RUTHFULLY YOURS

The American Studies Association (ASA), allegedly a scholarly association – (“our nation’s oldest (1951) and largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history,”) has abandoned its scholarly pursuits to boycott Israel, and banned Israel’s university representatives participation in a forthcoming academic conference at a California hotel/resort. The chain subsequently declined. Why would a once-respectable organization depart from its stated mission, and take on a jihadist agenda? Answer: moral bankruptcy – clearly and definitively anti-Semitic, they have chosen Marxism and Islamism over democracy, virtue, and integrity.

Jihadist professors want to isolate Israel for the “Palestinian cause,” a deflection and façade for the greater global threat of world domination. A blood-thirsty lot, Mahmoud Abbas has openly called for the murder of Israelis. The reign of terror has begun on the Jewish state, just as it is underway in other countries. This is the group that ASA supports; this is the group that ASA has become.

As I noted last December, 2013:

[Then-]President Curtis Marez admitted that there are worse countries than Israel but, he added, “One has to start somewhere.” Can you picture Marez as part of a firefighting team sent to extinguish a blaze in Southern California, and he’ll start “somewhere” in North Dakota? So they’re boycotting Israel’s universities, which are also attended by Palestinian students, rather than boycotting Palestinian universities, which were instituted by Israel but are prohibited to Jewish students.

All but the comatose know that Israel has won more Nobel prizes per capita than any other country, has more laureates in real numbers than China, Mexico and Spain; publishes more books translated from other languages, and Israelis read more books per capita than any other nation. She leads with the number of scientists and technicians in the work force (exceeding the U.S. by 63%) and most physicians and engineers per capita, ranks third in producing the most scientific papers per capita, and her contributions to medicine and agriculture are beyond miraculous. With Israel’s dedication to morality and improving life, she appears as the moral conscience that Islam and ASA resent. The association has chosen tyranny over democracy, using Palestinian propaganda to trash Israel, while also harming America and the entire non-Islamic world. We are all Islam’s despised infidels.

The government of Canada took an historic step yesterday by signing the Ottawa Protocol to combat anti-Semitism. By doing so, it recognized anti-Semitism as a pernicious evil and a global threat against the Jewish people, the State of Israel and free, democratic countries everywhere. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has noted, “Those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people would ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as Well.”

The protocol is a declaration that hatred of this nature will not be tolerated in this country. It sets out an action plan for supporting initiatives that combat anti-Semitism and provides a framework for other nations to follow.

It also sets out a vibrant definition of anti-Semitism which, for the first time in history, links anti-Semitism to the denial of the right Jewish people have to their ancestral home land — the State of Israel. This, in fact, is what sets post-World War Two anti-Semitism apart from its historic roots. Today’s anti-Semitism is all about denial: denial of the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish movement to reclaim the land of Israel; denial of a Jewish history in connection to the holy land and, in particular, the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people; denial of The Holocaust (while at the same time accusing Jews of Nazism); and denial of Jews to live free of anti-Semitism, hate and intolerance.

In announcing the Protocols, Foreign Minister John Baird has expressed his government’s unequivocal support for the State of Israel. In referring to this week’s turmoil at the United Nations and the Palestinian threat to unilaterally declare a state, Baird said, “Canada will not stand behind Israel at the United Nations, we will stand right beside it. It is never a bad thing to do the right thing.”

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-GinsburgWriting Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. His book The Third Choice explains the implications for Christians of living under Islamic rule.

A slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood is “Islam is the solution”. Dean Philip Jensen recently stated in regard to the Islamic State (ISIS) that “It is time to face the truth that Islam itself is part of the problem.” Solution or problem: what is the truth about Islam?

The world has been shocked by ISIS, which has committed beheadings, crucifixions, stonings, enslaving and selling captives, and imposing the notorious ‘three choices’ upon Syrian and Iraqi Christians. More than this, it has showed itself proud to do such things. The fact that thousands of Muslims from around the world have been traveling to the Levant to join ISIS suggests that these people also consider the acts of ISIS to be in accordance with Islam.

The publicly stated position of ISIS is that it is motivated by religious devotion. The English language version of the ISIS magazine Dabiq recently praised the enslavement of the Yazidis, a non-Muslim group in northern Iraq. The article ‘The Revival of Slavery Before the Hour’, defended the practice from Islamic legal history, the example of the first Muslims, and Muhammad himself: “The enslaved Yazidi families are now sold by the Islamic State soldiers as the mushrikīn [idolators] were sold by the Companions [of Muhammad] … before them. … enslaving the families of the kuffār [non-Muslims] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharī’ah that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur’ān and the narratives of the Prophet [Muhammad] … and thereby apostatizing from Islam.” ISIS is a product of Islamic revivalism. After enduring several centuries of Islamic decline, a view developed across the Muslim world that if only Muslims were more religiously observant, Allah would make them ascendant again. This conviction has driven the Islamic revival, which seeks to renew Islam by going back to original sources, including the life of Muhammad.

The de Blasio Democrats For a party that trumpets its populism and democratic heritage, their brazen apathy toward public sentiment is astounding. By Matthew Continetti

Bill de Blasio, the New York mayor, says he knows why Democrats lost the 2014 election. Income inequality defines our times, he said during a visit to Washington this week, and his party did not talk about the issue enough. De Blasio needs a hearing aid: Democrats speak of little else.

Dodging questions about Hillary Clinton, de Blasio praised Elizabeth Warren. He called the liberal heroine “one of the indispensable voices” among Democrats, and appeared with her at a Center for American Progress event later that day. The policy conference featured other darlings of the Left: Julian Castro, Tammy Baldwin, Kamala Harris, Bishop Gene Robinson, Gina McCarthy, and John Podesta. Listening to the speakers, you would not have known that two weeks earlier liberalism had encountered its worst setback in decades.

Indeed, President Obama and congressional Democrats have shown no signs of rethinking their political and policy strategies following the 2014 election. The president has veered left, calling for government regulation of the Internet, agreeing to a burdensome climate deal with China, and ordering an amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Harry Reid elevated Warren to a leadership position and voted to kill the Keystone pipeline — as well as Mary Landrieu’s Senate career. Nancy Pelosi, the most unpopular congressional leader in the country, is going nowhere.

The gap between Democratic performance and liberal behavior is stunning. President Obama is responsible for two of four postwar GOP landslides, polls show Americans dissatisfied with Washington and eager to have congressional Republicans set the agenda, and there is growing fear among Democratic consultants and journalists that the party is headed toward more defeats. How have liberals responded? By blowing a raspberry in all of our faces.

If Congress remains silent, it acquiesces in the president’s constitutional excesses.

In reacting to President Obama’s extraordinary abuse of his power on immigration, Republican officeholders are wisely steering clear of talk of impeachment. “I don’t want to do the ‘I-word,’ nobody wants to throw the nation into that kind of turmoil,” Representative Steve King, an anti-illegal-immigration firebrand, told CNN.

But King and others are pointing out that there is another way for Congress to move against a president who has put himself above the law. And it’s one that Democrats once favored as a means of dealing with Bill Clinton’s perjury under oath and subsequent cover-up of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. None other than Nancy Pelosi proposed that the House censure Bill Clinton, rather than impeach him. She and other House Democrats backed a resolution declaring that President Clinton “fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress.”

Certainly some action beyond Congress suing the president and trying to withhold money from his efforts to implement his executive orders is needed. A failure to resist President Obama’s repeated, serious offenses against his oath of office not only endangers the Constitution today, but provides a blueprint for future generations to suffer similar assaults from another president.

But what can Congress and the American people do?

The impeachment of a president is a very grave step, a sort of “nuclear option” to be avoided unless absolutely required. Not only is its explicit purpose to legislatively overturn the sovereign judgment of the people at the ballot box, its impact on the work of the government and national life is deeply corrosive.

Congress’ placating the president on immigration would establish a precedent for lawless executive action.

Dear Reader (including those of you in the shadows),

Like a cannibal in a coma ward, I have no idea where to begin. It is always remarkable to me — which is why I am remarking upon it — how the only way this president can be rescued from a bad news cycle is if an even worse one comes along. This is a source of frustration for many on the right who get outraged by the fact that “we” don’t talk enough about Fast & Furious or Benghazi or the IRS scandal or the VA scandal or Ukraine/Syria/Islamic State/China/Libya/Gitmo . . . . etc. The reason some of these topics get pushed to the backburner, even on the right, is that another controversy or scandal suddenly eclipses the previous one. If I ask you to hold a bowling ball and then, five minutes later, I surprise you by throwing a second bowling ball at you and shouting “Catch!” it’s sort of unfair for me to expect you not to drop the ball. (“That may be the worst thing you’ve ever written” — The Couch.)

Phase One of Grubergate came to an end not because the White House or Jonathan Gruber or his legions of activist-journalist homunculi offered the necessary answers or contrition, but because a bigger mess came along. The current fight over Obama’s immigration diktat will probably end when the White House throws Israel under the Mother of All Buses by striking a deal with Iran (already Bibi Netanyahu must feel like Joe Pesci as he walked into the room with plastic sheets on the floor in Goodfellas). The subsequent controversy over that will likely subside when the administration reveals it has been running an illegal dogfighting ring in the White House basement. That brouhaha will conclude when Biden lets it slip that he routinely hunts human beings for sport on the grounds of the Vice President’s residence.

It’s My Way or My Way

So let me bow to the power of this fully operational news cycle and talk about the immigration thing first.

For the last several weeks, the White House’s court spinners have been arguing that Republican inaction is forcing the president to act. Here’s Eugene Robinson in a column titled “Boehner’s immigration inertia forces Obama to act”:

Oh, please. All the melodramatic Republican outrage isn’t fooling anybody. The only reason President Obama has to act on immigration reform is that House Speaker John Boehner won’t.

I repeat: That’s the only reason. The issue could have been settled a year ago. It could be settled in an afternoon. The problem is that Boehner refuses to do his job, preferring instead to spend his time huffing and puffing in simulated indignation.

SLAVE
Peter Kassig was a ex-Ranger who, like so many of the other hostages, was betrayed by Muslims he trusted into ISIS custody. He converted to Islam as a hostage and his parents have continued the farce of calling him Abdul Rahman.
Now one of America’s enemies has been invited to pray over his funeral.
The sermon built to an impassioned, rapid-fire crescendo, in which, almost shouting, al-Yaqoubi seemed to divide jihad into foreign and domestic spheres, with appropriate action for each. “Wherever the American troops are — wherever they are, they are going to be defeated,” he yelped.

Sheikh Who Cheered Killing US Soldiers to Pray Over Ex-Soldier Beheaded by ISIS

“Palestinian” Terrorists Killed More Americans in 2014 Than ISIS

A NATION OF OBAMAS

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

The 5 Dumbest Lies in Obama’s Amnesty Speech

OBAMNESTY

Obama Whines TV Won’t Preempt “The Biggest Loser” for his Sore Loser Speech

Illegal Alien: Obama’s Amnesty Inspired Us to Cross Border – Who says Obama doesn’t inspire anyone anymore?

IF ONLY MOHAMMED KNEW

The only limit on the president’s power that he recognizes is political expediency.

President Obama is an Alinskyite.​

That assertion is not an epithet — well, not primarily. True, I would not describe someone I admired as an “Alinskyite.” Saul Alinsky was a loathsome figure — a radical statist who whose toxic brew of thoroughgoing deceit and brass-knuckles extortion (“direct action”) has become a part of mainstream politics. But in tying the president to the seminal community organizer whose theories and tactics so influenced him, my purpose is more to decode than to insult him.

Of course, calling Obama an “Alinskyite” draws cataracts of condemnation from the Democrat-media complex — for the same reason that Muslim Brotherhood shrieks of “Islamophobe!” inevitably follow any reasoned, scripturally based discussion of Islamic supremacism. People who advance their agendas in dishonesty and stealth can’t afford to have critics shine a light on them. The best diversion is to smear the critic as racist and phobic — or as Alinsky, a master of the game, put it, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Well, this week Alinsky did amnesty, so let’s not be diverted.

It was remarkable. We’ve endured six years of “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan,” “How dare you call Obamacare a tax,” “The video did it in Benghazi,” “Of course we’d never let guns walk to Mexican gangs,” “Workplace violence,” “Kinetic military action,” “The IRS harassment is outrageous and intolerable,” and “not a smidgeon of corruption” from “the most transparent administration in history.” Yet what so astonished the commentariat about Obama’s decree of amnesty for illegal aliens was the sheer audacity of hoax.

“I’m the president of the United States, not the emperor of the United States,” our would-be emperor repeatedly explained in the months and years before Thursday’s edict. Again and again, in more than two dozen recorded public statements, the president emphatically denied that he had the power to pronounce law unilaterally. “My job,” he huffed, “is to execute the laws that are passed.” His mere say-so could not suspend deportations or grant illegal aliens lawful status, he explained, because that would transgress “laws on the books that Congress has passed.”

In a few hours’ time, the President of the United States will apparently do to his oath of office what the Islamic State does to its captives. As I said to Hugh Hewitt the other day, even a constitution of meticulously constructed checks and balances requires a certain seemliness of its political class. This chief executive is brazen in his lawlessness, and ever more so. And he has calculated that those who object lack the stomach to do anything about it. We shall see.

However, I would like also to note another example of presidential brazenness this week – Barack Obama’s reaction to the latest beheading of a US citizen by the head hackers of the Islamic State. Peter Kassig’s death video was not as the others:

David Haines and Alan Henning – both from Britain – and Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff each made statements before their deaths in earlier videos. Each held Barack Obama or David Cameron to blame for their deaths, because of American and British military action against Isil in Iraq and Syria.

There was no such statement from Peter Kassig. Instead, “Jihadi John” appears with Mr Kassig’s severed head, and sneers, “He doesn’t have much to say.”

Indeed. But I wonder what he had to say in the last moments of his life. Evidently not a statement blaming Obama for his predicament. Perhaps he even pushed back against his executioner in a more forceful way. In Mark Steyn’s Passing Parade, in an essay on another westerner beheaded by the jihadists, I salute someone who declined to go gentle into that good night:

Consider Fabrizio Quattrocchi, murdered in Iraq on April 14th. In the moment before his death, he yanked off his hood and cried defiantly, “I will show you how an Italian dies!” He ruined the movie for his killers. As a snuff video and recruitment tool, it was all but useless, so much so that the Arabic TV stations declined to show it.

Steve Apfel is director of the School of Management Accounting, Johannesburg. He is the author of the book, ‘Hadrian’s Echo: The whys and wherefores of Israel’s critics’ (2012) and a contributor to, “War by other means.” (Israel Affairs, 2012). His articles and blogs are published in several foreign journals and his new work, ‘Bilaam’s Curse: The enemies of Zion’ will be published by Hamilton Books this year
Think of the worst crimes a state can be guilty of. Then dishonestly make them peculiar Israeli crimes. Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, war crimes of every description. But it’s all been seen before

Plots and characters in the bible are said to portend what history will have in store for the Jewish people. That being so, the Balaam narrative foretold the plot against modern Israel: if war could not bring down the nation then cursing would. Delving into the intrigue described so compellingly in the Book of Numbers we bump into far-sighted prophecy at every twist and turn.

The plot is familiar enough. It begins with the desire of Moabite king, Balak to stop the Jewish people in their tracks after a series of victories over more powerful armies. Military might was not behind the juggernaut Jews, so Balak understood.

The power of the start-up nation, he learns, resided in their leader’s power of speech. Moses was the secret weapon. And this gave Balak an idea. If, by speaking with God, Moses could empower the Jews, then surely they could be disempowered by speech.

So the king hires a curser-in-chief named Balaam. His goal is not necessarily to wipe a wandering multitude off the face of the desert, but to keep it from going into Israel.

“Let us drive them out of the Land” he tells the Elders of Moab. What he meant was that the Jews must at all costs not establish a sovereign nation. As long as they were homeless and stateless, as far as Moab’s leaders were concerned they could keep their spirituality and myriad laws and God-given strength.

The Moabites, who after all descended from a son of Lot by his elder daughter, were prepared to live and let live. But a Jewish people connected to a national homeland – that would be a different kettle of fish. The Moabites, true blue descendants of lifestyle-loving Lot, felt that such a prospect posed an existential threat to their free and easy ways. In fact, Jews occupying the Land of Israel, they felt, would ramify the entire world.

Listen, myriad voices urge at a far-ahead point in history, at which time the people of Israel are living, and thriving, in the Promised Land, and “Human Rights” delegates by the thousands meet on the side of a game-changing conference at the Indian Ocean city of Durban in 2001; listen, say the plotters; war after war has left Israel not just intact but invulnerable.