Displaying the most recent of 90930 posts written by

Ruth King

Fear and Loathing in Bethlehem Amit Barak

This piece was first published on the Hebrew-language website Mida on January 14, 2018, rendered into English by Avi Woolf, and republished here with permission. The original article can be found by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.

While the Christian community in Israel is thriving and prospering, Christians living in the Palestinian Authority suffer from violence and unending persecution.

Last Christmas eve, the Muslim mayor of Nazareth, Ali Salem, decided to cancel celebrations in the city. He justified his decision as an act of protest against President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. However, we can assume that the coming Nazareth elections were a factor in his decision, as Salem is trying to get more votes from the city’s Muslims, who now constitute a majority since so many Christians have left in recent years.

The mayor’s decision aroused a great deal of anger among the Arabic-speaking Christians in Israel. Among the leaders of the protest was the Brit Aḥim (Brothers’ Covenant) organization which distributed protest letters on the subject to decision makers in Israel, Christian parties, and Israeli and international media outlets.

Among other things, the letter stated that “the mayor of Nazareth’s decision is a cynical exploitation of Christian residents and it does harm to Christians in Israel and their holiday, harm to the economy of the city, and harm to relations between the religions. . . . We want to remind Mr. Salem that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago and the Holy Books and history cannot be changed for political needs detached from reality. It’s time that the Christian community, which for the most part respects the state of Israel and sees itself as a partner in its construction, not be captive to radical political parties both in the Arab sector and the Christian community.”

In the wake of pressure from Israel and international media coverage, the mayor reversed his decision, but he moved the main stage [where public festivities were held] from its regular spot to another location in town. But Ali Salem is not the only one to take steps after the declaration of the American president.

Thirteen prominent Christian religious figures, including the Armenian patriarch, the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, archbishops from the Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopian churches, and the manager of the Latin patriarchate in Jerusalem signed a letter attacking the [White House’s Jerusalem] declaration. A few days later, they were present at a Christmas reception at the [Israeli] Tourism Ministry and were even hosted at the traditional gathering at the Israeli presidential residence for the New Year, and met with the mayor of Jerusalem.

Among Israeli Christians, there is a radical and vocal minority that promotes anti-Israel activity, with the prominent participation of the head of the Greek Orthodox Council in Nazareth (funded by the state of Israel), Bishop Atallah Khana. The bishop has been known to have called on Christian youth to enlist in Hamas and even recently met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The Pentagon’s Fading Readiness The first priority in a budget deal should be more money for defense.

For all the talk over a showdown with North Korea, few are asking: Do the less than 1% of Americans in the armed forces have the most lethal weapons and best training to defend the country? There is reason to wonder, and Congress has an opportunity to shore up the military as the world grows more dangerous.

Congress is trying to reach a budget deal to extend government funding that expires this month. One issue are the caps on defense spending under the 2011 Budget Control Act, which tried to force Congress to do something about the deficit by threatening automatic cuts. This has imposed useful discipline on non-entitlement spending, but the military has been hit harder than domestic accounts.
***

The military is operating at a high tempo in multiple theaters, even as funding has dropped and become more erratic. The Congressional Research Service says the Defense Department has operated under continuing resolutions, which are stopgap measures that limit spending flexibility, for more than 36 months since 2010. Compare that with fewer than nine months in the preceding eight years.

This means fewer resources for equipment maintenance and soldier training. Some of this could have contributed to the Navy’s collisions in the Pacific last year that killed 17 sailors. The Navy’s investigation revealed that training practices failed—for instance, crew members “were not familiar with basic radar fundamentals.” Ships are deployed at sea more often and for longer. A prescient 2015 Government Accountability Office report found that ships based in Japan had “no dedicated training periods” as a result of the deployment pace.

Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal U.S. policy should be to end the Islamic Republic before its 40th anniversary.John Bolton

President Trump seemingly served notice Friday that the days are dwindling for Barack Obama’s Iran agreement. Although deal proponents also gained time to pursue “fixes,” this is a forlorn option. No fix will remedy the diplomatic Waterloo Mr. Obama negotiated. Democrats will reject anything that endangers his prized international contrivance, and the Europeans are more interested in trade with Tehran than a stronger agreement.

There is an even more fundamental obstacle: Iran. Negotiating with Congress and Europe will not modify the actual deal’s terms, which Iran (buttressed by Russia and China) has no interest in changing. Increased inspections, for example, is a nonstarter for Tehran. Mr. Obama gave the ayatollahs what they wanted; they will not give it back.

Most important, there is no evidence Iran’s intention to obtain deliverable nuclear weapons has wavered. None of the proposed “fixes” change this basic, unanswerable reality.

Spending the next 120 days negotiating with ourselves will leave the West mired in stasis. Mr. Trump correctly sees Mr. Obama’s deal as a massive strategic blunder, but his advisers have inexplicably persuaded him not to withdraw. Last fall, deciding whether to reimpose sanctions and decertify the deal under the Corker-Cardin legislation, the administration also opted to keep the door open to “fixes”—a punt on third down. Let’s hope Friday’s decision is not another punt.

The Iran agreement rests on inadequate knowledge and fundamentally flawed premises. Mr. Obama threw away any prospect of learning basic facts about Iran’s capabilities. Provisions for international inspection of suspected military-related nuclear facilities are utterly inadequate, and the U.S. is likely not even aware of all the locations. Little is known, at least publicly, about longstanding Iranian-North Korean cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile technology. It is foolish to play down Tehran’s threat because of Pyongyang’s provocations. They are two sides of the same coin.

Some proponents of “strengthening” the deal propose to eliminate its sunset provisions. That would achieve nothing. Tehran’s nuclear menace, especially given the Pyongyang connection, is here now, not 10 years away. One bizarre idea is amending the Corker-Cardin law to avoid the certification headache every 90 days. Tehran would endorse this proposal, but it is like taking aspirin to relieve the pain of a sucking chest wound.

Facebook: Championing Blasphemy Laws by Judith Bergman

What is “harmful content” according to the new Facebook guide for Muslims? “Islamophobia, anti-Muslim hatred, far right extremism and terrorist inspired violent extremist content”.

The guide does not mention Islamic incitement to violence, which is rampant on social media and — unlike the other content mentioned — has deadly and tragic consequences in the real world. Most of those who perpetrate terrorist attacks in the real world are Muslims — not “Islamophobes,” anti-Muslims or right wing extremists.

Lakin v. Facebook is a lawsuit, representing 20,000 Israeli plaintiffs, which aims to stop Facebook from “continuing to facilitate terrorist activity directed at” Israelis.

Khan convened a special meeting of Muslim ambassadors to discuss how effectively to “raise the voice of the entire Muslim world against the madness unleashed against Islam and holy personalities in the name of freedom of expression”. — Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan.

Facebook, in cooperation with a British Muslim group, Faith Associates, recently launched a new “guide” developed especially for Muslims: “Keeping Muslims Safe Online: Tackling Hate and Bigotry”.

The launch of the guide was hosted on November 29 at the British Parliament, where Karim Palant, Facebook’s UK Public Policy manager, acknowledged “the partnership of Facebook with Faith Associates and said this was a first step in a line of activities being planned to protect the Facebook family”. Simon Milner, Head of Policy UK at Facebook, stated:

“We’re proud to be supporting Faith Associates in the development of their online safety guide. Facebook welcomes all communities, and there is no place for hate on the platform”.

It is curious that of all the groups Facebook could have chosen to “protect” — if one is to believe that Facebook intends to “protect” other groups as well — it chose Muslims. Are Muslims the most targeted group in the world today? In Canada, according to fresh statistics, hate crimes against Muslims have fallen while hate crimes against Jews have risen. In the United States, according to Gatestone’s A. Z. Mohamed:

“Since 1992… anti-Semitic incidents have been higher than those perpetrated against other groups… To this day, the greatest number of reported religion-based hate crimes have been directed at Jews, and the second greatest against Muslims… in 2015… there was a sharp rise in religion-based hate crimes, particularly against Islam and Muslims. Yet even then, Jews were 2.38 times more likely than Muslims to become victims of a hate crime.”

The Quran Says Jerusalem Belongs to the Jews by Saied Shoaaib

Quranic passages clearly illustrate the Jews’ imperative to enter the land of Israel.

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah [God] upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds. O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back and [thus] become losers.” — Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:20-21.

According to verses in the Quran, God punishes the Jews for their sin of refusing to fight the indigenous people in the land, and God is angry that the Jews refused to convert to Islam. Yet the verses are consistent in their assertion that God gave the Jews the Holy Land.

Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s December 6 official recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Muslims around the world held angry demonstrations, during which they chanted slogans about Jerusalem “belonging to Muslims.” This ought to seem odd to anyone versed in Islamic scripture, since the Quran specifically states that God promised the land of Israel, including Jerusalem, to the Jews.

Although ordinary Muslims who might not actually have read their holy book could be excused for their ignorance about the Jewish roots of and rights to Israel and Jerusalem, the same cannot be said for the leaders of Muslim countries, imams and the heads of illustrious Islamic institutions. Dignitaries and scholars of that caliber should know better. Yet many of them repeat false assertions that contradict the Quran and scholarly interpretations of its verses.

The fact is that the Quran does not mention Jerusalem or Palestine. It does refer to the sanctity of other holy places, such as Mecca — which is called the “Mother of Cities” — where the Prophet Muhammad was born and where the house of God was built by Abraham, the “father of the prophets.”

The Quran also mentions the city of Yathrib [Medina], where the Prophet Mohammed emigrated after he was persecuted in Mecca, and the location of his grave and the Prophet’s Mosque.

Academia’s Racism-Industrial-Complex A college education now is all about “dismantling whiteness.” January 15, 2018 Jack Kerwick

Some recent examples from the world of Higher Education make the point that I’ve been at pains to impress upon readers, namely that for as sprawling as is the Academic-Industrial-Complex (AIC), it is essentially a function of an even more expansive Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC).

[1] There’s Brooklyn College’s Laurie Rubel, professor of math education. According to the student journalists who run the college watchdog publication Campus Reform, Rubel wrote an article for the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education in which she contends that the concepts of “meritocracy” and “color-blindness” are both “tool(s) of whiteness.”

The problem with meritocracy, Rubel asserts, is that it “ignores systemic barriers and institutional structures that prevent opportunity and success.”

As for color-blindness, Rubel remarks: “Teachers who claim color-blindness—that is, they claim not to notice the race of their students—are, in effect, refusing to acknowledge the impact of enduring racial stratification on students and their families.”

Rubel continues: “By claiming not to notice, the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child’s identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction.”

So, by aspiring to know and evaluate their students independently of their racial backgrounds, teachers promote “whiteness.”

However, Rubel also contends that if teachers notice the racial backgrounds of their students, they’re guilty of promoting “whiteness.” For example, when teachers say of their students that they “can’t relate” to them, they note differences. But, Rubel laments, these “differences are typically cast in terms of deficit constructions about students, their places, and their families.”

In order to walk this tightrope, Rubel proposes that teachers include “social justice” issues into their math lessons.

DACA Probably Dead, Trump Says DREAMers not getting relief because of Democrat obstinacy. Matthew Vadum

President Obama’s program that shields the so-called DREAMers from deportation is “probably dead” President Trump declared yesterday after a drama-filled week of high-stakes negotiations on immigration reform.

Congressional Democrats have been trying to blackmail the president, offering to swap border security funding for protecting approximately 700,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) claimants. Although Democrats are continuing to threaten to force a government shutdown in days unless an agreement protecting those benefitting from the constitutionally dubious DACA program is reached, “Democrats don’t really want” to resolve the issue, Trump tweeted Sunday morning.

Minutes later he added, “I, as President, want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries! #AMERICA FIRST.”

DREAMers, by the way, are the stuff of leftist myth. The misleading sobriquet comes from the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act, a legislative proposal to grant underage illegals immigration amnesty. The conceit was invented to promote the illegal immigration Democrats need to win elections. They’re not the rock stars or rocket scientists people like DNC chief Tom Perez claim. Despite being sacred cows for progressives, DREAMers tend to be less educated and less established than typical Americans. Many can barely speak English and have little in the way of future prospects.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Common Core: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 19 by Linda Goudsmit

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling Common Core advocacy as altruistic when in fact it was designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democrat Party with its “Resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy the capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and replace it with socialism.

Common Core is a deliberate information war targeting American children. It is a deceitful campaign to undermine established American Judeo-Christian cultural norms celebrating patriotism, the meritocracy, and American sovereignty. The Leftist/Islamist axis is promoting collectivism in preparation for one-world government. This is how it works.

Serious educational reform enacted by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was designed to provide high standards and measurable goals to improve individual outcomes in education. Federal funding was correlated to test performance. Rather than improving education the net effect of NCLB was education reformatted to teach to the tests. Education critic Alfie Kohn argued that the “NCLB law is ‘unredeemable’ and should be scrapped – its main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills.” There were loud calls for reform.

Enter Common Core State Standards (CCSS) launched under Obama in 2009 deceptively marketed by a propaganda campaign emphasizing the positive benefits of national standards and uniformity in curriculum guidelines with measurable effectiveness for American public education K-12. Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are mistakenly understood to be a derivative of the No Child Left Behind Act – they aren’t.

Obama’s 2009 Race To The Top program was introduced as a competitive grant program that awarded points to states for satisfying performance-based evaluations of teachers and principals based on measures of educator effectiveness. Sound familiar? It should because measurable effectiveness = student test scores. Even though Race to the Top did not mandate adoption of Common Core, to receive federal stimulus money states had to “commit” to adopting Common Core standards. Forty-two states now operate public and private education under the Common Core program.

ELECTIONS ARE COMING: Will Indiana Choose a Genuine Conservative Congressman? By Eileen F. Toplansky see note please

THE INDIANA GOP PRIMARY IS ON MAY 28, 2018 RSK
It is clear that much still needs to be done to maintain the many encouraging strides President Trump has already made in his first year. And with so many long-term Republicans retiring, it is critical to look for impeccable conservative credentials in those running in 2018.

Richard Moss, M.D. is running in Indiana’s 8th Congressional District against an entrenched Republican. Dr. Moss is “formally committed to joining the ‘Freedom Caucus,’ the conservative bloc within the Republican Caucus in Congress[,] at the announcement of his candidacy on September 9, 2017.” Dr. Moss went to Indiana University in Bloomington and I.U. School of Medicine. His mother was actually from Indiana but left in 1931 to live in the Bronx in New York with her family.

Founded in 1991, Dr. Moss’s medical office provides care and treatment in the specialty of otolaryngology, or routine and complex ear, nose, and throat disorders; head and neck cancer; and facial plastic and cosmetic surgery.

Dr. Moss agreed to give his views on the following questions posed to him by American Thinker.

Why do you think “squish” Republicans are so hesitant in maintaining a winning streak?

They don’t really want to win. They prefer minority status or a Democratic president so they can pound their chests resisting him, claiming conservative principles, which is good for fundraising. But when they actually have power … they shrink from doing so. They are basically big-government Republicans and political cowards.

What are your views on immigration control?

No DACA. No amnesty. No birthright citizenship. No chain migration. Build a wall. I would have a moratorium on immigration other than for Nobel Prize-level talent and proven Solzhenitsyn-level dissidents and reformers.

Trump-Russia: Not Mueller’s First Botched Investigation By Daniel Ashman

Controversy surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into the Trump-Russia collusion mirage. Some maintain that he is the ultimate professional dedicated to following the truth, but others say he is a political hack.

There is no need to wonder about how Mueller operates. His history has made it quite clear. One needs only to study his actions as FBI director when he managed the FBI’s most important investigation ever.

In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the U.S. postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Tom Daschle’s office. The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The world panicked.

Under Mueller’s management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. The bureau now brags about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.” To fully appreciate the Mueller response – whom his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty – it is appropriate to first build context.

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. Simultaneous to planning the airplane hijackings, al-Qaeda had also been weaponizing anthrax. One of their scientists who ran an anthrax lab in Afghanistan also housed 9/11 hijackers. In fact, one of the hijackers, Ahmed al Haznawi, went to the emergency room in an American hospital with a skin lesion, which a team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed was probably due to anthrax. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.” The Johns Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued; Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed were possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.” Instead, they focused on a “linguistic analysis,” stating that the letter’s author was not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower[]case lettering.” They therefore concluded that the author was likely an American.

The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period but then became “mission-oriented” following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be Muslim.