RUTHFULLY YOURS

John Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving. His latest hot air is the warning in Indonesia ” Saying that climate change ranks among the world’s most serious problems — such as disease outbreaks, poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called on all nations to respond to “the greatest challenge of our generation.” And, he went on to dismiss skeptics “… “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact.”

That is pretty dumb. However, is it any dumber than continuing to bully Israel into processing “peace” with those who aver in speeches, sermons, press releases, broadcasts, schools, lectures and columns, that Israel cannot and should not continue to exist? Is it any dumber than pretending that there can be a “peaceful” and demilitarized Arab/Moslem sovereignty in the elevations and lowlands of the area (2,700 square miles) between pre-1967 Israel and the Jordan River? Is it dumber than willfully forgetting what happened when Israel evacuated from the Gaza strip? Is it any dumber to ignore the history of Moslem/Arab Jew hatred and jihad since the advent of Islam?

Even the mainstream media is chuckling at his globaloney but who is challenging his stupidity and cupidity on Israel?

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7405

Every time it seems American foreign policy couldn’t get any worse, Secretary of State John Kerry comes along to set the record straight. The weekend was no exception.

In Indonesia on Sunday, during the last leg of an Asia tour that included South Korea and China, Kerry took the opportunity to talk about the dangers of climate change. The speech he delivered in Jakarta at the U.S. Embassy-run American Center took place a day after a second round of “peace talks” in Geneva between representatives of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government and members of the opposition ended at an impasse. (Ironically, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem also raised the issue of climate, but he wasn’t referring to global temperatures. Rather, he was blaming the U.S. for “creating a very negative climate for dialogue in Geneva.”)

Kerry’s address to a packed audience of Indonesian students, community leaders and government officials also came two days ahead of a resumption of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 powers (the U.S., Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany) in Vienna.

None of this was what the U.S. secretary of state wanted to discuss while visiting the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, however. Instead, he was there to warn the Indonesians about greenhouse gas emissions and “big companies” that are ostensibly wreaking havoc on the planet in general, and specifically causing typhoons, floods and Friday’s eruption of a volcano on the island of Java.

http://carolineglick.com/the-anti-zionist-challenge-to-the-jewish-estabishment/

There is a difference between speech and war. Both are forms of expression, to be sure. But the essence of the former is engagement, and the essence of the latter is destruction.

This distinction is apparently too subtle for many of Israel’s Supreme Court justices. On Sunday, the Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the 2011 Anti-Boycotts law. The law allows targets of boycotts to sue boycotters for damages in civil courts, and empowers the finance minister to revoke the non-profit status of NGOs that engage in boycotts. It is being challenged by a consortium of foreign-funded, radical, anti-Zionist NGOs.
Product Details
The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East by Caroline Glick (Mar 4, 2014)

The essence of boycotts is destruction, not engagement.

True, boycotters express an opinion when they boycott their targets. But just so, armies express an opinion when they bomb enemy targets.

The question is not whether in levying boycotts, the boycotters are expressing a position. It is whether the primary purpose of a boycott is to express an opinion or to annihilate its target.

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

Three people died in riots in Caracas last Thursday. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro predictably blamed the deaths on “neofascists financed by the United States.” Nothing was said about empty shelves in stores, food shortages, or an inability to buy a car, gasoline or toilet paper. The accusation was apparently made without irony and absent any appreciation for the fact that Maduro’s (and Hugo Chavez’s) political party, the United Socialist Party, exhibits many of the characteristics of “old-fashioned fascism,” including the National Socialist Party of 1930s Germany. While Maduro doesn’t have Hitler’s “brown shirts” (or at least not visibly) and, apart from Americans, has not yet singled out a particular group for blame, the economic consequence of his policies have been to deprive the people of the basic necessities of life.

It is unsurprising that a man who surrounds himself with Communist allies like Cuba, China and Russia, as does Senor Maduro, should invoke Fascism as evil, while inferring that Communism is good. In truth, they are not at polar ends of a linear political spectrum. The spectrum is circular, not horizontal, with the two political beliefs intersecting on the side directly opposite democracy.

Communists are more subtle than Fascists, in that they use words like “reform” and they claim to address inequality; thus are more widely accepted in the West. Yet, both communists and fascist are murderously indiscriminate toward those considered enemies. The number of civilians killed by Stalin is estimated to be north of 20 million, probably more than were killed by Hitler. Both men suspended the rule of law and they eliminated dissenters. Both thrived on hatred and divided their people, isolating a segment of their citizens on whom to pin blame. For Hitler, it was Jews; for Lenin and Stalin, it was the aristocracy; for Castro, it was plantation owners. In Venezuela, an informal militia roams cities and towns on motorcycles intimidating political opponents. They may not wear brown shirts, but they derive from comparable ideologies.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/02/16/near-death-experiences-a-new-take-on-life-part-1-sam-parnia-explains-where-the-field-is-leading/?print=1

Sam Parnia is one of the world’s leading experts on death—on how people can medically be brought back from the dead, and on what happens to the mind, or soul, or consciousness, after people die.

Of UK origin, Parnia works these days as assistant professor of medicine at the State University of New York in Stony Brook. He is also directing the joint American-Canadian-British AWARE study, which he calls “the world’s largest ever study of mind and brain during cardiac arrest.” And he is the author, most recently (with Josh Young), of Erasing Death, an up-to-date exploration of both of Parnia’s areas of expertise—resuscitation from death, and death itself.

About half of this book focuses on resuscitation science—which, since the 1960s, has been able to bring people back from states of clinical death. What Parnia has to say is interesting and informative, though it is not the reason I got hold of the book; I’m more interested in what could be called the mystical angle.

Basically, in Parnia’s telling, resuscitation science is both making unprecedented advances and not doing that well. Thanks to the new technique of cooling the body of a clinically dead person, cell deterioration in the body can be slowed down, and people can be resuscitated for ever-longer periods after death has occurred. On the other hand, survival rates—the percentages of people who are actually brought back to life—are still low and have not improved since the 1960s. “It’s really amazing,” Parnia says, “but absolutely true.”

What’s needed, Parnia contends, is for the resuscitation field to be much better organized, standardized, and coordinated. At this point, the quality of resuscitation care you get at a hospital—or whether you even get it—is pot luck. Parnia thinks the situation can be drastically improved, which would not only mean bringing a lot more people back to life, but restoring a lot more of them intact instead of in vegetative or brain-damaged states.

In August 2009 a chauffeur in New York City named Joe Tiralosi had a cardiac arrest and died. He was rushed to New York Presbyterian Hospital, where his body was cooled with ice packs and saline injections. It was then believed that, after ten minutes without a heartbeat, a patient can only be revived in a vegetative state. Joe Tiralosi was revived after forty minutes without a heartbeat. He then died again, was revived again, and eventually returned to his wife and two children in perfect health.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/is-france-going-national-socialist/?print=1

January 2014 will be remembered as an ominous turning point in French politics: the moment when explicit anti-Semitism was accepted again as a legitimate political view by at least a segment of the public.

First, there was the Dieudonné case. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, 48, known as an artist as just Dieudonné, is an African-French former humorist who over the years has turned his shows into anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish gatherings. More recently he created and launched the “quenelle,” an inverted Hitlerian salute (one arm down, the other one touching the shoulder) to be used as an expression of contempt for Jews and everything related to the Holocaust.

As Dieudonné was about to start a grand tour of France in January, Minister of the Interior Manuel Valls issued orders and guidelines to préfets (local government commissioners) and mayors to ban his shows as public-safety risks. Moreover, the police raided Dieudonné’s home in Paris and found close to one million dollars in cash. Since Dieudonné and his wife and producer Noemie Montagne have repeatedly maintained they are nearly bankrupt, they may be investigated for tax evasion or money laundering.

While many citizens congratulated Valls for acting decisively against a dangerous agitator, many others — including in his own socialist and left-wing constituency — criticized him for “curbing free speech and expression” in line with his own “politically correct” agenda.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-colonialism-of-the-anti-israel-left/print/

The first error in John Judis’ book “Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict” is in its title. The genesis of this conflict took place thousands of years before Truman when the Roman Empire imposed its colonial rule on the Jewish population using Arab mercenaries and when the Muslim Arab conquerors colonized Israel.

Judis describes the Roman ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Jewish population as the land going “through different religious incarnations after the pagan Romans ousted the Maccabee.” This is akin to another type of revisionist historian describing the Holocaust as Europe going through a new religious incarnation after the pagan National Socialists ousted Jewish communal leaders.

All the familiar myths of anti-Israel revisionist historians are present in Judis’ Genesis making it the least original book on Israel in some time. There are the European Jewish colonists seizing Arab land and powerful American Jewish lobbies intimidating politicians concerned about the “Palestinians” who would not spring into existence until after the failed invasions of Israel by the Arab colonial powers.

The Arabs are treated as a majority when it comes to their claim on the land and as a minority when it comes to soliciting liberal sympathy on their behalf. Judis justifies this political juggling act by rewriting history so that the Jews of Israel are reduced to European colonists rather than an indigenous minority.

Middle Eastern Jews are largely absent in his Eurocentric narrative because their existence upends his depiction of the Jewish resettlement as a Western colonial assault against a hapless native population. The Middle Eastern Jews, whose existence the left denies or minimizes, demonstrate that Zionism was no different than the national liberation movements of minorities like the Kurds or the Armenians.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/woman-sexually-harassed-by-clinton-says-hillary-is-the-war-on-women/print/

Woman Sexually Harassed by Clinton says: “Hillary is the War on Women.” Posted By Daniel Greenfield

The Blair Papers which the media initially covered up and then diverted attention from, were quite revealing when it came to Hillary’s attitude toward not only her husband’s sexual misconduct, but even those of Republicans like Bob Packwood.

Hillary Clinton defended her husband in a phone call with Blair. She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.

Hillary Clinton told Blair she had received “a letter from a psychologist who does family therapy and sexual infidelity problems,” who told the Yale Law School graduate, “most men with fidelity problems [were] raised by two women and felt conflicted between them.”

“She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying.”

Hillary Clinton is pathetic, makes constant excuses for Bill Clinton, blames herself and blames the women that her husband goes after.

As a feminist role model, she’s right up there with her aide, Huma Abedin.

In a Dec. 3, 1993, diary entry, Blair recounted a conversation with the first lady about “Packwood”—a reference to then-Sen. Bob Packwood, an influential Republican on health care embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.

“HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” wrote Blair.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-islamic-grinch-who-stole-the-olympics-on-the-glazov-gang/print/ This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ann-Marie Murrell, the National Director of PolitiChicks.tv, Tommi Trudeau, the Producer of Groovy Foods, and Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know. The Gang gathered to discuss Jihad Migrating to Red States With Obama’s Blessings. The discussion occurred in Part I (starting at the […]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/obamas-foreign-policy-enemy-action/print/

It’s often hard to determine whether a series of bad policies results from stupidity or malicious intent. Occam’s razor suggests that the former is the more likely explanation, as conspiracies assume a high degree of intelligence, complex organization, and secrecy among a large number of people, qualities that usually are much less frequent than the simple stupidity, disorganization, and inability to keep a secret more typical of our species. Yet surveying the nearly 6 years of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy blunders, I’m starting to lean towards Goldfinger’s Chicago mob-wisdom: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action.”

Obama’s ineptitude started with his general foreign policy philosophy. George Bush, so the narrative went, was a trigger-happy, unilateralist, blundering, “dead or alive” cowboy who rushed into an unnecessary war in Iraq after alienating our allies and insulting the Muslim world. Obama pledged to be different. As a Los Angeles Times editorial advised him in January 2009, “The Bush years, defined by ultimatums and unilateral actions around the world, must be brought to a swift close with a renewed emphasis on diplomacy, consultation and the forging of broad international coalitions.” Obama eagerly took this advice, reaching out not just to our allies, but also to sworn enemies like Syria, Venezuela, and Iran, and serially bowing to various potentates around the globe. He went on the apology tour, in which he confessed America’s “arrogant, dismissive, derisive” behavior and the “darker periods in our history.” And he followed up by initiating America’s retreat from international affairs, “leading from behind,” appeasing our enemies, and using rhetorical bluster as a substitute for coherent, forceful action. Here follow 3 of the many mistakes that suggest something other than inexperience and a lack of knowledge is driving Obama’s policies.

Russia

Remember the “reset” button Obama offered to Russia? In September 2009 he made a down payment on this policy by reversing George Bush’s plan to station a radar facility in the Czech Republic and 10 ground-based missile interceptors in Poland. Russia had complained about these defensive installations, even though they didn’t threaten Russian territory. So to appease the Russians, Obama abandoned Poland and the Czech Republic, who still live in the dark shadow of their more powerful former oppressors, while Russia’s Iranian clients were emboldened by their patron’s ability to make the superpower Americans back down. As George Marshall Fund fellow David J. Kramer prophesized at the time, Obama’s caving “to Russian pressure . . . will encourage leaders in Moscow to engage in more loud complaining and bully tactics (such as threatening Iskander missiles against the Poles and Czechs) because such behavior gets desired results.”

Obama followed up this blunder with the New START arms reduction treaty with Russia signed in 2010. This agreement didn’t include tactical nuclear weapons, leaving the Russians with a 10-1 advantage. Multiple warheads deployed on a missile were counted as one for purposes of the treaty, which meant that the Russians could exceed the 1550 limit. Numerous other problems plague this treaty, but the worst is the dependence on Russian honesty to comply with its terms. Yet as Keith B. Payne and Mark B. Schneider have written recently, for years Russia has serially violated the terms of every arms-control treaty it has signed, for obvious reasons: “These Russian actions demonstrate the importance the Kremlin attaches to its new nuclear-strike capabilities. They also show how little importance the Putin regime attaches to complying with agreements that interfere with those capabilities. Russia not only seems intent on creating new nuclear- and conventional-strike capabilities against U.S. allies and friends. It has made explicit threats against some of them in recent years.” Busy pushing the reset button, Obama has ignored all this cheating. Nor did Obama’s 2012 appeasing pledge to outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev–– that after the election he would “have more flexibility” about the proposed European-based anti-missile defense system angering Russia––could convince Vladimir Putin to play ball with the U.S. on Iran and Syria. Obama’s groveling “reset” outreach has merely emboldened Russia to expand its influence and that of its satellites like Iran and Syria, at the expense of the interests and security of America and its allies.

Syria

Syria is another American enemy Obama thought his charm offensive could win over. To do so he had to ignore Syria’s long history of supporting terrorists outfits like Hezbollah, murdering its sectarian and political rivals, assassinating Lebanon’s anti-Syrian Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, and facilitating the transit of jihadists–– during one period over 90% of foreign fighters–– into Iraq to kill Americans. Yet Obama sent diplomatic officials on 6 trips to Syria in an attempt to make strongman Bashar al Assad play nice. In return, in 2010 Assad hosted a cozy conference with Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and the genocidal Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where they discussed “a Middle East without Zionists and without colonialists.” Despite such rhetoric, even as the uprising against Assad was unfolding in March 2011, Secretary of State Clinton said, “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”