Harassed in London

The Jerusalem Post has reported that Professor Benny Morris, his wife and another woman were harassed by a group of Muslims on his way into the London School of Economics in order to give a lecture on the Israeli War of Independence. Morris, one of Israel's "New Historians," is the author of "1948" (which I read), a controversial account of the first Arab-Israeli war, which was declared "fair minded" by both The New Yorker and The New York Times Book Review.

In The Jerusalem Post article written by By Mackenzie
Green (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=226696), Morris is quoted as saying of those who accosted him:

“'They crowded around me in a threatening way, calling me ‘racist’ and ‘fascist.’”

. . . .

'It sounded a bit like Nazis hounding a Jew on the streets of Berlin.'

. . . .

'They feel free to break the law in this way and threaten people. The idea is to threaten people so they don’t show up again. With the increase in the number of Muslims and their power in Britain and around the world, they will feel more emboldened to harass those they disagree with. This will curtail the freedom to speak freely in Britain and in Western Europe as a whole.'”

Freedom of speech is only being threatened in Western Europe by Muslim fanatics and their leftist allies? Observe the attempts to interfere with the speech of Netanyahu before the U.S. Congress and with the speech of Ambassador Michael Oren at The University of California at Irvine (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/california-university-suspends-muslim-union-for-heckling-israel-envoy-as-killer-1.296147). At least in the U.S. as opposed to the U.K., those attempting to interfere with the right of free speech still face criminal charges (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/07/irvine-11-charged-for-dis_n_819596.html).

The Bathurst-Norman Bag for Internet Sickness

By now, most who read this blog are aware of the recent decision of a Brighton jury to acquit seven "activists" who caused £180,000 damage to an arms factory, which they believed was manufacturing weapons used by Israel in Operation Cast Lead. After the initial acquittal of five of the defendants, The Guardian reported:

"Five activists who caused £180,000 damage to an arms factory were acquitted after they argued they were seeking to prevent Israeli war crimes.

The five were jubilant after a jury found them not guilty of conspiring to cause criminal damage to the factory on the outskirts of Brighton.

The five admitted they had broken in and sabotaged the factory, but argued they were legally justified in doing so.

They believed that EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations by manufacturing and selling to the Israelis military equipment which would be used in the occupied territories. They wanted to slow down the manufacture of these components, and impede what they believed were war crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinians.

* * * *

The judge highlighted the testimony by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, that 'all democratic paths had been exhausted' before the activists embarked on their action."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/30/activists-arms-factory-acquitted

Judge Bathurst-Norman's instructions to the jury and the jury's decision were scrutinized with great acuity by Robin Shepherd (http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/anti-semitic-juries-in-the-uk-may-start-decriminalising-crimes-committed-against-israeli-interests/#more-2919), Caroline Glick (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=180523) and Melanie Phillips, who observed:

"But what really jumps out from this story is the direction the jury received from the judge in the case:

In his summing up, Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury that ‘you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time’.

Let’s get our heads round this, folks: an English judge in an English court of law effectively directed a jury to acquit people of criminally smashing up a factory, because he chose to believe Hamas propaganda about the suffering of people in Gaza during a war about which he presumably has no knowledge whatever apart from what he has read or seen in the media – a war, moreover, launched solely to prevent Gazans from aggressively firing rockets into Israel in order to murder its civilians, during the course of which war Israel went to heroic lengths to avoid hurting Gazan civilians who were being put in harm’s way by Hamas, the true cause of Gaza's 'hell on earth'.

Quite apart from the ignorance and bigotry of Judge George Bathurst-Norman, what on earth is a judge doing imposing his political prejudices upon a jury and thus taking the side of the defendants in the case he is trying – with the result that he effectively directed the jury to acquit them of a crime?"

(http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6117164/the-hellish-histrionics-of-hove-propaganda-court.thtml)

I would be hard pressed to supplement the analysis of Mr. Shepherd, Ms. Glick and Ms. Phillips, and would only mention that hearing of this case made me ill and set me to thinking. Tomorrow I will be flying, and in the seat pocket in front of me there will be an air sickness bag. I do not suffer from air sickness, yet I do suffer from Internet sickness. This being the case, why not design a special bag for persons like myself who suffer while surfing the web? Such a bag designed for the Internet could hardly be called an air sickness bag and would surely merit its own appellation. Hence, after much thought and in recognition of this propitious decision by the Brighton court:

The Bathurst-Norman Bag for Internet Sickness

Catherine Ashton, the Hideous Baroness of Upholland

When I label Catherine Ashton "hideous", I am not referring to her appearance; beauty, or the lack thereof, is in the eyes of the beholder. Rather, in my opinion Ashton is "hideous" insofar as she is shocking to the moral sense.

The obscure Ashton was appointed first High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) on 19 November 2009. Ashton’s position as high representative for foreign affairs was created under the Lisbon treaty, which was intended to improve the mechanisms of the EU. Ashton will begin with a staff of 5,000 in 130 countries and command an annual salary of £270,000. The morning after her EU appointment, the modest Ashton told BBC Radio 4's Today program:

"Over the next few months and years I aim to show that I am the best person for the job."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/cathy-ashton-eu-foreign-job

Ashton's qualifications? She is almost entirely lacking in foreign affairs experience. A former chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire, she has never held elected office. Ashton has a BSc degree in sociology and has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room.

Quite apart from what decorates her sitting room, what might be hiding in her closet? Questions have arisen over her role as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (no mention of this position in her EU profile), which is suspected of having received funding from the Soviet Union. It has also been reported:

"Britain's new EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton enjoyed a relationship with a hard-line communist who boasted close links to some of Britain’s most militant union leaders."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233545/Baroness-Ashton-communist-lover-riddle-Moscow-gold.html

Needless to say, her selection to head EU security policy is most peculiar.

Response from the UK? From The Sunday Times:

"The plotting and bungles that led to an obscure British bureaucrat heading the EU’s foreign service were even greater than first thought."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6927033.ece

From Nile Gardiner writing for The Telegraph:

"I’m sure you could find 22-year old interns in the House of Commons who are far more knowledgeable on foreign policy than Baroness Ashton. She has a grand total of one year working in the international arena, as European Commissioner in Trade. Nor has she ever held elected office and is massively unqualified. . . . Ashton’s meteoric rise to power in Brussels is a damning indictment of the fundamentally undemocratic political process within the EU, and its utter contempt for public opinion.

. . . .

This may well be the most ridiculous appointment in EU history, but it will fortunately help set back European ambitions to be a major actor on the world stage."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100017357/baroness-ashton-as-eu-foreign-minister-%e2%80%93-is-this-the-most-ridiculous-appointment-in-the-history-of-the-european-union/

This past week, in her maiden speech as EU Foreign Minister, Ashton did not "disappoint". Notwithstanding all the hotspots in the world, all the places, e.g., Darfur, where genocide is occurring, all the brutal human rights violations, e.g., "honor killings" against women, throughout the Muslim world, Ashton chose to lambaste Israel. She decried Israeli "occupation", demanded that Israel immediately lift its blockade on the Gaza Strip, and censured the West Bank separation fence.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135787.html

A pity that Ashton did not visit Israel first before opening her crooked mouth. I favor a two-state solution, I believe in returning the West Bank to the Palestinians with land swaps, but I'm also aware of the danger of allowing Hamas, Iran's proxy, to bring more accurate missiles with greater range into Gaza and of the need for the separation fence, which has proven invaluable in preventing suicide bombings in Israel.

Suicide bombings? I still remember hearing the explosions and seeing the burned out frames of passenger buses in Tel Aviv. I still remember the attacks less than five miles away in any direction from my home and worrying if my children had been harmed. I still remember the sight of a suicide bombing at the entrance to a shopping center in nearby Netanya, whose horror is better left undescribed.

The security fence? Take a drive on Highway 6 and you will see it: only 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the Mediterannean coast. Who is being fenced in?

Although Ashton may have irreparably damaged the EU's relationship with tiny Israel, I am certain that fanatic Muslims, extreme leftists and neo-Nazis throughout Europe rejoiced at her words.