RUTHFULLY YOURS

Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country. She is a graduate of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Academy for Civics and Government. She is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.” She also serves as a Senior Editor for NewMediaJourna.usl and a contributing writer to BigGovernment.com and FamilySecurityMatters.org.

As The 17th Century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes explained, absent a rule of law, man is dictated by a state of nature in which humans are in perpetual war. As rational beings, we can agree we’d rather be in a state of peace. As a matter of fact, Hobbes would assert that Laws of Nature impel us to seek peace. Hobbes suggested that man would transfer sovereign power to a ruler who would provide protection and safety. The framers embedded this objective, to “insure domestic tranquility” into the preamble of our US Constitution.

Serving as a catalyst to writing the US Constitution was Shay’s Rebellion. This particular event, which I’m certain many will remember learning about during American History, frightened the Framers because they were reminded that our freedom, which we’d fought for and won from England, was vulnerable. Our sovereignty as a nation could easily be lost due to internal dissention and inability to fend off attack from foreign nations who would eventually realize we were unable to defend our new nation against aggression under our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation.

All were in agreement that our first constitution was weak and ineffective; the question that needed their attention was one of how much power to bestow on our new government. This was given tremendous consideration and there was a deliberate effort to check and balance the ability to wield a great nation against those who might fall prey to abusing their authority. Though this was a gargantuan task, the Framers employed their knowledge of political philosophy and history, as well drawing from their English heritage and most recent experiences under British rule.

The enumeration of particular powers was designed to prevent overreach of authority and the separation of powers was to safeguard against any branch or person from becoming tyrannical. Finally, everything was written into a constitution, ensuring a rule of law and not men.

Anyone watching current events through a constitutional lens has clearly identified we are experiencing great insecurity as a nation. Our borders are not safe. Law enforcement agencies are unable to protect us against potential rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, who want vigilante style justice, as opposed to following laws and procedures put in place to protect us against our own passions. Terrorists are beheading Americans on foreign and domestic soil. Our own president invited illegal aliens across our borders and now wants to provide them amnesty, blatantly dismissing the division of powers which grants the legislative branch legislative authority and the executive branch the responsibility of executing the law.

In the musical, West Side Story, one of the many melodies was, “They’re Coming to America.” Neil Diamond made it a hit song. However, those immigrants from Puerto Rico were understood to be arriving legally. Now we have illegal aliens infiltrating our 1,989-mile-long southern border, but many coming to the sound of a very different and horribly discordant tune; one tinged with Islamic and/or Arabic overtones.

According to recently released data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 5,063 individuals from nations that harbor Islamic terrorists were arrested last year alone trying to cross into America from Mexico. None of these were Mexicans, Guatemalans, or Hondurans; they were citizens from far-away nations consumed by militant Islam.

Afghanistan, where U.S. troops battle the Taliban, is the home of 70 people arrested at the southern frontier in 2013 alone.

Syria, birthplace of ISIS and a civil war ravaged nation with over 200,000 dead saw 72 of its countrymen captured at our border.

Sudan, designated by the State Department as an official “state sponsor of terrorism,” where Christians in the south have been the subject of massive genocide by the Arab Muslim north, was the starting point for 168 individuals who were stopped en-route to the U.S.A.

Iran, the ultimate Islamic state sponsor of terrorism, is busy trying to build an atomic bomb. A total of 257 Iranians got caught on our border.

Nigeria — headquarters of al-Qaeda offshoot Boko-Haram, which practices child-sex slavery and anti-Christian genocide — is the nation from which 492 people departed before getting snagged on the way into America.

But these are only the culprits that were caught. Those that have escaped capture and successfully infiltrated the U.S. may now well run into the thousands and constitute numerous sleeper cells waiting to unleash atrocities in our towns and cities in the name of Allah.

Just as in previous cycles of negotiations between the P5 + 1 (Security Council permanent members U.S., Russia, China, Great Britain, and France, plus Germany) and Iran, the parties are butting up against another deadline. It’s November 24 this time around, and many issues remain.

Should the parties not reach an agreement, it is all but certain that the talks will be extended for another six- or twelve-month period rather than break down. Just as with the 21-year “peace process” between Israelis and Palestinians, no one is willing to accept that failure is not only an option, but reality.

The major difference between the Israeli-Palestinian track and the nuclear negotiations is that Israel is not a party to the nuclear talks. The nation most impacted by Iran becoming a nuclear power has to rely on other nations to represent its interests by preventing that from occurring. The danger is that an agreement that Israel considers an imbalanced and dangerous deal might be eagerly signed by an American government now anxious for some positive foreign policy achievement. The Obama administration has a very long losing streak both domestically and overseas, which now includes a second wipeout in a midterm election.

Obama has, throughout his six years in office, eagerly sought to change the American relationship with Iran, and for that matter, with Israel: one up, one down. At this point, Iran is cooperating with the U.S. in the fight with ISIS in Iraq and — to a lesser extent — in Syria (where the U.S. is less involved). Both parties seem eager to achieve stabilization in Iraq in particular. If that goal is achieved, Iran will have secured one more nation for its growing collection of Shiite-friendly regimes to add to Lebanon, Syria, and now Yemen. If ISIS is defeated in Iraq, then it will also be easier for Iranian proxy armies, such as Hezbollah and its own militias, to concentrate on wiping them out in Syria. Then Iran could get back to its primary interest: leading and supporting the fight against Israel.

The BBC has been accused of “shameful hypocrisy” over its decision to spend £200,000 blocking a freedom of information request about its reporting in the Middle East.

The corporation, which has itself made extensive use of FOI requests in its journalism, is refusing to release papers about an internal inquiry into whether its reporting has been biased towards Palestine.

BBC chiefs have been accused of wasting thousands of pounds of licence fee payers money trying to cover-up the findings of the so called Balen Report into its journalism in the region, despite the fact that the corporation is funded by the British public.

The corporation is fighting a landmark High Court action, which starts next week, in a bid to prevent the public finding out what is in the review, which is believed to be critical of the BBC’s coverage in the region.

BBC bosses have faced repeated claims that is coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed by a pro-Palestianian bias.

The corporation famously came under fire after middle-east correspondent Barbara Plett revealed that she had cried at the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004.

The BBC’s decision to carry on pursuing the case, despite the fact than the Information Tribunal said it should make the report public, has sparked fury as it flies in the face of claims by BBC chiefs that it is trying to make the corporation more open and transparent.

Politicians have branded the BBC’s decision to carry on spending money, hiring the one of the country’s top public law barrister in the process, as “absolutely indefensible”.

They claim its publication is clearly in the public interest.

What is the Obama administration allowing to be broadcast all over the Middle East? We cannot know without broadcasts in English. Taxpayers must demand to know. Is Alhura TV and Radio Sawa worth the cost? Does it provide any value to us, or does it harm our allies and therefore ultimately harm Americans? Demand answers. Demand accountability. Begin with the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Does anyone know about the Alhurra Network? About Radio Sawa? Most will be shocked to learn that little known Alhurra costs American tax papers, including many American Israelis up to $100,000,000.00 (one hundred million dollars) a year, or more!

What is this U.S. government-funded operation’s mission? It is “to broadcast accurate, timely and relevant news and information about the region, the world and the United States to a broad, Arabic-speaking audience.” Sounds good, that is, until you ask questions that go below the surface. Broadcasting from Alhurra began February, 2004. The objective was to counter media campaigns terrorists use by accurate news reporting and analysis as well as to explain U.S. policies.

Alhurra is sponsored by the United States government and supported by United States tax dollars, so why are broadcasts not translated into English in order to share it with the American public? After all who is paying the bills? I wish this were a fairytale, but unfortunately, it is not. Alhurra is real and operates out of state-of-the-art studios right in the heart of Jerusalem. Yet, neither Israelis nor Americans know much about it. I saw the operation with my own eyes. American tax-payers gift their hard-earned dollars to Alhurra. But, ten years after her birth, Alhurra is still not available to the English-speaking world. Why? Alhurra is regulated by a law that prohibits a government-funded news service dedicated to providing news to a foreign audience from broadcasting to the domestic audience of the United States.

This type of news service falls under the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the BBG. The Smith-Mundt Act regulations were eased by the recent passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act. However the BBG still insists that it is only allowed to create programs for foreign audiences. The BBG “does not seek to change that.” Why? What are they sending out to foreign audiences that Americans and Israelis might not like? There is very little oversight over Alhurra’s reporters and commentators.

There are terror attacks, and there are pogroms. The attack at a Jerusalem synagogue this week that killed four rabbis was a pogrom. It was an attack motivated not by politics but by religious hatred; it was directed not at Israelis but at Jews.

The killers were armed with hatchets and guns instead of suicide belts, and they came not to kill Jews but to butcher them. The images are horrific: a prayer shawl in a pool of blood; a prayer book turned crimson, from which one of the victims had been worshiping as he was killed; and more haunting, the hand of a dead man, still wearing his phylacteries, soaking in his own blood. Witnesses said a worshiper’s arm, also wrapped in a leather prayer strap, had been hacked off its torso.

To Jews schooled in Jewish history, these images are not new; they are the images of a destiny from which Israel had been intended to redeem the Jews. Consider this description of the Kishinev Pogrom in 1903:

[One young boy], blinded in one eye from youth, begged for his life with the offer of sixty rubles; taking this money, the leader of the crowd … gouged out [his] other eye, saying “You will never again look upon a Christian child.” Nails were driven through heads; bodies, hacked in half; bellies split open and filled with feathers. Women and girls were raped, and some had their breasts cut off.

Jews knew that sort of hatred could not be combated with reason. Violence of that sort was not motivated by economics, by contested territory or even by history. It was, they understood, malignant Jew-hatred at its core, driven by a millenniums-old sickness from which Europe would never recover.

The 20th century was to have been the century of reason, of banishing ancient hatreds. But when the Kishinev poison was unleashed with the new century already under way (they had no inkling, of course, of how horrific the century would become), they knew they needed to flee.

At the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, evoked Kishinev not as an event, but as a condition. “Kishinev exists wherever … [Jews’] self-respect is injured and their property despoiled because they are Jews. Let us save those who can still be saved!” The Jews, he insisted, needed a state of their own.

He was not the first to say this. When the assassination of Czar Alexander II in 1881 unleashed a similar burst of murderous anti-Jewish violence, an earlier Zionist, Yehuda Leib Pinsker, wrote that “the misfortunes of the Jews are due, above all, to their lack of desire for national independence; … if they do not wish to exist forever in a disgraceful state … they must become a nation.” As long as the Jew was landless and stateless, Pinsker argued as Herzl would once again a decade and a half later, the Jew would persist in a “disgraceful state.” He, too, argued that there was no choice — the Jews needed to flee Europe.

Daniel Greenfield on “Obama’s Fantasies about Un-Islamic Jihad” — on The Glazov Gang »
Why a Radical-in-Chief calls a beheaded American by a Muslim name.

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He writes the blog, “The Point,” on Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel came on the show to discuss Obama’s Fantasies about Un-Islamic Jihad, analyzing the Radical-in-Chief’s responses to the Jerusalem synagogue massacre, the Islamic State’s beheading of Peter Kassig, and much, much more:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/daniel-greenfield-on-obamas-fantasies-about-un-islamic-jihad-on-the-glazov-gang/

A diplomatic mission was slapped down in the middle of a city controlled by terrorists. The diplomatic mission was left mostly undefended, despite multiple requests by everyone in Libya right up to the deceased ambassador, except by a militia gang linked to Al Qaeda which wasn’t getting paid.

At a time when the State Department was spending fortunes on bad art, on Kindles at the bargain price of $6,000 a reader, not to mention renovating the mansion residence of a political donor/ambassador in Europe who would be the subject of yet another cover-up after being accused of pedophilia (but not before causing a public scandal by blaming anti-Semitism on the Jews) there was no money for securing a diplomatic mission that was so far behind enemy lines it might as well have been in the middle of Iran.

And again it was no one’s fault. Despite multiple whistleblowers from the State Department coming forward, most of them left of center types who wouldn’t spit on a Koch Brother, the panels and committees wrote the establishment a blank check.

It was no one’s fault. Anyone who disagreed with the assertion that the murder of four Americans might be someone’s fault was a right-wing conspiracy theorist. Anyone who thought that we should listen to the testimony of Gregory Hicks, the highest ranking diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Stevens was killed, or to Ambassador Stevens’ own messages asking for more security, was a crazed nutjob.

Only a lunatic would think this might be someone’s fault.

“When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador’s authority,” Hicks wrote. “On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris’s authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.”

“For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report,” he added.

Obama’s executive order granting amnesty to 4 million illegal aliens exposes yet again the hypocrisy and cynicism of the most partisan administration in recent history. Typical of a president who seemingly can’t remember or doesn’t care what he has publicly told the people, Obama went ahead and took action that more than 20 times he had publicly said he couldn’t legally take­­. And he did so not because of some pressing “crisis” of illegals living “in the shadows,” a rationale that ignores the real crisis–– illegal deadbeats and thugs serially passing though a porous border in order to create mayhem and disorder in our communities. Rather, this action was a rank partisan gift to vocal activists and clients of the Democratic Party.

More important, however, this latest instance of presidential overreach undermines the most important foundation of the Western political tradition going back to the ancient Greeks––the suspicion of any necessarily flawed man’s excessive power that inevitably flouts the limits imposed by the supreme law of the land.

In ancient Athens, for example, the turannos or “tyrant” was the exemplar of the dangers that flow from excessive power vested in one person. It wasn’t that the tyrant was completely evil and oppressive. Many Greek tyrants, like the Athenian Peisistratus, benefitted their communities. Yet given human nature, even a well-meaning leader given excessive power often will abuse it to gratify his own selfish desires, ambitions, and interests at the expense of the law and the freedom of his fellow citizens. In ancient Greek political thought, the tyrant became the monitory example of power’s ability to corrupt, and thus often was depicted as violent, paranoid, and excessive in his actions.

The American founders were intimately familiar with this tradition. For them a generalissimo like Julius Caesar, who violated the Roman Republican constitution and ruled as an autocrat until his assassination, was the warning against creating a too powerful executive. One of the most popular Romans of the pre-Revolutionary period was Cato the Younger, who committed suicide rather than submit to Caesar. Joseph Addison’s play Cato was the most popular theatrical production of this period. George Washington had it produced for his troops during the grim winter at Valley Forge, and Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty, or give me death” was a paraphrase of a line from the play.

1. Obama isn’t implementing amnesty. He’s fighting amnesty or something.

“I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today… That’s the real amnesty – leaving this broken system the way it is.”

In a speech filled with howlers and crazy lies, Obama’s claim that deporting illegal aliens is amnesty but giving them legal status isn’t, tops the list.

Somewhere George Orwell is climbing out of a grave and calling his lawyer. Really, we can now add “deportation is amnesty and legalization is deportation” to the old freedom and war list.

2. We are a nation of laws

“Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable… “

The least appropriate time to namecheck America as a nation of laws is when you have to decided to…

A. Illegally usurp Congress

B. Provide sanction to lawbreakers

C. Disregard the very immigration laws you’re mentioning

When you use phone and pen to run everything, then the country isn’t a nation of laws. It’s a nation of executive orders.

3. Amnesty for 5 million illegals isn’t “mass amnesty”

“Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I’m describing is accountability – a commonsense, middle ground approach”

Obama has a bad habit of claiming to be the centrist because he’s standing between two strawmen extremes. But this is pathetic even by that measure.

Here he’s seriously claiming that amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens isn’t “mass amnesty”. If not every single illegal alien has been amnestied, then it’s not “mass amnesty”.

Is there anyone out there stupid enough to believe that?

4. Which part of illegal don’t you understand?

“But even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is, millions of immigrants – in every state, of every race and nationality – will still live here illegally…”

Illegally entering the US is a crime. Illegal aliens are criminals. Identity theft, routine among illegals, is also a crime.

5. No, seriously

“I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they’ve gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But that’s not what these steps would do.”

After summarizing some of the problems from his amnesty, Obama’s response is “no they won’t”. That’s it. Followed by using some kids as human shields.

Obama isn’t even bothering to have a debate. He falls back into his usual sanctimonious “I hear what you’re saying, now let me ignore it.”