RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.romirowsky.com/11621/peace-process

THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY FOR ANY ARAB SOVEREIGNTY BETWEEN THE PRE 1967 LINES AND THE JORDAN RIVER….PERIOD….RSK

Something has gone horribly wrong with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s recent decision not to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is only the latest example and reason for the widespread pessimism about its trajectory.

The so-called Middle East conflict has grown more rather than less intractable since Palestinian and Israeli leaders began their efforts to resolve it through negotiations. Indeed, almost two decades of negotiations have failed to convince Palestinian and Israeli leaders of a way to share the land and its resources. And in fact the core of the conflict is more about co-existing on the same land than just dividing it.

Perhaps the realization of how many dreams would remain unfulfilled if the compromises necessary for an agreement were struck convinced politicians on both sides that resolving the dispute would be more costly and unpopular than perpetuating it.

Perhaps, both sides have clung more tightly to their national narratives than to proposals to be exchanged for concessions because discussions, themselves, disclosed the gap, not so much between the two sets of negotiators, but rather between reality and the dreams ordinary Palestinians and Israelis have been encouraged to imagine of the final resolution.

At the very least, national narratives give Israelis and Palestinians a clear definition of their collective identities even if they lock them into their confrontation.

For Palestinians, a narrative etched in the injustices of exile and oppression is preferred to the founding of a state that leaves behind too many refugees stuck in the same camps created for what was believed a temporary displacement. For Israelis, whose national story is woven around the survival of the Jewish people, it is preferable to retain control over territories serving as staging ground for attacks – even though the patrols, checkpoints, and the separation barrier are often described as marks of oppression – than surrendering the land without a clear Palestinian commitment to stop their wars and end their grievances against the Jewish state.

So, the conflict persists; the negotiations are deadlocked and the calls by the international community through the Quartet for compromise and negotiations seem more akin to linguistic rituals than to imperatives for action.

Thus, a peace process cannot be successful unless the tight grip of narratives sustaining the conflict is dislodged. And they can only start to loosen if both Palestinians and Israelis begin to have different experiences of one another and of the two states a solution is expected to produce.
Focus on state building

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/three_murderous_ideologies_nazism_communism_and_militant_islam.html Militant Islam has far more in common with Nazism and Communism than it does with any genuine religious faith. All three have two common elements: (1) the openly stated intention to rule the entire world and (2) a claim to the right to deport, oppress, re-educate, or exterminate those who do not fit into […]

By: Amil Imani with James H. Hyde

http://amilimani.com/2012/04/the-biggest-cover-up-in-american-history/

In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined the subject matter further.

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain. Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations. When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional Convention was in session.

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the needed materials.

1. In the time frame of 1740—1790, “Natural Law” had grown from the 17th century studies of the early enlightenment philosophers (Grotius, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, de Wolf) into a reason-based concept that was based on the fact that all humans have inherent animal qualities that contribute to laws worldwide that are essentially the same.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of Nations in French in 1758. The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural Law, especially that of de Wolf. But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the earlier philosophers. His work is written like a modern do-it-yourself project where he captured the entire history and essence of Natural Law but mixed it into a means to build a new nation based on a new type of constitution or a way of establishing an acceptable set of rules for running a nation in a common sense manner based on the experience of political science as it developed over the centuries.

A PATRIOT, A ZIONIST, A DISCIPLE OF JABOTINSKY, AN EMINENT SCHOLAR…. MAY HE REST IN ETERNAL PEACE.

HIS LATEST BOOK IS A MUST READ:
Product Details
The Founding Fathers of Zionism by Benzion Netanyahu (Hardcover – May 15, 2012)
Buy new : $24.99 $16.49

Product Details
Don Isaac Abravanel: Statesman and Philosopher by B. Netanyahu (Paperback – Dec 23, 1998)

Product Details
The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain by B. Netanyahu (Paperback – Sep 30, 2001)

Islamic Necrophilia and Leftist Silence — on The Glazov Gang
byJamie Glazov
Leftist film producer Tommi Trudeau joins Nonie Darwish and Evan Sayet on the gang — and fireworks ensue over bizarre Islamic legislation.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/30/islamic-necrophilia-and-leftist-silence-on-the-glazov-gang/

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3041/geert-wilders-marked-for-death

“[I am] imprisoned in my own country for the mere fact that I have spoken out against the enemies of the West.”

Islam is waging an aggressive war against the West; nothing less than the future of individual liberty is at stake.

The conflict is civilizational in scope and is being fought on two primary fronts: Europe and America.

The Islamization of the West is being aided and abetted by multiculturalists in Europe and America who are enforcing politically correct curbs on free speech designed to silence all criticism of Islam.

Islam’s war on the West has reached a decisive phase. Europe may already be a lost cause, leaving America as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

These are just a few of the conclusions of an insightful and highly readable new book about Islam, Marked for Death: Islam’s War against the West and Me, authored by Geert Wilders, the Dutch lawmaker who has devoted his life to fighting for free speech and stopping the Islamization of Europe.

Wilders — one of a growing number of Westerners who have been marked for death for criticizing Islam — opens the book by briefly describing his life under round-the-clock guard because of explicit threats to murder him by Muslim extremists.

“I have a panic room in my house,” Wilders writes, “where I am supposed to take refuge if one of the adherents of the ‘religion of peace’ makes it past my permanent security detail and into my home. In fact, it’s not really my home at all—I live in a government safe house, heavily protected and bulletproof….I have been surrounded by police guards and stripped of nearly all personal privacy…. I am driven every day from the safe house to my office in the Dutch Parliament building in armored police cars….I wear a bulletproof jacket….Always surrounded by plainclothes police officers, I have not walked the streets on my own in more than seven years…. [I am] imprisoned in my own country for the mere fact that I have spoken out against enemies of the West.”

THIS SUPERB CANDIDATE IS RUNNING AGAINST GILLIBRAND…PLEASE SUPPORT HIM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577279860043256148.html

WASHINGTON—Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has her highest-profile challenger yet: Rep. Robert Turner, the Queens businessman whose upset victory in the race to replace Anthony Weiner made him a GOP hero.

http://turnerforny.com/

The Muslim Brotherhood Wants the Bakery, Not the Pita Posted By David P. Goldman

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/04/28/the-muslim-brotherhood-wants-the-bakery-not-the-pita/

On April 28, Saudi Arabia closed its embassy and most consulates in Egypt following demonstrations and “attempts to storm and threaten the security and safety of Saudi and Egyptian employees, raising hostile slogans and violating the inviolability and sovereignty,” as the Saudis explained in recalling their ambassador from Cairo. This turn of events should come as no surprise. The Muslim Brotherhood hopes to use Egypt as a power base to replace the corrupt monarchies of the Persian Gulf with a modernized, quasi-Leninist breed of Islamic radicalism, and the Saudis have made public their alarm about the Muslim Brotherhood for months. As I wrote April 10 in this space, the Egyptian Islamists want economic chaos in order to consolidate their power at the street level and replace the doddering and feckless military government.

The proximate cause of the anti-Saudi demonstrations is the case of Ahmed el-Gezawi, an Egyptian lawyer, whom Saudi judges last week sentenced to a year in prison and 20 lashes for “insulting” Saudi King Abdullah. The Saudis claim that he was smuggling Xanax into the kingdom. Just who started the demonstrations against Saudi embassies and consulates is unclear, but the Muslim Brotherhood is holding a net to catch the fallout. As Reuters reported today,

In a statement, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party said the protests at the Saudi embassy showed “the desire of Egyptians to preserve the dignity of their citizens in Arab states”.

Analysts point to the rise of the Brotherhood as a cause of Saudi concern about the direction of the post-Mubarak Egypt.

http://times247.com/
Report: Gadhafi agreed to bankroll Sarkozy campaign
Agence France-Presse
Saturday, April 28, 2012
News
Report: Gadhafi agreed to bankroll Sarkozy campaign
Moammar Gadhafi’s regime agreed to fund French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 election campaign to the tune of 50 million euros, a news website reported Saturday, publishing what it said was documentary evidence. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz1tQP8DLh6
Biden talks up Turkey as ‘model’ Islamic democracy
The Daily Caller
Friday, April 27, 2012
News
Vice President Joe Biden offered Turkey’s Islamist government a leading role in the Middle East, despite its recent crackdown on dissidents, expansion of Islamic culture and education, and regional conflicts with Greece and Israel. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz1tQPQpORK

http://melaniephillips.com/apocalypse-deferred

The great grand-daddy of the man-made global warming scam, the fifth horseman of the eco-apocalypse James Lovelock, has now recanted. Well, sort of. Don’t get too excited. Lovelock now admits to having been ‘alarmist’ about climate change, and says other fanatics environmental commentators such as Al Gore were too alarmist as well.

You don’t say.

It’s only taken a quarter of a century. During that time, Professor Lovelock was the guru of man-made global warming theory. More than that, he was the prophet of a cult which turned the earth into a kind of god — or more specifically a goddess called Gaia, investing it with anthropomorphic characteristics while his disciples demonised the human race itself as the destroyers of the planet.

Lovelock made one chilling prediction of planetary doom after another. In 2006, he warned that the earth might soon pass

‘“into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years….as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert… Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”’

Now, however, MSNBCreports Lovelock as saying:

‘“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.

‘“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.’

Indeed, there is no question about it. Not being able to tell what the climate is actually doing, let alone what it will do in the future, is in essence what climate sceptics have been saying consistently for the past 25 years or so. And so presumably we should now count Lovelock as one of their number? Er, not exactly:

‘Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.”’

Good Lord, perish the thought! ‘Climate change deniers’ are nasty, vicious, imbecilic, rapacious neo-Nazis, aren’t they? No, Lovelock’s latest position is… ah, as sophisticated and, um, nuanced as we would expect from someone with such a solid and distinguished scientific track record:

‘He said he still thought that climate change was happening, but that its effects would be felt farther in the future than he previously thought. “We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,” Lovelock said.’

Of course! Even though

“we don’t know what the climate is doing”

and

“there’s nothing much really happening yet”

and

“it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising”

— in other words, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory of man-made global warming, its baleful effects have only

“been deferred a bit”.

Isn’t the environmental movement wonderful? Even when they admit they’re totally wrong, they still insist they were right all along.

Professor Lovelock is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Some years back that august body, the embodiment of the scientific establishment and the custodians of scientific integrity, told us that on man-made global warming ‘the science is settled’. What will the Society now be saying to Professor Lovelock FRS, or he to it?