Obama Administration Abstains as U.N. Votes to Condemn Israel Over Settlements (VIDEO)

President Obama and his administration are working feverishly to sow as much evil as they possibly can before leaving office next month. The only consolation --- and it's a big one, thank God --- is that the incoming Trump regime will be like firecrackers in reversing every piece of blasted sod initiatives from this morally regressive refuse-stain of a presidency.

And if I haven't made myself clear enough, well, just get steamed a little yourself at the black-bark piece of human refuse Samantha Power's comments during her speech to the Security Council today. Behold human evil as it erupts in all its wicked hatred and bile:



Here's the story, at WSJ, "U.N. Censures Israeli Settlement Expansion as U.S. Declines to Block."

Eurasia's Coming Anarchy

From Robert Kaplan, at Foreign Affairs, "The Risks of Chinese and Russian Weakness":

As China asserts itself in its nearby seas and Russia wages war in Syria and Ukraine, it is easy to assume that Eurasia’s two great land powers are showing signs of newfound strength. But the opposite is true: increasingly, China and Russia flex their muscles not because they are powerful but because they are weak. Unlike Nazi Germany, whose power at home in the 1930s fueled its military aggression abroad, today’s revisionist powers are experiencing the reverse phenomenon. In China and Russia, it is domestic insecurity that is breeding belligerence. This marks a historical turning point: for the first time since the Berlin Wall fell, the United States finds itself in a competition among great powers.

Economic conditions in both China and Russia are steadily worsening. Ever since energy prices collapsed in 2014, Russia has been caught in a serious recession. China, meanwhile, has entered the early stages of what promises to be a tumultuous transition away from double-digit annual GDP growth; the stock market crashes it experienced in the summer of 2015 and January 2016 will likely prove a mere foretaste of the financial disruptions to come.

Given the likelihood of increasing economic turmoil in both countries, their internal political stability can no longer be taken for granted. In the age of social media and incessant polling, even autocrats such as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin feel the need for public approval. Already, these leaders no doubt suffer from a profound sense of insecurity, as their homelands have long been virtually surrounded by enemies, with flatlands open to invaders. And already, they are finding it harder to exert control over their countries’ immense territories, with potential rebellions brewing in their far-flung regions.

The world has seen the kind of anarchy that ethnic, political, and sectarian conflict can cause in small and medium-size states. But the prospect of quasi anarchy in two economically struggling giants is far more worrisome. As conditions worsen at home, China and Russia are likely to increasingly export their troubles in the hope that nationalism will distract their disgruntled citizens and mobilize their populations. This type of belligerence presents an especially difficult problem for Western countries. Whereas aggression driven by domestic strength often follows a methodical, well-developed strategy—one that can be interpreted by other states, which can then react appropriately—that fueled by domestic crisis can result in daring, reactive, and impulsive behavior, which is much harder to forecast and counter.

As U.S. policymakers contemplate their response to the growing hostility of Beijing and Moscow, their first task should be to avoid needlessly provoking these extremely sensitive and domestically declining powers. That said, they cannot afford to stand idly by as China and Russia redraw international borders and maritime boundaries. The answer? Washington needs to set clear redlines, quietly communicated—and be ready to back them up with military power if necessary...

Keep reading.

Charity Funded by the U.N. Honors Palestinian Terrorists Who Murdered an American, Israelis

Unreal, but this is the (un)reality that we live in these days.

Sad.

From Katie Pavlich, at Town Hall.

Molly Crabapple Loves Pornography!

Following-up from last night, "Emma Quangel Doxed: Hardline Communist @EMQuangel on Twitter Outed as Taryn Fivek, Public Information Officer at International Organization for Migration."

Remember, this was an intra-leftist spat, and considering that Taryn Fivek's life is pretty much destroyed for the time being, perhaps Ms. Crabapple doesn't want to be reminded of her deeds.

Robert Stacy McCain took an interest to my post on Ms. Quangel (a.k.a. Ms. Fivek), and is researching the case. He tagged me along with Ms. Crabapple and BuzzFeed's Hayes Brown in a couple of tweets. I responded with more information on Ms. Quangel, and it turns out Ms. Crabapple blocked me.

That was quick, I thought.

So, Googling her it turns out that she not only likes porn but she tweets out her favorite pornography links. Now that's progressive!

If you like porn, Check this out for the beauty and hotness but also damn that is done sharp dialogue https://t.co/Ht5ReExsOk

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) August 19, 2015

Check back for more on all of this. Robert's digging up some stuff and he's expecting to publish a major entry soon enough.

Emma Quangel Doxed: Hardline Communist @EMQuangel on Twitter Outed as Taryn Fivek, Public Information Officer at International Organization for Migration

I've known for a few weeks that Emma Quangel was really Taryn Fivek. A reader emailed me with the following information:

Her parents are Clark Fivek and Marcia Ladendorff.

Her mom, Marcia Ladendorff, was one of CNN's first anchors when the cable network launched.  She was also the top anchor at WTLV-12 First Coast News in Jacksonville, before semi-retiring as a professor and media personality working at the University of North Florida.  Her dad owns a company.

The parents are divorced and BOTH are likely multi-millionaires who live very comfortable lives.

Communist Taryn Fivek (aka Emma Quangel) is an American-born, pampered TRUST FUND BABY.

Her dad, a successful businessman who lives in the upscale suburban town of Ponte Vedra Beach, FL clearly doesn't appreciate Taryn's conversion to communism:

Of course, the reader sent corresponding links and I Googled a little myself and it all checked out. And that was that. She was still tweeting at the time, and I've had enough of the Internet flame wars to last me for awhile. Besides, she wasn't mean or anything.

In any case, she was definitely hardline communist and was pretty familiar with a lot of the literature, as evidenced by her blog, Manyfesto. Both the blog and her Twitter page have been taken down.

It turns out that BuzzFeed doxed her after she sent out a batch of rather deranged tweets denying news of the recent starvation in Syria. See, "An Aid Worker is Being Accused of Owning a Twitter Account That Denies People Are Starving in Syria."

Remember, according to someone like this, Third World dictators like Bashir al-Assad can never be culpable for the poverty, misery, and obliteration of their own people. It's always the West's fault. That's one of the reasons I blogged about this woman a few times. Her Twitter feed was a veritable treasure trove of the most deranged Stalinist ravings you'd find. See, "Far-Left 'Anti-Racist' Says the United States Should be 'Eradicated'," and "Emma Quangel, Feminist Who Outed Dylann Roof Manifesto, is Militant Communist Who Wants U.S. 'Eradicated'."

There was some chatter on Twitter directed at me this last couple of days, no doubt from folks who found my posts on Google.

Go back and check out that BuzzFeed piece. This woman was getting progressively worse as her online activism gained traction. And it turns out another far-left activist, Molly Crabapple, doxed Quangel on Twitter:

This woman, Taryn Fivek, is a current press officer at the UN (@IOMatUN) while denying the starvation of Madaya pic.twitter.com/oMUYdTl94r

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) January 8, 2016

While working for the United Nations as a press officer, Taryn Fivek cheered Russian bombing of Syrians pic.twitter.com/cuvlJD6Rmk

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) January 8, 2016

Why does a United Nations press officer excuse Hezbollah's starvation of #Madaya? pic.twitter.com/dQsd3FrRSi

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) January 8, 2016

UN press officer Taryn Fivek cheers Russian bombings of Syria, denies starvation of #madaya https://t.co/zNYpIeWVdh pic.twitter.com/ylfmb9uGo5

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) January 8, 2016

. @IOMatUN press officer Taryn Fivek also wrote that James Foley's murder was maybe faked https://t.co/sS6P6vqJgz

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) January 8, 2016

Pt# Taryn Fivek down her social media after being asked for comment on her opinions on the Madaya siege https://t.co/2SMNv2YA1f

— Molly Crabapple (@mollycrabapple) January 8, 2016

Frankly, Quangel wasn't all that good at being anonymous. The Manyfesto blog actually linked to her LinkedIn account, now deleted as well.

Still more on Twitter:

Taryn Fivek was a "leader" of something called FIST, "Fight Imperialism, Stand Together" https://t.co/z46Ue8yRnw pic.twitter.com/w7Gka4sOYd

— Borzou Daragahi (@borzou) January 10, 2016

And she worked for a U.N.-aligned NGO. Let that sink in for a minute.

In Frankfurt, Germany, Hot Dog Haters Are the Wurst

Heh.

At WSJ, "German sausage fans say U.N. is full of baloney; meat warning ‘nonsense’":

FRANKFURT—Here in the city that gave its name to the famous sausage, the World Health Organization’s warning against eating processed meats is hard to swallow.

The United Nations body last week said eating frankfurters and their ilk can cause cancer. To Germans, many of whom consider sausage and cured meats comfort food, that idea doesn’t go down well.

“It’s total nonsense,” said Simone Kluge while selling sausages to a line of customers in Frankfurt’s main market hall. “If it were true, every German would have already died of wurst,” she scoffed, using the German word for sausage.

Many cultures make sausages. Italian salami, Polish kielbasa, French saucisson and British bangers are widely known. But Germans have a special affinity for the oblong food.

Of 31 types listed in the U.S. National Hot Dog and Sausage Council’s online sausage glossary, 11 come from Germany and two more come from heavily Germanic Austria. Italy is a distant second place, with six varieties.

Germany has at least three museums devoted to sausages. Sausages were a hot potato in national elections two years ago and the language is peppered with sausage references.

In a make-or-break situation, Germans say: “It’s about the sausage.” For indifference, they say: “It’s sausage to me.”

“Sausages to Germany are like pasta is to Italy,” said Andreas Fuhr, a master butcher selling his products at a weekly market in Frankfurt.

Sausages are so integral to the German diet that German Food and Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt quickly reacted to the WHO warning with a statement reassuring German consumers of their safety and he posed in the country’s biggest newspaper holding a platter piled with sausages.

“No one should be afraid of eating a bratwurst,” he declared, referring to the most ubiquitous sausage. “What counts is quantity,” he added. “Too much of something is always bad for health.”

Austria’s agriculture minister didn’t mince words, calling the WHO report “a farce.”

Two days after the WHO announcement, German newspapers were bursting with more than 200 articles about the wurst alert.

World-wide reaction to the WHO report was so vocal that the organization later issued a clarification that its finding “does not ask people to stop eating processed meats,” though eating less of them can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer.

While the criticism of processed meats gnaws at many sausage fans, it was particularly biting in Frankfurt. “Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong,” the agency said.

“We won’t let the WHO simply kill off our fine Frankfurt sausages,” fumed Oliver Bergmann, a master butcher at Waibel Butcher shop in Frankfurt, who has been in the trade for 30 years...

Keep reading.

Faisal Mohammed

Boy, authorities were quick to rule out terrorism. But I mean, a knife attack? Just a coincidence that there's a stabbing intifada going on right now in Israel, you think?

At Atlas Shrugs, "Knife Jihad at UC Merced: Faisal Mohammad identified as Muslim who went on ‘smiling’ stabbing spree at California University," and "UC Merced jihadi’s manifesto PRAISED ALLAH, cops say motive NOT TERRORISM."

Also at Jihad Watch, "Islamic State praises Muslim who stabbed four at UC Merced," and "UC Merced stabber “devout Muslim,” manifesto included “praise Allah,” beheading plan."

U.S. Officials Suspect Islamic State Planted Bomb Aboard Russian Jetliner in Egypt (VIDEO)

Following-up from earlier, "Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Downed Russian Passenger Jet in Egypt (VIDEO)."

There were lots of doubts initially, but not so much now.

At Telegraph UK, "Russian plane crash: US intelligence suggests bomb was planted by Islamic State as Britain suspends Sharm el-Sheikh flights - latest news."

And here's Lester Holt, at NBC Nightly News:

Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Downed Russian Passenger Jet in Egypt (VIDEO)

Well, I warned about conspiracy theories, although I was thinking of the Russian variety, suggesting for example that the U.S. and its "Zionist allies" brought down the plane.

Of course, we could see ISIS conspiracies, except that I don't doubt the Islamic State could bring down a jet liner. If pro-Russian rebels could bring down MH-17, there's no reason to belief ISIS couldn't do the same with Flight 7K9268.

Zero Hedge has the video, "ISIS Releases Video of Alleged Russian Airplane Mid-Air Exposion After It Claims Responsibility For Disaster."

And at the Times of Israel, "Islamic State in Egypt claims it brought down Russian plane; 224 dead: Terror group hails success, although Sinai officials say technical failure led to crash; Russia rejects claim."

A YouTube of the ISIS video is here.

Plus, lots of doubts about the theory, at the Guardian, "Russian plane crash: investigation into cause begins – as it happened."

And at Tornoto's National Post, "Russian Metrojet plane carrying 224 people crashed in Sinai province, Egypt says. There were no survivors."

Air France, Lufthansa Suspend Flights Over Sinai Pending Crash Probe

You think?

At the Times of Israel, "2 European carriers take safety precautions after IS claims responsibility for downing Russian plane with loss of 224 lives."

PREVIOUSLY: "Russian Jet Crashes in Egypt, Killing 224 People (VIDEO)."

Russian Jet Crashes in Egypt, Killing 224 People (VIDEO)

Boy, you can bet there's going to be monstrous conspiracy theories.

At WSJ, "Russian Passenger Jet Crashes in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Killing 224 People":

A Russian passenger jet crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people on board, after losing contact with aviation authorities on Saturday.

Egyptian officials said the Airbus A321 jetliner, which was operated by Russian carrier Kogalymavia, was flying to St. Petersburg from Sharm El Sheikh, a resort town popular with Russian tourists, when it disappeared from radar screens.

Egypt’s flagship state-run newspaper, Al Ahram, quoted an Egyptian aviation official as saying the plane’s pilot had requested to land at the nearest airport after an unspecified mechanical problem shortly after taking off at 5:50 a.m. local time. The newspaper later cited another Egyptian aviation official as saying the pilot hadn’t made any distress calls or requests to land.

Egypt’s chief prosecutor said the cause of the crash was being investigated. He didn’t say whether terrorism was suspected.

Sinai Province, the Egyptian branch of Islamic State, claimed responsibility for downing the plane, but officials have cast doubt over whether the group has the capabilities to carry out such an attack. Islamic State and its affiliated groups have frequently made exaggerated claims.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to form a state commission to investigate the crash, the Kremlin said Saturday.

The Russian Embassy in Cairo said on its official Twitter account that all those on board were killed.

Mr. Putin “expressed his deepest sympathies to the families of those who died in the crash.”

The wreckage was located south of the city of Al Arish in the sparsely populated, mountainous north Sinai, according to the aviation authority. As many as 50 ambulances were dispatched, it said.

A spokesman for Egypt’s prime minister said 15 bodies had been recovered and sent to a morgue in Cairo, while investigators continued to search the crash site for evidence and victims. One of the black boxes, which record flight data and audio, was located and taken into the custody of the prosecutor general’s office, he said.

According to the spokesman, the passengers comprised 214 Russians and three Ukrainians, of which 138 were women, 62 men and 17 children. The count didn’t include the seven crew members.

According to the Kremlin, Vladimir Puchkov, Russia’s minister of civil defense, emergencies and disaster relief, was ordered to send aircraft to Egypt to aid in the recovery of the wreckage of the aircraft. Russia’s Emergencies Ministry said five aircraft were flying to Egypt with first responders and forensic investigators on board. The ministry also set up a hot line to aid families of the victims.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in March warned U.S. airlines to avoid flying over the Sinai Peninsula below 26,000 feet. Airline routes traversing the region “are at risk from potential extremist attacks involving antiaircraft weapons,” the FAA said, including shorter-range, shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles. “Some of these weapons have the capability to target aircraft at high altitudes,” or when approaching or departing airports, the U.S. aviation regulator said, noting that an Egyptian military helicopter flying at lower altitudes had been downed by extremists using a missile...

More.

Also at Russia Today, "Bodies of 224 7K9268 crash victims delivered to Cairo morgue," and "Russian A321 fell 'almost vertically', technical fault behind crash."

Russian Jets Fail to Fly in Syria

At USA Today, "Harsh conditions are foiling Russian jets in Syria":

WASHINGTON – Russian warplanes sent to Syria to back the regime of Bashar Assad are breaking down at a rapid rate that appears to be affecting their ability to strike targets, according to a senior Defense official.

Nearly one-third of Russian attack planes and half of its transport aircraft are grounded at any time as the harsh, desert conditions take a toll on equipment and crews, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive intelligence matters.

The Russians appear to be having difficulty adapting to the dusty conditions, and the number of airstrikes they have conducted seems to have dipped slightly.

"For deployed forces, that's a hideous rate," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group, an aerospace consulting firm.

Russian President Vladimir Putin deployed warplanes, including Russia's advanced Fullback ground-attack jet, helicopters and troops to a base near Latakia, Syria, in September. In addition, at least a dozen transport planes have been stationed there.

"They could have bad operating procedures, inadequate supplies of spare parts and support crews," Aboulafia said.

Russia's inexperience deploying forces at some distance, unlike their military actions in bordering countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, could also account for problems keeping planes in the air, he said.

"An awful lot of expeditionary warfare revolves around logistics," Aboulafia said. "A lot of it comes down to experience. They don't have that much of it."

For U.S. warplanes, readiness rates of less than 80% would attract attention from top brass, said a senior Air Force commander with multiple combat deployments in the Middle East. The officer was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. However, the officer noted that planes break, especially in austere, deployed conditions. He characterized mission-readiness rates of less than 80% as a matter of concern, not alarm.

David Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who led planning for the air war in Operation Desert Storm, said the rates for American fighters in combat zones has been above 90%. The readiness rate of 70% for Russian fighters isn't surprising, he said, because they lack experience being deployed and have been flying their jets hard. He called their rates for cargo planes, "pretty low."

"If those rates are accurate, it indicates that their deployed logistics function requires some attention," Deptula said.

U.S. pilots and aircraft have flown combat missions in the Middle East almost continuously since the first Gulf War. They struck Saddam Hussein's forces to push them from Kuwait, patrolled no-fly zones in Iraq for more than a decade, and fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, they returned to strike Islamic State militants on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Last week, the Pentagon and Russian military reached an agreement to avoid conflict among pilots flying missions in Syria. Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Friday said the Russian attacks have targeted opponents of Assad in Syria, where the civil war has killed more than 200,000 people...

More.

The Palestinian Terror Wave and Moral Equivalency

From Joseph Puder, at FrontPage Magazine, "The United Nations and the Obama administration's dual attack on Israel":

Jordan’s ambassador, Dina Kawar, called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council (UNSC) last Friday (October 16, 2015) to deal with the escalating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The session was televised on C-SPAN.  The UNSC is expected to issue a statement exhorting both sides “to show restraint.”  State Department spokesperson John Kirby expressed the Obama’s administration’s concern about Israel’s “use of excessive force.” He said, “We have certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force.”  Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was quick to respond saying: “What do you think would happen in New York if you saw people rushing into a crowd trying to murder people? What do you think they would do? Do you think they would do anything differently than we are doing?”

When it comes to Jews and Israel, the double standard and hypocrisy were displayed again, this time by the 15 members of the UNSC.  Apparently, they expect Israeli Jews to submit to Arab Palestinian killers to “avoid excessive force.”  That would please the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and their western lackeys.  It would also fit with the long held role assigned to the Jews as people who do not defend themselves, as was the case for Jews in Europe and the Muslim world.

The speeches by the Permanent Members (U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia) echoed one another.  The essential message from all of them was “both sides must end the violence.”  In order not to anger the Arab-Muslim Bloc, the truth was discarded and replaced by formulaic verbiage that removed the context and the facts on the ground.  Moral equivalency was used instead. The facts are crystal clear.  Incited Arab Palestinians and Arab Israelis are murdering innocent Israeli civilians without provocation of any kind:  old people and young and civilians and soldiers are being targeted for only one reason - because they are Jews. Fortunately, Israeli security forces, and in some cases, individual citizens who were by-standers were close enough to prevent more murders by shooting the killers or incapacitating them. Under any universal law or code of justice, self-defense is permissible, and defending the unarmed and innocent civilians is in fact a civic duty.

Something more insidious occurred at the UNSC emergency session that should concern all people of good will who seek an Arab-Israeli peace.  The ambassadors of Malaysia and Venezuela shamelessly targeted only Israel – ignoring the Arab-Muslim perpetrators of violence.  They compounded anti-Israel bias with unabashed falsehoods, accusing Israel of “70-years of occupation of Palestine.” This has to be a new angle in the attempt to de-legitimize the Jewish state.  It rejects Israel even within the June 4th, 1967 lines, and its very existence when they considered the pre-1967 Israel as “occupied” Palestinian territory.  At the UN though, lies and distortions by dictatorial regimes are fully permissible and encouraged.

U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Taye-Brook Zerihoun (of Ethiopia) provided the briefing prior to the delegates speeches.  He reported on the latest violent incident in which a large group of Palestinians set fire to the compound containing the holy site of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus.  “Zerihoun said “Fortunately there were no reported injuries but the site sustained major damage.” He added, “There were also three stabbing and ramming attacks on Israelis, leaving 10 Israelis injured and three Palestinian suspects wounded.”  Consistent with the general tenor of the UN, he concluded by saying, “We have seen that the impact of social media and irresponsible rhetoric has played a dramatic role in escalation.  On this count both sides have much to be blamed for, but I welcome efforts by leaders in the past days to tone down their statements. I call on community, religious and political leaders on all sides to calm the language they use in this regard and work together to de-escalate the situation.”

Most of the non-permanent members of the UNSC, (Angola, Chad, Chile, Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Spain) employed moral-equivalency in their speeches.  Jordan, (representing the Arab League) presented a one-sided view, while Malaysia and Venezuela displayed downright hostility toward Israel. The most hypocritical statements however, were made by the alleged “friends” of Israel, particularly the ambassadors of Britain and France, and U.S. ambassador Samantha Powers...

Keep reading.

Think Kissinger Was the Heartless Grandmaster of Realpolitik? What About Obama?

Remember Ferguson's got the new Kissinger biography out, Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist.

And he's got a great commentary at the Los Angeles Times:

Most Americans still think of Barack Obama as a foreign policy idealist. That is certainly how he presents himself: Just replay the tape of his recent speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

Some argue, he said, "for a return to the rules that applied for most of human history … the belief that power is a zero-sum game; that might makes right; that strong states must impose their will on weaker ones; that the rights of individuals don't matter; and that in a time of rapid change, order must be imposed by force."

The president said he would much rather "work with other nations under the mantle of international norms and principles and law." He prefers "resolving disputes through international law, not the law of force."

Yet that speech ended oddly. Having berated both Russia and Iran for their misdeeds, Obama invited them to work with him to resolve the Syrian civil war. "Realism," he concluded, "dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL."

Wait — realism? Isn't that the hard-nosed — not to say amoral — approach to foreign policy commonly associated with Henry Kissinger?

Having spent much of the last decade writing a life of Kissinger, I no longer think of the former secretary of State as the heartless grandmaster of realpolitik. (That's a caricature.) But after reading countless critiques of his record, not least the late Christopher Hitchens' influential "Trial of Henry Kissinger," I also find myself asking another question: Where are the equivalent critiques of Obama?

Hitchens' case against Kissinger, which is as grandiloquent as it is thinly documented, can be summed up as follows: He was implicated in the killing of civilians through the bombing of Cambodia and North Vietnam. He failed to prevent massacres in Bangladesh and East Timor. He fomented a military coup in Chile. Also on Hitchens' charge sheet: the wiretapping of colleagues.

In history, no two cases are alike. The Cold War is over. The technology of the 2010s is a lot more sophisticated than the technology of the 1970s. Still, this president's record makes one itch to read "The Trial of Barack Obama."

Take the administration's enthusiastic use of drones, a key feature of Obama's shift from counterinsurgency to counter-terrorism. According to figures from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone strikes authorized by the Obama administration have killed 3,570 to 5,763 people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, of whom 400 to 912 were civilians and at least 82 were children.

And those are just the strikes by unmanned aircraft. The Oct. 3 attack on an Afghan hospital run by Doctors Without Borders is a reminder that U.S. pilots also stand accused of killing civilians, not only in Afghanistan but also (since August 2014) in Iraq and Syria. One estimate puts the civilian victims of the U.S.-led air war against Islamic State at 450.

This is a lawyerly administration, so it insists on the legality of its actions, even when drones kill U.S. citizens. But not everyone is convinced. In the words of Amnesty International, "U.S. drone strike policy appears to allow extrajudicial executions in violation of the right to life, virtually anywhere in the world."

Keep reading.

No Room for Indifference on anti-Semitism

From Professor Michael Curtis, at American Thinker:

Actions speak louder than words, but nevertheless it is a welcome sign of change that the European Commission is holding its first annual Fundamental Rights Colloquium on October 1-2, 2015 in Brussels. Its theme is tolerance and respect, preventing and combating anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe.

The Colloquium is not simply an opportunity for a widespread discussion of issues. Participants, governments, political, civil, religious, and academic leaders, are expected to explore concrete ways to combat anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred. However, it should be said at the outset that while anti-Arab and anti-black attitudes are contemptible and should be opposed, they do not have the same resonance as anti-Semitism.

The need is urgent. A 2013 EU Fundamental Rights Agency survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews found that more than three quarters of those surveyed felt that anti-Semitism, including anti-Semitism on line, has got worse in the countries in which they lived. It is surprising that about three-quarters of Jewish people do not report anti-Semitic harassment to the police. More correct and accurate data on the perceptions and experiences of Jews is essential if corrective action is to be taken. A related problem is that the number of officially recorded incidents is so low that it is difficult to measure a long-term trend.

Evidence is clear that a worrisome increase in hate incidents concerning Jews has occurred in recent years. Some of the recorded data is as follows...

Oh, there's plenty of evidence, but keep reading.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Stares Down United Nations in Rebuke to Iran Nuclear Deal (VIDEO)

At Town Hall, "Chilling: Netanyahu Glares at UN Delegates for 45 Seconds for Their 'Deafening Silence' on Iran Deal."

Chilling:

Palestinian Flag Flies at the United Nations (VIDEO)

Well, if the world body just says Palestine's a state, then the international collective left will just say it's so, a fait accompli.

At the Christian Science Monitor, "Palestinian flag flies at UN for first time."

And watch, at CNN:

Shakira Performs 'Imagine' for the Pope at the United Nations

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles "Chic" Burlingame was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 (which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11), slams "Imagine" as "the anthem for anti-religious nihilists," on Facebook.

Indeed.

But then, Shakira sang it to welcome the Pope to the U.N., which when you think about it, makes sense, considering how the U.N. sows chaos around the world.

Here, "Shakira (UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador) performing Imagine (by John Lennon)." (Turn down your volume; it's loud.)

We're Losing the War, Do Something

From Michael Ledeen, at Forbes:

We are living in revolutionary times, but we are burdened with counterrevolutionary leaders. The old order, the bipolar Cold War world, is pretty much gone, but the outlines of a new paradigm have not yet emerged. None of the leaders on “our” side of the world, aside from our president, has any sort of vision for the next stage, the new paradigm, and his vision is based on antipathy for American leadership. He will not challenge the Russian/Iranian/Chinese/North Korean/Cuban etc. war against us.

Ergo things are going to get worse, perhaps very much worse. The pols and pundits could help focus our minds by seeing the war being waged against us, and then figuring out how to win it...

A Realist Grapples with His Doubts on Intervention in Syria

From the far-left, Israel-bashing Harvard political scientist Stephen Walt, at Foreign Policy, "Could We Have Stopped This Tragedy?":

Unlike neoconservatives, who never admit error no matter how often they are wrong, I spend a fair bit of time thinking about whether my diagnoses of key world events have been off the mark. (For examples of this sort of “self-criticism,” see here, here, and here.) I’ll stand by the vast majority of what I’ve written in my scholarly work and my FP commentary, but I find it useful — indeed, necessary — to occasionally ponder whether I got something wrong and, if so, to try to figure out why.

Case in point: the increasingly awful situation in Syria. Ever since the initial protests broke out, I’ve believed this conflict was not of vital strategic interest to the United States and that overt U.S. intervention was likely to cause more harm than good. What has emerged since then is a relentless and gut-wrenching tragedy, but I’ve uncomfortably concluded that my original judgment was correct. And yet I continue to wonder.

To be sure, the Obama administration has not handled Syria well at all.

President Barack Obama erred when he jumped the gun in 2011 and insisted “Assad must go,” locking the United States into a maximalist position and foreclosing potential diplomatic solutions that might have saved thousands of lives. Second, Obama’s 2012 off-the-cuff remark about chemical weapons and “red lines” was a self-inflicted wound that didn’t help the situation and gave opponents a sound bite to use against him. The president wisely backed away from that position, however, and (with Russian help) eventually devised an arrangement that got rid of Assad’s chemical arsenal. This was no small achievement in itself, but the whole episode did not exactly inspire confidence. The administration eventually agreed to start a training program for anti-Assad forces, but did so with neither enthusiasm nor competence.

And consider what has happened since then. More than 200,000 people are now dead — that’s approaching 100 times as many victims as 9/11 — and numerous towns, cities, and villages have been badly damaged, if not destroyed. There are reportedly some 11 million displaced people either internally or out of the country, about half Syria’s original population. A flood of refugees and migrants has landed in Europe, provoking a new challenge to the European Union’s delicate political cohesion and raising the specter of a sharp increase in right-wing xenophobia. The carnage in Syria has also helped fuel the emergence and consolidation of the so-called Islamic State, intensified the Sunni-Shiite split within Islam, and put additional strain on Syria’s other neighbors.

Given all that, is it possible that those who called for swift U.S. intervention several years ago were right all along? If the United States, NATO, the Arab League, or some combination of the above had established a no-fly zone and stood ready to intervene with ground forces, might the Assad regime have fallen quickly and spared Syria and the world this bleak and open-ended disaster? Or might these steps have given outside powers greater leverage over the situation, put some serious teeth into the early diplomatic efforts, and made some sort of brokered political solution more likely?

Maybe.

We cannot replay the past to see where a different course of action would have led, but one cannot rule out a priori the possibility that a prompt, forceful, and committed international response would have produced a better outcome in Syria than what we observe today. If everything had gone just right, we might be viewing a pacified Syria as a big success story, much as proponents of humanitarian intervention now view NATO’s role in the Balkans in the 1990s...

Hmm... Not so easy for Walt to admit that he's wrong.

America's "vital national interests" have certainly been compromised by the administration's Syria disaster. At this point Walt and other leftists can only define "vital national interests" in existential terms, as the very survival of the United States. But that's not a very useful definition, and U.S. foreign policy has long taken a much larger stand on securing vital interests, which has included preventing hostile foreign powers from securing dominant spheres of interest in a region or country, like Russia in Syria.

But keep reading. Walt's not so open to correcting his errors after all.