RUTHFULLY YOURS

As a zamler, or book collector, I have been invited into the homes of people who, though they may not understand Yiddish, do not want to discard the Yiddish books that their grandparents used to read and cherish. I collect the books and send them to the National Yiddish Book Center, whose rescue efforts are nothing short of miraculous.

In one of my journeys into an elderly woman’s attic, I discovered Saul Raskin’s artistic rendition of Tehillim, or the Book of Psalms. As if directed by providential intervention, the book opened to an arresting picture of Hitler the beast, sword in hand, while a feminine figure rises above him. Soldiers with swords lord it over their prostrate victims.

Published in 1942, this collection of drawings is Raskin’s artistic interpretations of the Psalms. This particular etching not only describes the evil of the 20th century but actually presages the ongoing malevolence of the 21st century. The black and white etching is accompanied by Psalm 14 and reads, “The fool hath said in his heart. There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” And on the lapel of Hitler is the Hebrew for “there is no God.”

With all due respect to Gilbert and Sullivan, the current charade on display among Democratic U.S. Senators with regard to their announcements of support for the Iran deal presents the very model of a modern pro-Israel Democrat.
In short, the senator announces his or her support for the agreement, but admits it was a very close call and a difficult decision. The senator concedes that the deal is imperfect and less than was hoped for in many areas. The senator indicates unhappiness with the relaxation of sanctions on weapons and ballistic missiles and admits to being unhappy about Iran’s calls for death to Israel and the United States, its support for terrorist groups, and what Iran might do with all the frozen funds (perhaps as much as $150 billion) once the money is released. The senator then restates firm support for Israel, and indicates that he or she is prepared to introduce or at least vote for new measures providing weapons and aid to Israel. Of course, the senator never explains why, if the deal is good for the U.S., Israel and our Arab allies, Israel and the Arab states would need new security guarantees and offensive or defensive weapons from the U.S. as a result of the agreement.
But, in the end, the senator lets everyone know why, despite these many concerns, he or she is prepared to support the deal. Here is the argument: The senator believes the deal will shut off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon for a few years and that alternatives short of war are not promising (renegotiating the agreement, or keeping American sanctions in place, while other countries eliminate their own). Virtually no Senate Democrat, however, will be heard mouthing some of the administration’s logic behind the deal — that Iran should have its place as a regional power, and that this kind of agreement may lead to a change in Iran’s aggressive behavior.

http://counterjihadcoalition.org/2015/09/new-glazov-gang-isis-terrorists-coming-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was hosted by Ari David, the host of the Ari David Show Podcast, and joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog The Point at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed ISIS Terrorists Coming To a Neighborhood Near You, unveiling how Obama is flooding America with fake Syrian refugees.

Don’t miss it!

In the year 628, Muhammad, now ruling in Medina, signed the ten-year Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with his long-time enemies, the tribal confederacy of Quraysh, who ruled Mecca. Twenty-two months later, under the pretext that a clan from a tribe allied with the Quraysh had squabbled with a tribe allied to the Muslims, Muhammad broke the treaty and attacked Mecca, conquering it. It is as certain as day follows night, that the Iranian regime will find a pretext to break the deal. Already, on September 3, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene’i made it clear that he would back out of the deal if sanctions were not completely removed at once.

The Iranian regime not only despises democracy; it considers all Western law, including international law, invalid.

The Shi’a consider themselves underdogs, who are willing to sacrifice all to establish the rights of their imams and their successors. That was what the 1979 revolution was all about, and it is what present the Iranian regime still insists on as the justification for its opposition to Western intrusion, democracy, women’s rights and all the rest, which are deemed by Iran’s leadership as part of a plot to undermine and control the expansion of the Shi’i faith on the global stage. These are not Anglican vicars.

The Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “have responsibility… for a religious mission, which is Holy War (Jihad) in the path of God and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God’s law in the world.” — Iran’s Constitution, Article “The Religious Army”.

The AAUP—the American Association of University Professors—held its annual Conference on the State of Higher Education at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. June 10-14. A few subway stops away, the Heartland Institute held its tenth International Conference on Climate Change at the Washington Court Hotel, June 11-12. I suspect that I am the only person to attend both.

Both events dealt with the issues of academic and intellectual freedom. Both focused on current threats to such freedoms. Both pictured a world in which politically-motivated foes of free expression are using their wealth and power to silence legitimate dissent.

But, of course, these events were polar opposites. The AAUP was gearing up to pass a resolution to censure the University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign for rescinding its offer of an academic appointment to Steven Salaita. The Heartland Institute was championing the work of Dr. Willie Soon, the solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who came under attack by Greenpeace and the New York Times after he published an important article in Science Bulletin.

Both controversies have received ample coverage, though I think it is quite possible, even likely, that people who know a lot about one may not know a lot about the other. A primer:

Steven Salaita. He was a tenured associate professor of English at Virginia Tech who in October 2013 received an offer for a tenured position in the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, contingent on the board of trustees’ approval. On August 1, 2014, the university’s vice president of academic affairs and its chancellor wrote to Salaita informing him that they were not proceeding with the appointment. Salaita appealed to the trustees who on September 10, 2014, voted 8 to 1 not to reconsider his appointment. Salaita soon after filed a lawsuit which is on-going.