RUTHFULLY YOURS

The ‘Chains’ of Progressive Politics By Frank Salvato
http://www.basicsproject.org/
The uproar over the “chains” comment made by Vice President Joe Biden continues, and rightly so. The comment Mr. Biden made while addressing a predominantly Black audience at a campaign rally in Danville, VA – a town on the border of swing states Virginia and North Carolina – was not only racist in nature (whether intentional or not), it was also operational. That is why President Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, senior campaign advisor David Axelrod and the full contingent of Obama campaign mouthpieces issued statements in defense of Mr. Biden; statements that refused to condemn the language.

During the August 14th rally, the Vice President said:

“[Romney] said in the first hundred days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street…They’re going to put ya’ll back in chains.”

True, it is a documented fact that Mr. Biden has a long and incredible history of making racially insensitive gaffes, but a cursory examination of the stage at the event shows that the dais was adorned with teleprompter hardware, meaning that his talk was scripted. Whether Mr. Biden chose to go off script we will never know, but his perceived gaffe certainly achieved four things:

1) It changed the subject from the nomination of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate;

2) It changed the national dialogue from a serious dialogue about the ideological crossroads a which our nation stands (Liberty v. Democratic Socialism), back to the inanity of yet another Progressive Chicago Machine smear side topic that has nothing to do with the very real issues facing our country this election cycle.

3) It got the race-baiting slavery innuendo out there for the media and Progressive activists to feast on;

4) And, most importantly, at a time when the Obama Administration’s Justice Department is under fire for myriad racially charged actions of “social justice” bias, it afforded Mr. Obama to state – for the record – that he and his campaign do not engage in racial politics.

To the last point, a greater affront to the truth has never been uttered by a President of the United States. Mr. Obama’s entire “social justice” crusade is an exercise in divide-and-conquer, Alinsky-inspired racism. The fact that Mr. Obama intentionally went out of his way to defend the racist words of Mr. Biden – the man who said, on camera, “In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking…” – suggests that that there is some semblance of agreement with Mr. Biden’s statement regarding the “chains” of slavery.

And why should we not feel that the President may identify with Mr. Biden’s so-called “gaffe”? Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, spent twenty years in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ, a church that preaches Black Liberation Theology, identified by DiscoverTheNetworks.org as:

“…closely related to the broader phenomenon of liberation theology, which calls for social activism, class struggle, and even violent revolution aimed at overturning the ‘capitalist oppressors of the poor’ and installing, in its place, a socialist utopia that will finally enfranchise the poor and downtrodden. As an extension of this movement, black liberation theology similarly seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor but one founded on racial rather than class solidarity.”

Now, I am not one who signs on to the blatant impossibility that someone can sit every Sunday in a church pew listening to – arguably – a dynamic speaker like Rev. Jeremiah Wight and not take anything from it. The congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ isn’t like a congregation that attends out of a sense of obligation. It is a congregation that is engaged; that feeds off the message being delivered. To believe that Mr. and Mrs. Obama “didn’t take anything away” from their time at Trinity United Church of Christ is to believe in the tooth fairy.

This is why I believe that Mr. Obama defended his Vice President; there was a part of him – and maybe a large part of him – that agreed with what Mr. Biden said. Given the dogma of Black Liberation Theology the argument can be made successfully.

But I digress…

While the President may or may not (ahem) agree with the statement Mr. Biden made – contemptible at best, racist in the least, it was an operational statement. What do I mean by an operational statement? Mr. Biden’s statement served several purposes, as stated above. It is a tactic used by unscrupulous lawyers, opportunistic Chicago politicians and disingenuous tyrants.

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/08/17/huma-abedins-muslim-minority-affairs-its-not-just-a-journal/

“Assimilation is a crime against humanity.” So said Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamic supremacist who is both prime minister of Turkey and a close chum of President Obama’s.

The assertion ought to be infamous. But this is, after all, Islam we are talking about — meaning, we are not talking about it. You won’t read it in the American media, nor will you hear it from our bipartisan Beltway profiles in courage. Both the Obama Left and the Republican establishment are deeply invested in the fantasy that Erdogan, like Islam itself, is our moderate ally — ironic, given that Erdogan himself is profoundly offended at the very suggestion that there is such a thing as “moderate Islam.” Yup, what you have been told is the plinth on which American Middle East policy rests is, according to Erdogan, not only a house-of-cards but “an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”

The prime minister is an excitable sort. Waxing metaphoric about his aggressive, ascendant ideology, he has observed, “The mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the cupolas our helmets, and the faithful our soldiers.” But he is inspired to new heights of fury by the admonition that Muslims living in Europe and North America should assimilate into Western societies. He first called that suggestion a “crime against humanity” in 2008, speaking to a throng of Turkish immigrants in Cologne. It was the obligation of Muslims, he elaborated, to cling to the tenets and culture of Islam. Yes, Muslims in places like Germany must integrate, in the sense of becoming politically active, of pressuring Western societies to give Islam a wide berth. But Muslims should never assimilate – they should use that wide berth to establish Islam’s authority.

Two years later, given an opportunity to recant during a joint press conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Erdogan doubled down. “Assimilation,” he maintained, is “the permutation of the values of humans.” It puts “pressure on individuals to leave aside their customs and traditions, and such a behavior happens to be a crime against humanity.”

The message could not have been clearer: Muslims are in the West to change the West, not to be changed by it.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/sound-the-trumpet-the-united-states-and-human-rights-promotion-interview-with-lawrence-j-haas

In the introduction to his remarkable book Sound The Trumpet-The United States and Human Rights Promotion, Lawrence J. Haas avers that the United States has been the world’s leading promoter of human rights over the course of modern history, by example and by determination to pressure repressive regimes and engage with and inspire their dissidents.

While giving requisite credit to other religions and cultures, Haas states that the concept and practice of these essential freedoms is generally a Western and Judeo/Christian phenomenon which evolved from the Protestant Reformation, the Founding Principles of the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism. However, in this book, Haas, a senior fellow for United States foreign policy at The American Foreign Policy Council and former Communications Director for Vice President Albert Gore, concentrates on the period since World War 11, and discusses the contradictions between the desire to promote human rights in every corner of the world and the inherent collision with national interest, the sovereignty of other nations, unwillingness to commit military force and the possible aftermath that replaces one thug with another, that confounded every administration.

The first chapter “America the Essential” is a paean to America. As Haas eloquently states, America is special in “…that we have values to cherish and a system to emulate, that we are a tool of Providence with a mission to fulfill, that we can inspire others around the world and change the course of history, and that our system of government is simply better than the alternatives.”

These are strong and welcome and inspiring words in the present cultural climate when the media, politicians and academics so often deride our values, our mission, our goals and our religious beliefs. How often do we hear from the left the word “imperialist” coupled with the claim that we trample on people’s cultural legacies when we seek to impose freedoms they neither crave nor need. How often have we heard purveyors of “real-politick” and isolationism scoff at popular uprisings and the notion that a principled and muscular stance on human rights imperils our trade, our supply of energy, our alliances and our national security? Haas gives the lie to both in chapter after chapter by demonstrating how successive Presidents have used the “bully pulpit,” and economic sanctions as well as foreign aid to persuade tyrants and encourage their opposition. One need only revisit the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet Union which is meticulously detailed to be convinced.

A powerful polemicist in defense of Jews, Israel By ARNOLD AGES

From Chicago Jewish Star Vol. 22 (Aug. 17-30, 2012), p. 9

I must confess to have experienced an initial disquiet upon approaching Edward Alexander’s collection of very literate reviews, essays and think pieces, some of the latter based on books and articles which he has analyzed.

This is a genre which, in past encounters with several examples, has inevitably left me somewhat disappointed because of the lack of internal unity in the themes explored.

Alexander’s book, The State of the Jews: A Critical Appraisal (Transaction Publishers, 2012, 248 pp., $34.95), however, is a welcome exception because he has, in each exquisitely polished entry, identified what Rabelais used to call la substantifique moelle (“the essential marrow”) of the issue.

The marrow here is the disgraceful assault on Jews and the State of Israel coming from both gentiles and Jews in the last decade.

In the 10 full-length book reviews and the 17 essays and think pieces (derived in part from his Gargantuan reading habits) Alexander proceeds first, in an orderly fashion, to document the anti-Semitic rot which courses through the thinking of some of the luminaries of English literature, before moving to the more current war against Jews and Israel, a war aided and abetted by misguided members of the Jewish tribe.

Some of those tribal members who live in Israel are also the special target of the author’s critical volleys.

“The other country, right or wrong” is the way Alexander characterizes the attitudes of some of the more repugnant representatives of the Israeli left.

Alexander is a powerful polemicist who possesses a biting sense of humor, which he deploys in an essay about how deceased Jewish grandmothers are being converted to radical anti-Israel positions by extreme Jewish leftists today and made to parrot anti-Zionist and anti-Israel tropes. (And we thought that only the Mormons were engaged, mutatis mutandi, in this kind of mischief!)

17 08 2012 Joel Fishman Makor Rishon

The Dangerous Link between Delegitimization and Sedition: When we think about the campaign of delegitimization against Israel, the international efforts of the Palestinians and their allies to isolate and harm Israel come to mind. We may also recall the Durban debacle of 2011, the boycott of Israeli products, and the refusal of some performers to appear before audiences in Israel. In reality, boundaries are unimportant, because a basic type of delegitimization takes place unrelentingly in far off lands and within Israel’s domestic discourse.

I am referring to the ongoing campaign to discredit the idea of the Jewish state and particularly its prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu. Most recently, a group of agitators, prominent intellectuals, and fashionable authors have accused the Prime Minister of being a dictator, a megalomaniac, and war criminal. Moreover, they have claimed that the existing form of government is not a real democracy. According to them, the Prime Minister, the government, and the Jewish State lack legitimacy and virtue. They no longer deserve to hold office and even to exist.

This aggressive and confrontational form of delegitimization exceeds the bounds of civil discourse. In social-science terms, these adversaries reject the basic paradigm of the State of Israel, its social and political fabric, its legal organization and in its most basic sense, its constitution.

We constantly receive these messages in our social environment, in the media, and in the marketplace of ideas. They have become so pervasive that the public nearly does not pay attention to them, and this is dangerous. Words are used like weapons, and the violence of words can easily mutate into physical violence, as it has during the past two years. We should be mindful of the ease with which such ideas and slogans can be internalized.

At present the timing of a major assault on the Prime Minister and the Israeli system of democracy is related both to Israel’s current security situation and to the recent visit of the Republican frontrunner in the American elections. Mitt Romney’s visit to Jerusalem may have been much more successful than reported in the press and, to the surprise of many, his message about the relationship between a nation’s culture and accomplishments received a surprisingly sympathetic resonance worldwide.

Originally posted at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12053#.UC2w01RFF0Q,
HATE IS OKAY BUT IT IS THEIR FEAR OF THE SMARTEST, FUNNIEST, SAVVIEST WOMAN THAT IS ALMOST FUN TO OBSERVE. GO LORI!!!! RSK

Remember “Zionism is racism?” That was the high tide in the battle to turn the word Zionism from a mantle of national pride in Israel as the Jewish Homeland, to one that carries the toxic undercurrent of ultra-nationalism and oppression of the “other.”

The UN resolution equating Israel’s existence with evil was rescinded in 1991, but the fallout continues. Haters of Israel to this day employ variations of the term Zionism – ZioNazi, Zionist Occupying Government – as synonyms for what they most want people to associate with Jews and the Jewish State, thereby subtly winning adherents to their cause.

The battle against Zionism continues today, only now it’s being fought inside the gates of the world’s biggest Jewish charity. It’s not as if the Jewish establishment actually opposes Zionism. But Israel’s detractors have been so successful that, to put it bluntly: the term Zionism doesn’t poll well. And if Zionism doesn’t poll well, and your goal is to raise money to support Jews and the Jewish Homeland, you’re left with quite a conundrum, indeed, a veritable hornet’s nest.

One former high-ranking leader of global Jewish philanthropy has claimed that the largest Jewish charity in the world succumbed to the polling/fundraising dilemma by rejecting the use of the term Zionism – because that term is “too controversial” – at a recent high level meeting. When this reporter tried to investigate the truth, she unwittingly became, like the title of a popular book, the Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.

My news article about the Jewish Federations of North America alleged decision to avoid the use of the word Zionism in a major planning document unleashed a firestorm response by JFNA leadership so relentless, one-sided and shrill that their behavior, rather than the underlying original story, must now be laid bare.

Here are the facts.

On July 27, 2012, my article ran in The Jewish Press.

In writing the story, I did what reporters are supposed to do. First I researched and then interviewed the person making the claim. I then reached out to JFNA people who were at that meeting, and/or who are major players within the JFNA world. I reached out to them for hours, across several states , time zones and levels of leadership, in attempts to include in my story the JFNA response. I was explicit about who I was and what I was making contact about.

I contacted New York City UJA-Federation Chair John Ruskay, his press contact person Jane E. Rubinstein; president of the Jewish Federation of Cleveland Steve Hoffman; JFNA’s senior vice president for Global Planning, Joanne Moore; JFNA Vice President for Public Policy and Director of the Washington, D.C. JFNA office, William Daroff; and JFNA spokesman Joe Berkofsky. I was stonewalled at every turn: I got literally nothing of substance back.

After receiving repeated deadline extensions from my editor in Israel – as a daily reporter I am expected to submit a news story every day – I then engaged in a final, harried hour-long Direct Message Tweet exchange in which I implored Daroff to help me find someone from JFNA to comment on my story. I told him who I had already contacted, and explained, “I’d hate to run the story without your input.” Ultimately, after receiving an autoreply from the only person he finally suggested I contact whom I hadn’t yet, Joe Berkofsky, I sent my last message to Daroff: “Joe is out of the office until Aug. 6th. I’ll have to file it without a comment from any Federations folks. Too bad.” I got nothing back from that message either.

http://www.prudenpolitics.com/newsletter?utm_source=P&P%20Auto%201&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4277

Everybody’s piling on Joe Biden, and it’s not quite fair. Of course, a presidential campaign, like life, is unfair. We have John F. Kennedy’s word on that. Maybe we should give ol’ Joe a break. He’s our only source of campaign humor, if not exactly the sharpest wit.

Even The Washington Post, now in full-battle dress to protect Democratic interests, thinks it’s OK to pick on ol’ Joe. Writes Post blogger Alexandra Petri: “He inspires the sort of discomfort one feels upon introducing one’s fiancé to Grandpa after he has had a Scotch too many.”

One’s fiancé should just grin and bear it. But one never knows, as Fats Waller famously asked, do one? A lot of Joe’s malapropisms, blurts and boners – the remarks the press, eager to display a foreign language skill, inevitably calls “gaffes” – are just the sort of thing that endears Joe to a lot of other grandpas. The vice president, after all, is constitutionally harmless, like a wart in an embarrassing place on the body politic.

It’s certainly true, though, that Joe has overdrawn the unlimited checking account Barack Obama gave him on inauguration day. The president’s dilemma, and it is a true dilemma, is what to do about the second banana. He knows he couldn’t trust Joe at the funeral of the president of Volta, upper or lower, and foreign funerals are the default preserve of veeps. But he can’t indulge himself by bouncing Joe off the ticket, either.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0812/glick081712.php3?printer_friendly

JewishWorldReview.com | In 1949, the Communist takeover of China rattled the US foreign policy establishment to its core. China’s fall to Communism was correctly perceived as a massive strategic defeat for the US. The triumphant Mao Tse Tung placed China firmly in the Soviet camp and implemented foreign policies antithetical to US interests.

For the American foreign policy establishment, China’s fall forced a reconsideration of basic axioms of US foreign policy. Until China went red, the view resonant among foreign policy specialists was that it was possible for the US to peacefully coexist and even be strategic allies with Communists.

With Mao’s embrace of Stalin this position was discredited. The US’s subsequent recognition that it was impossible for America to reach an accommodation with Communists served as the intellectual architecture of many of the strategies the US adopted for fighting the Cold War in the years that followed.

Today the main aspect of America’s response to China’s Communist revolution remembered is the vindictive political hunt for scapegoats. Foreign Service officers and journalists who had advised the US government to support Mao and the Communists against Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists were attacked as traitors.

But while the “Red Scare” is what is most remembered about that period, the most significant consequence of the rise of Communist China was the impact it had on the US’s understanding of the nature of Communist forces. Even Theodore White, perhaps the most prominent journalist who championed Mao and the Communists, later acknowledged that he had been duped by the Communist propaganda machine into believing that Mao and his comrades were interested in an alliance with the US.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2426

It is the last Friday of Ramadan, when Islamists across the globe will participate in al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day marches against Israel. The annual tradition was established in 1979 by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of the newly-formed Islamic Republic of Iran.

Though ostensibly a show of solidarity with the Palestinians, it was actually created as a mass expression of anti-Zionism — something that could unite otherwise heterogeneous groups under a consensual banner.

“For many years, I have been notifying the Muslims of the danger posed by the usurper Israel,” Khomeini declared. ”… I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper and its supporters … I ask God Almighty for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels.”

This was not an indication of the ayatollah’s sympathy with the Palestinian cause. Khomeini cared as little for the Palestinians as a national entity as he did for Iran as one. In fact, on his flight back to Iran after 14 years of exile, he was asked by reporter Peter Jennings how he felt about it. “I feel nothing,” Khomeini said, indicating that it was the Islamic caliphate he cared about, not some country from which he happened to hail.

He also exhibited contempt for PLO chief Yasser Arafat, by not allowing him to act as an intermediary during the American Embassy takeover by radical Muslim students, among them a 23-year-old named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Trying to show U.S. President Jimmy Carter that he had clout with the mullahs in the Islamic republic, Arafat offered to “intervene” to negotiate the release of the hostages. Carter was hopeful; Khomeini laughed in both their faces.