RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Addressing Ex-Im’s future, Adam Andrzejewski Chairman & Executive Director of OPEN THE BOOKS…http://www.openthebooks.com/
says: “The fate of the bank is an important test that will show whether Congress is on the side of taxpayers, and basic market principles, or special interests that are capable of bending markets in their direction.”
The Export-Import Bank generates headlines because, after more than three-quarters of a century, it is about to go away. But it won’t go away if Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Republican Senator, can do something about it.

Ex-Im, or the Export Import Bank, was created by Executive Order in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to make loans to the Soviet Union and aid trade with Cuba. With the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, Congress made Ex-Im an independent agency and required that Ex-Im be reauthorized every four-to-five years. Ex-Im’s current authorization expires on June 30.

Ex-Im has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. However, the need to cut spending—coupled with watchdog reporting—brings reauthorization into question. Under the Obama Administration, Ex-Im lending has increased 248 percent. Taxpayers now hold nearly $140 billion in Ex-Im exposure.

The Supreme Court ruling in the so-called Jerusalem passport case certainly hands a disappointing bar mitzvah gift to Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky. He is the American who was born at Jerusalem in 2002 and sought American papers listing his birthplace as Israel. He acted under a law passed almost unanimously by Congress requiring that such papers be granted. It took two trips to the Supreme Court for the judicial branch to reach a conclusion, and the youngster lost.

To the young man — and his heroic parents — all Americans who love Israel owe a debt of thanks. We were rooting for them all the way. But it may yet be that in the long run the big winner in the case will be Jewish state. For one result of Zivotofsky v. Kerry, as the case came to be called, will be that those Americans born in Jerusalem who want documents listing their birthplace as Israel will have to become Israelis. That is, in a way, a restatement of the raison d’etre of Zionism.

No less a figure than Menachem Begin warned against trying to answer the Jerusalem question on Capitol Hill. The fact is that the only duly constituted authority to decide the Jerusalem question is Israel. It has been sovereign in the part of Jerusalem where Master Zivotofsky was born since 1948 and in the rest of Jerusalem since 1967. It is up to the world to adjust. Nothing in the opinion of the Supreme Court changes that, a point that will grow ever more clear.

Europe’s impoverishment, resulting from its economic underperformance and unrestrained immigration, mostly from Islamic countries, has caused its voters to opt for national identity, nationalism, regionalism, and the chance to express themselves through a referendum on Europe. Austria’s Freedom Party warmed voters of the prospect of becoming “strangers in their own country.”

Thanks to this promise — a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union — and that Britain never adopted the euro as its currency, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron was the only sitting European leader not punished by the voters.

Everywhere in Europe, electorates have lost confidence in the bureaucrats of the European Union in Brussels and those of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. They want once again to be empowered to decide their own political and economic fate.

The media’s unethical coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict seems to be the number one reason why people in Turkey have remained so misinformed and brainwashed about the issue. It is not just anti-Semitism, but also anti-Zionism, that is racist and hateful.

The houses and apartments Israelis built in their historic homeland are called “illegal settlements.” But there were no “settlements” before 1967. What, then were the Israelis supposedly “occupying” between 1948 and 1967? Why was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) even then trying to destroy Israel? What did it think it was “liberating”?

This “occupation” myth seems, instead, to have a lot to do with the “Islamization” of history and geography. Since the creation of the world, it goes, there has been only one religion: Islam. All our religious teachers have taught us that earlier historical figures were prophets — Isa [Jesus], Musa [Moses], Davut [David] and so on — were Muslims and that the original religions they brought were Islamic. These prophets, we are told, preached the teachings of Allah, but their followers, who came later, distorted their messages, changed the writings in their holy books, and fabricated these fake, untrue religions called Judaism and Christianity. Then Islam came as the last, the perfect and the only true and unchanged eternal word of Allah, which led to Muhammad to this world as a “liberator.”

Hillary Clinton changes her principles, values and convictions with the ease of changing her socks, and now she has a new strategy.

She’s banking on hitting the presidential jackpot with Elizabeth Warren’s nickel. Or maybe it’s Bernie Sanders’ nickel. It’s a worn nickel. It’s similar to the nickel George McGovern used in a different time and place. We have the word of The New York Times, the media arm of the Clinton campaign, on that.

Some Democrats concede that moving as far as she can before falling off the edge of the world is risky business, but when even her staunchest friends say they’re for her no matter what because she’s all they’ve got, the risk doesn’t seem so great.

Could it be that The New York Times is fed up with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama? The Times — probably the most dogmatically liberal newspaper in the nation — has twice recently reported on its former best friends in strongly critical terms.

First came the late April article detailing some of the principal allegations in Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” which demonstrated the evident linkage between the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation — and to Bill Clinton personally — and the key role the State Department played in approving the deals that resulted in Russia taking control of a substantial portion of U.S. uranium mining.

No matter where I turned on the Internet today, I encountered the Vanity Fair cover of Bruce Jenner pretending to be a woman. I got so sick of encountering that cover that I decided to write about it.

Note: The link to the Vanity Fair cover story has been removed by Vanity Fair; I was able to print the story just before the URL was scuttled; substituting for it will be New York Times and Washington Post stories (virtually identical in text) which highlight the Vanity Fair and Diane Sawyer interviews of Jenner, complete with the Vanity Fair videos. (I refuse to reproduce the Vanity Fair cover here.)

Transgenders, apparently, are the new privileged minority. Just as Muslims are. A Muslim baker or photographer refusing to serve gays or have them as customers — frankly, they don’t even need to have a reason — doesn’t make the news. Only Christians, Jews, or atheists refusing to validate homosexuality by accepting gays as “normal” clients make the news, and then they’re excoriated for hurting the feelings of gays (or Muslims). How dare they row against the stream of insanity?

Gays, lesbians, transgenders, and creatures great and small in between those parameters as a whole are the new protected group, patronized by the government and by the MSM, just as Muslims are, celebrated in especially the news media for their cultural or gender “diversity.” You can’t offend them without risking a lawsuit and the smears and sneers of their allies in government and in the mainstream media. (Even Merriam-Webster, the online dictionary, got into the act.)

Chief Justice Roberts in the minority opinion stated: “The court takes the perilous step – for the first time in our history – of allowing the president to defy an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs,”
In landmark ruling backing president’s stance, legal body strikes down law permitting US citizens to cite Jewish state on passportWASHINGTON (AP) — The US Supreme Court struck down a disputed law Monday that would have allowed Americans born in Jerusalem to list their birthplace as Israel on their US passports in an important ruling that underscores the president’s authority in foreign affairs.

The court ruled 6-3 that Congress overstepped its bounds when it approved the law in 2002. It would have forced the State Department to alter its longstanding policy of not listing Israel as the birthplace for Jerusalem-born Americans.

ADL, AJC, Conference of Presidents express disappointment, concern over ruling barring Jerusalem-born US citizens from citing Jewish state on passport

WASHINGTON – A long list of major American Jewish organizations, many of which had filed amicus briefs supporting the inclusion of the word “Israel” on passports for US citizens born in Jerusalem, expressed dismay at Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that American citizens born in Jerusalem may only list their birthplace as Jerusalem, rather than as Jerusalem, Israel.

The ruling affirmed that the president held the power to grant formal recognition to a foreign nation and that Congress could not pass a law directing the State Department how to record the place of birth of a child born to American parents abroad. The original case was brought by the parents of now-13-year-old Menachem Zivotofsky, in an effort to have “Israel” appear on their Jerusalem-born son’s US passport.