RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.capsweb.org/blog/how-why

As Americans, we need to more frequently ask our political leaders “How?” and “Why?”

When politicians say, in unison and virtually by rote, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform would help the U.S. economy,” we need to ask, “How?” Each year, $100 to $200 billion is wired out of the United States to the home countries of both legal and illegal foreign workers in the U.S. Clearly, this has an impact on the economy. Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) would increase these remittances and increase the deficit by more than a half trillion dollars.

When politicians tell us that adding unknown millions of authorized foreign workers to a labor pool of unemployed and unemployed American workers would magically enable those struggling American workers and their families to find work, we need to ask, “How?”

Today, one in five American children lives in poverty and goes to bed hungry at night. Tragically, they may later turn to crime to escape poverty because they have no opportunities. Yet, politicians blithely say that educating foreign students and granting them visas so they can work here would help lift Americans out of poverty. We need to ask them, “How?”

CIR would significantly increase the number of H-1B visas for high-tech workers. Politicians who support the claim that admitting many more high-tech foreign workers would help desperate unemployed and underemployed highly educated American workers need to be asked, “How?”

http://americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/when_israel_supporters_use_the_language_of_delegitimization.html

When US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said it was a “mistake” for Israel to demand recognition as the Jewish State it shows how deeply the language of delegitimization has been adopted by even the most ardent of Israel supporters.

Another example of this was New Jersey Governor, and potential Republican presidential candidate, Chris Christie. In front of a crowd of Jewish Republican fund-raisers in Los Vegas, hosted by Sheldon Adelson, a close friend of Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Christie said, “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories and felt personally how extraordinary that was to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.”

When challenged by the head of Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, Christie apologized saying his remark was not meant as a statement of policy. Didn’t he know that Israel has legitimate claims to this land?

The UJA-Federation of New York decided this year to allow organizations such as New Israel Fund, which promote the boycott of Israel, to march in the annual Israel Day Parade. How misguided and wrong can that be? They permit groups that assist in the delegimitization of Israel in an event that should be affirmatively pro-Israel.

We increasing see well intentioned, powerful and influential people, who have the close attention of the media, make misplaced statements that feed into the adoption of a viewpoint that Israel has no legitimate right to be where it is.

The misuse of language and deed is an indicator not only of the general public’s views, it also displays how pro-Israel influential voices are chasing a narrative that is driven by the Palestinian side of the conflict.

One perfect example of terminology drift can be seen with the area once known as Judea & Samaria becoming “disputed territory,” then the West Bank, and now “illegally occupied Palestinian land.” Any staunch Israeli, or dispassionate neutral, would argue that it is neither illegal, nor occupied, and certainly not Palestinian land according to international law and binding resolutions going back as far as the League of Nations Mandate of 1922. All this has not stopped the flow of terminology becoming accepted language.

How did this state of affairs come about? Well, it boils down to two major factors;

1) A highly successful pro-Palestinian publicity campaign.

2) A dereliction of duty by consecutive Israeli governments and prime ministers.

Some say the demonization and delegitimization of Israel began at the infamous 2001 UN Conference on Racism at Durban in South Africa which produced the hateful “Zionism is Racism” slogan, and gave birth to the accusations of an apartheid Israel. However, the refusal to accept Jewish rights to an independent state was forcefully demonstrated back in 1947 when the Arab nations violently rejected UN Resolution 181 which called for recognition of a Jewish state. They unsuccessfully launched major wars against the nascent Jewish state which led them in anger, following yet another defeat in 1967, to gather in Khartoum and declare three “No’s” against Israel. No peace, no negotiations, no recognition. This was reconfirmed by the Arab League as recently as March 25, 2014, when Arab leaders again declared that they will never recognize Israel as the Jewish state. So much for the Arab Peace Initiative!

But, to go back in time, out of Egypt came Yasser Arafat to cloak himself in the mantle of Palestine. Initially, he saw himself as the spearhead of the Pan-Arabic aggression against Israel. As he said in a 1970 interview with Italian journalist Arianna Palazzi, “The question of borders doesn’t interest us. Our nation is the Arabic nation. The PLO is fighting Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism. What you call Jordan is nothing more than Palestine.”

This hatred of Israel conglomerated into what is known as the Palestinian cause. By portraying Israel as a colonialist, powerful, aggressive, oppressive, racist, occupier of a poor, defenseless, weak, indigenous Palestinian people a picture is painted that, to the impressionable, inevitably leads to a negative opinion of an Israel accused of the worst examples of war crimes and human rights abuses, and a sympathy for the weak Palestinians. That is the perception today.

It leads to the ridiculous, but dangerous, situation where church leaders gather in Bethlehem to accuse Israel of abuses, and they do this in a once-Christian town where their co-religionists have been driven out and persecuted not only by the non-Christian Palestinians who have taken over their homes and businesses, but also by officials of the Palestinian Authority including Arafat himself who confiscated the Greek Orthodox mission to make it his official Bethlehem residence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375161/marco-rubios-jeb-problem-eliana-johnson

Marco Rubio’s Jeb Problem Would a presidential run by his mentor lock Rubio out of the race? By Eliana Johnson

A decision by Jeb Bush to jump into the 2016 race would presumably make him, in an instant, the establishment front-runner. It could also have an enormous impact on his fellow Floridian Marco Rubio, whose political career Bush has nurtured from its inception.

A Bush run would create both personal and political obstacles for Rubio. It would either force him to defer a 2016 run entirely or put him in the uncomfortable position of campaigning against a longtime friend and political mentor.

Several Republican political analysts say they have difficulty imagining that Rubio will launch a presidential bid if Bush decides to enter the race. That’s something that, according to a recent Washington Post report, many of Mitt Romney’s major donors are urging Bush to do. If Jeb gets in the race, “then I think Rubio does not,” a top Republican strategist tells me. A Bush run, says another, “would complicate things for Rubio pretty severely.” Ana Navarro, a GOP strategist and a friend of Bush’s and Rubio’s, is more direct: “I cannot see Jeb and Marco running against each other.”

Some say that, if Bush decides to run, the Republican establishment will put pressure on Rubio to wait his turn. “This is the one window of opportunity for Governor Bush, and Senator Rubio will have many windows of opportunity in the future,” says American Conservative Union (ACU) president Al Cardenas, who served two terms as chairman of the Florida GOP when Bush was governor and Rubio was a state representative.

Others, though, including some who know them both, say the men will make their decisions independently. “I don’t think Jeb’s decision is going to hinge on who else is running,” Navarro says. “I suspect the same is true for Marco. The decision has to come from within them.”

Greg Abbott’s Spine of Steel- The Texas gubernatorial candidate talks about his disability. By Daniel Allott

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/375171/print

Greg Abbott is attorney general of Texas and the Republican nominee for governor. He spoke with Daniel Allott about his life as a politician with a disability.

ALLOTT: Can you talk about how you sustained your injury, and how it affected your choice of profession? Were you planning a career in politics? If so, did you think that you’d have to change those plans in the immediate aftermath of your injury?

ABBOTT: Twenty-nine years ago, I faced a challenge that made it highly improbable that I would be running for governor today. While I was jogging, a huge oak tree suddenly crashed down on me, crushing my spinal cord and leaving me unable to walk.

The immediate aftermath of my accident was, naturally, a very painful and difficult time — both physically and spiritually. I was extremely blessed to have faith, family, and friends — especially the steadfast support of my wife, Cecilia — to help me through this tough time and help me come out of it a stronger person.

A lot of candidates say they have a spine of steel, but I like to point out that I’m the only one out there who actually has a spine of steel!

ALLOTT: You’ve mentioned before that being paralyzed makes you more empathetic toward others, especially people who use wheelchairs. Does it inform your policy positions or political priorities?

ABBOTT: The accident that put me in this wheelchair has helped me to understand the challenges that people in Texas and across this country face every day. After my accident, I realized our lives aren’t defined by how we’re challenged. Instead, we define our lives by how we respond to challenges. I believe that the best way to help all Texans is to fight for policies that ensure greater prosperity and economic freedom. Everyone deserves the opportunity to overcome adversity and achieve success.

Not all GOP incumbents and challengers have cold feet…and there are some in all states who are opposed to blanket amnesty….and the issue remains a priority in the nation. ….rsk

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/375167/print

It’s tiresome and, frankly, lazy to blame racism for GOP reluctance to reform immigration anytime soon. The more plausible explanation is that Republicans do not trust Obama to enforce any new legislation. As it is, Obama is not exactly Mr. Enforcement on immigration.

As with Obamacare, Obama selectively executes immigration laws. The result is chaos.

• Last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials freed 67,879 illegal-alien criminal convicts, rather than detain or deport them. The Center for Immigration Studies calls this policy “Catch and Release.”

“The release of so many convicted criminals back into U.S. communities, when they could be removed to their home countries, is a large-scale abuse of authority that inevitably leads to public harm,” states a CIS paper. “This phenomenon was quantified in 2012 in a report commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee. This analysis found that 26,000 illegal aliens who were released instead of removed went on to commit another 58,000 crimes soon after release. These additional crimes included 59 murders, 21 attempted murders, more than 4,000 major felonies, and 1,000 other violent crimes.” The last category included carjacking, child molestation, and lynching.

Now that Obama has liberated twice as many illegal-alien convicts as the House analyzed, Americans should brace for brand-new felonies and homicides. As these victims pile up, their blood will drip from Obama’s fingers.

• The U.S. Border Patrol last month issued new orders to its 21,000 officers. They now must retreat even if physically attacked by violent illegal aliens who have breached America’s southern frontier.

“Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles,” says the March 7 directive from Border Patrol chief Michael Fisher. “Agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves.” As Fisher’s memorandum states:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/375138/print

The word “liberal” has taken a beating over the last few days: A Mozilla executive was hounded out of his position at the firm he co-founded by left-wing campaigners resolved to punish him for having made a donation to a successful California ballot initiative that defined marriage in traditional terms; Adam Weinstein, whose downwardly mobile credibility has taken him from ABC to Gawker, called for literally imprisoning people with the wrong views about global warming, writing, “Those malcontents must be punished and stopped”; Mr. Weinstein himself was simply forwarding a dumbed-down-enough-for-Gawker version of the arguments of philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello; Katherine Timpf, a reporter for Campus Reform, faced a human barricade to keep her from asking questions of those attending a feminist leadership conference, whose organizers informed her that the group was “inclusive” and therefore she was “not welcome here”; Charles Murray, one of the most important social scientists of his generation, was denounced as a “known white supremacist” by Texas Democrats for holding heterodox views about education policy; national Democrats spent the week arguing for the anti-free-speech side of a landmark First Amendment case and the anti-religious-freedom side of a case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; Lois Lerner, the Left’s best friend at the IRS, faces contempt charges related to her role in the Democrats’ coopting the IRS as a weapon against their political enemies; Harry Reid, a liberal champion of campaign-finance reform, was caught channeling tens of thousands of dollars to his granddaughter while conspicuously omitting her surname, which is also his surname, from official documents, cloaking the transaction, while one of his California colleagues, a liberal champion of gun control, was indicted on charges of running guns to an organized-crime syndicate.

The convocation of clowns on the left screeched with one semi-literate and inchoate voice when my colleague Jonah Goldberg, borrowing the precise words of one of their own, titled a book Liberal Fascism. Most of them didn’t read it, but the ones who did apparently took what was intended as criticism and read it as a blueprint for political action.

Welcome to the Liberal Gulag.

Eich and others who opposed same-sex marriage, even years ago, are being punished.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/375159/print

Let’s face it. Brendan Eich is large, white, and rich, and a computer geek — not the kind of profile that automatically elicited sympathy last week when the CEO of Mozilla was forced to step down for contributing $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, a 2008 measure stipulating that marriage in California could be only between a man and a woman.

But all of us should care about the political orthodoxy that forced out Eich and that is taking hold in our country. “I don’t believe this is a question of suppressing free speech,” Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, a key gay-rights group, told the Associated Press. The AP quoted Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, as saying, “It seems to me when a society makes a determination that something is wrong, for example racial hatred, then somehow it’s not intolerant to insist upon that understanding.” Good-bye to tolerance for diverse opinions.

Eric Dezenhall, who heads a prominent crisis-communications firm in Washington, D.C., told Forbes magazine: “There is a very specific narrative today on certain issues, and if you step an inch out of bounds, you’re going to get fouled or worse. [Eich] stepped on one of the three great land mines: gay rights, race, and the environment. You don’t have to have made flagrantly terrible statements to get into trouble now.”

Indeed. Consider the case of Angela McCaskill, the first African-American woman to earn a Ph.D. at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., a school for the deaf and hard of hearing. In 2012, she was one of 200,000 people to sign a petition in support of a referendum challenging a law that recognizes gay marriage in Maryland, where she lived. The anti-same-sex referendum made the ballot and lost 52 percent to 48 percent that November. But 54 percent of African Americans in Maryland opposed same-sex marriage, according to an exit poll conducted by the Associated Press.

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/number-one/?print=1

There is a pastime among liberal pundits — the latest is Nicholas Kristof [1]— to quote a new center left global ranking (with unbiased titles such as “The Social Progress Imperative”) and then to decry that the United States is behind its major industrial competitors in things like “Internet Access” and “Ecosystem sustainability.” The subtext of these rants is that an illiberal, reactionary U.S. does not spend enough on government entitlements to promote parity, equality and social justice among its citizenry. These pessimistic rankings increase the angst about the American condition when viewed from scowling perches in Washington or New York.

Not surprisingly, the winners in these periodic gloomy assessments are usually smaller or intermediate quasi-socialist nations, with mostly homogeneous ethnic and religious populations (e.g., Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland, Denmark, etc.). And the result is that Americans are scolded to tone down their pride [2] at being exceptional and to begin to emulate such supposedly more livable societies.

Yet I suppose that if you were to assess, say, the mostly 5.6 million homogenously well off Californians, who lived within 10 miles of the coast, from San Diego to Berkeley, they would compare quite nicely with Denmark. Or for that matter, should the Danish system be applied to 300 million in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, I also think that they would sink a bit in terms of social progress.

The criteria by which America is to be judged are often both biased and historically ignorant. Why not rank the United States in comparison with other similarly huge countries that span three time zones, and include in their enormous populations radically different ethnic and religious groups?

The latest U.N. report tones down the alarmism but ramps up the bad economics.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579477222157281450?mod=Opinion_newsreel_3

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its latest mammoth report last week, and the effort marks an improvement over the IPCC’s last such effort in 2007. That may not be saying much, but on climate change intellectual progress of any sort is worth commending.

The IPCC’s “Fifth Assessment Report,” or AR5, is generating the usual alarmist headlines: “Impacts on All Continents, Worse to Come” was typical. That’s partly a function of what the IPCC frontloads into the 28-page “summary for policymakers,” the only portion of the report that most politicians or journalists ever bother reading, and that is sexed up for mass media consumption.

So it’s worth diving deeper into the report, where a much more cautious picture of the state of climate science comes into view. Gone are some of the false alarmist claims from the last report, such as the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 or that hurricanes are becoming more intense. “Current data sets,” the report admits, “indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” Recall the false claims of climate cause and storm effect last year after Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579481402659166832?mg=reno64-wsj

Testimony by the former acting head of the CIA makes clear that Congress’s current approach isn’t sufficient.

Last week’s encounter between former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and the House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence may have brought us a bit closer to the truth of how four Americans came to be killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and how their countrymen came to be lied to about it. But the progress toward truth was probably not made in a way that Mr. Morell intended. The encounter on Capitol Hill also made clear that the forum that will take us all the way to the truth must be something other than a congressional hearing.

Mr. Morell announced at the start of the hearing that he was there to refute claims that he had “inappropriately altered CIA’s classified analysis and its unclassified talking points . . . for the political benefit of President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton.” Critics of the government’s performance on Benghazi have charged that Mr. Morell’s revisions principally although not exclusively involved changing the description of the violence and its perpetrators, and removing the suggestion that they might have had ties to a terrorist organization. These changes, it is argued, enabled Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, to promote the discredited and since abandoned narrative that the violence was a reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video produced by a probationer in Los Angeles.