RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/us-obama-campaign-israel-idUSTRE7B008N20111201

THANKS TO MY DEAR E-PAL C.K. FOR COINING THIS WONDERFUL WORD OBAMENDACIOUS…..AS TO JACK ROSEN WHO DEFENDED HIM THERE IS THAT GERMAN WORD FOR JEWEL…..(SCH…UCK) RSK

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama defended his policy toward Israel on Wednesday at a political fundraiser where a prominent American Jewish leader mentioned concerns in the Jewish community about the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Obama, who has been criticized by some of Israel’s U.S. supporters for being tough on a close ally and has had strained ties with Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu, offered strong assurances of his commitment to Israel’s security.

“I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,” Obama said. “We don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security … and that will continue.”

The president was speaking to campaign donors at the Manhattan home of Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress, who said “it would be remiss for me not to say there are many in the Jewish community who are concerned” about the relationship between Israel and the United States.

Rosen added, however, that “America has never been as supportive of the state of Israel as President Obama and his administration.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/1/abbas-toys-toward-terror-link/print/

MOWBRAY: Abbas toys toward terror link Unity with Hamas would end U.S. aid to Palestinians

After pushing the envelope for the past few years, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas finally might have pushed too far. The stalwart backing the PA has received from the U.S. government – which results in upward of $500 million in total annual funding – appears to be waning.

This comes as the PA, controlled by Mr. Abbas’ Fatah faction, is attempting to finalize a “unity government” with the designated terrorist organization Hamas, something widely viewed as a death knell for potential peace talks.

Republicans and Democrats alike have grown frustrated with Mr. Abbas’ antics, namely forcing a statehood vote at the United Nations adamantly opposed by the Obama administration and now pushing forward with the unity government.

Summing up the widespread view among lawmakers, Rep. Steven R. Rothman, a New Jersey Democrat who sits on the powerful panel that writes the foreign aid bill, says flatly, “There has been great disappointment in Abbas.”

If the unity government actually comes together – and with the Palestinians, it’s an open question until the moment it happens – direct U.S. cash assistance would halt immediately. Indirect aid, such as assistance for U.S.-trained Palestinian security and grants to nongovernmental organizations or PA agencies through the U.S. Agency for International Development, also could be curbed.

http://www.foiwa.org.au/node/435

By Jerry Klinger, President of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation:

“The war was not going well for the British in early 1942. Rommel and his Italian allies were pushing back the British relentlessly. Losses were staggering for the British. They were being decimated in Libya and needed to retreat, to regroup, rest and resupply. British loss, after loss, British defeat after defeat, the ability of retreating in order, without disaster, was very questionable. If the Allied forces could not retreat in an orderly manner, the North African war would be lost. It did not look good.

A delaying action was ordered by the British high command. In a remote area of the Libyan Desert, near an old Turkish fort, the Free French Forces were ordered to stand and fight. The fort was built near an oasis. It was called Bir Hakeim and was the key to the great port city of Tobruk. A line was drawn ahead of the Germans.

 http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=932 ***** “Besides both being racist, genocide-preaching, death-glorifying, Holocaust-denying, civilian-shield-using, theocratic, tyrannical, terrorist organizations that wage suicide bombing campaigns to eradicate Israel, dominate the world and humiliate the U.S., Hamas and al-Qaida have almost nothing in common. ” — Stop comparing Hamas to al-QaidaIn May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not negotiate […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/284693
Of Course Sharia Is Compatible with Western Democracy!
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Posted on December 01, 2011 7:34 PM
From here at the hysterical, irrational Islamophobe corner of the Corner, I pass along this cheery AP report from the sharia “democracy” we are building in Afghanistan, governed by a constitution that the State Department helped write:
Afghan president pardons imprisoned rape victim
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday pardoned an Afghan woman serving a 12-year prison sentence for having sex out of wedlock after she was raped by a relative.
Karzai’s office said in a statement that the woman and her attacker have agreed to marry. That would reverse an earlier decision by the 19-year-old woman, who had previously refused a judge’s offer of freedom if she agreed to marry the rapist.
Her plight was highlighted in a documentary that the European Union blocked because it feared the women featured in the film would be in danger if it were shown.
More than 5,000 people recently signed a petition urging Karzai to release the woman. She had the man’s child while in prison and raised her daughter behind bars, which is common among women imprisoned in Afghanistan. [ACM – A woman doesn’t have to be in a prison to be “imprisoned in Afghanistan.”]
… The woman told The Associated Press in an interview last month that she had hoped that attention generated by the EU film might help her get released. With the film blocked, she said that she was losing hope and considering marrying her rapist as a way out. She said her attacker was pressuring her to stop giving interviews.
About half of the 300 to 400 women jailed in Afghanistan are imprisoned for so-called “moral crimes” such as sex outside marriage, or running away from their husbands, according to reports by the United Nations and research organizations. Fleeing husbands isn’t considered a crime in Afghanistan.
The EU welcomed the woman’s release.
[Thanks to Andy Bostom.]

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/18670-Jews-Confront-The-Gentlemens-Agreement-On-Campuses.html

PLEASE SEE :Arma Virumque of The New Criterion, and to its editor Roger Kimball, for posting an abridged version of
http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/Jews-Confront-the-Gentleman-s-Agreement-on-Campus-6685

Jews Confront The Gentlemen’s Agreement On Campuses
It is ironic that Jews are fighting the establishment on many college campuses, since Walt and Mearsheimer assert that Jews either are or control the establishment. However, an establishment has arisen at many colleges that tolerates, even supports, a leftist and pro-Palestinian alliance that attacks Israel and Jews and that undermines free speech and academic freedom.

The 1947 film produced by Darryl Zanuck, A Gentleman’s Agreement, stunned audiences with the exposure of upper-class bigotry toward Jews. It was elected the best movie of the year in the Oscars, won two more Oscars, and was nominated for five more. Today, there’s a new gentlemen’s agreement on many college campuses that tolerates and often supports anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism. Shocked out of their comforts, many Jews are fighting back.

http://thejewishchronicle.net/bookmark/16501897-Controversial-Zionist-

Tom Tugend, writing in the Nov. 2 edition of The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, relates the amazing story of a Warsaw Ghetto Uprising:


“One early revelation (to me) was that there were two main, separate Jewish organizations — and a couple of minor ones — fighting the Nazis in the (Warsaw) ghetto, based on the left- and right-wing loyalties of the Zionist youth organizations of the time. Apparently, to this day, adherents of these ideologies are loath to credit the “other” side with its contributions to the battle.”

The day before Tugend’s words appeared, a book with the title “Stern: The Man and His Gang,” by Zev Golan came out. Tugend’s words apply just as appropriately to the history of the Hagana, Palmach, Irgun and LEHI in their fight against the British in the land of Israel.

Democracy Project Triumph: Islamists Surge Ahead in Egyptian Elections http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284577/democracy-project-triumph-islamists-surge-ahead-egyptian-elections-andrew-c-mccarthy By Andrew C. McCarthy It would be hard to overstate what a catastrophe the Egyptian elections are shaping into. Reports about stage one of the long process show not only that the Muslim Brotherhood may be getting over 50 percent of the vote; an even more […]

Are Left and Right Meaningless Political Labels?Ambidextrous Statism

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10939/pub_detail.asp

The standard Left-Right yardstick of political identity places President Barack Obama on the Far Left, which means Communism and the total state. On the Far Right? Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Glenn Beck and others, according to the received wisdom. The Far Right is synonymous with fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, and autocracy, with some religion mixed in.

But anotherinterpretation of his political agenda would place Obama on the Far Right. Indeed, countless political cartoons using Nazi and Communist propaganda posters from the past have depicted Obama in either regime’s attire and waving the appropriate swastika or hammer-and-sickle banner. The phenomena leave readers either amused, confused, or in agreement.

The standard, ubiquitous yardstick begins on the left side with Communism and ends on the Far Right with fascism. But is this yardstick of any value? Is it a valid measure of political systems? Is it a trustworthy indicator of an individual’s or organization’s political beliefs? For decades it has served only the Left when the Left wishes to characterize a politician or political agenda in deprecatory terms as being on the Far Right.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10937/pub_detail.asp

Recent candidate debates have been partisan, led by sound-bite rather than important policy issues. Irrespective of party, the following questions are essential for all candidates to address.

A debate should be a formal discussion in which arguments are put forward and each participant presents his reasons for or against a proposition or policy. It can be the basis for judging and evaluating candidates.

However, the recent televised debates among the candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the Presidential elections of 2012 fell short in arguments, substance and style.

A one minute response to a serious question is impossible, but in any case many questions were ridiculous. For example, candidates were asked what they would bring to the White House if elected. I would have pledged the max to the person who answered “my cocker spaniel.” Furthermore, instead of encouraging the candidates to present cogent arguments moderators fostered a circular firing squad by pitting candidates against each other.

Beside carping at the media, Newt Gingrich did bring a refreshing gravity to the fray. However, almost all his answers on tax policy, energy, social security, foreign aid and immigration were originally promoted by Texas Governor Rick Perry who, alas, was unable to articulate them in debates.

There are many questions that impact America’s national security that should be asked of all candidates for the Presidency––or Congress––regardless of political party. Here are a few: