RUTHFULLY YOURS

There’s nothing unpatriotic about challenging Obama on Iran. The Obama administration values a future relationship with Iran more than it values the historic relationship it has with Israel. Unless there’s a reversal in the reported deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, all the superficial talk about this extraordinary friendship between Israel and the United States isn’t going to mean much. And the histrionics surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech in front of a joint session of Congress only confirm that there are plenty of people who are happy about it.

First, Americans were supposed to be outraged because Netanyahu engaged in a breach of protocol. Then we were supposed to be outraged because the speech would be given too close to the upcoming Israeli elections. (Senator Tim Kaine [D., Va.] is still using this excuse for his own boycott.) But if the Israeli elections — and President Barack Obama has done about everything possible to weaken Netanyahu’s position — are so problematic, then the controversy should be centered on the behavior of the prime minister, not the substance of his argument. But that’s not the case, is it? Administration mouthpieces warn us that the once-special relationship between the nations will collapse under the weight of a single speech — and some of those warnings have come with a hint of anticipation.

From the very first moments of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her top aides were advised that the compound was under a terrorist attack. In fact, less than two hours into the attack, they were told that the al-Qaeda affiliate in Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, had claimed responsibility. These revelations and others are disclosed by a trove of e-mails and other documents pried from the State Department by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The FOIA litigation focuses on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the government actions before, during, and after the Benghazi attack, in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was murdered by terrorists.

Also killed in the attack were State Department information management officer Sean Smith, and two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, who were contract security employees and who had fought heroically, saving numerous American lives. At least ten other Americans were wounded, some quite seriously. At 4:07 p.m., just minutes after the terrorist attack began, Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief-of-staff, and Joseph McManus, Mrs. Clinton’s executive assistant, received an e-mail from the State Department’s operations center (forwarded to her by Maria Sand, a special assistant to Secretary Clinton). It contained a report from the State Department’s regional security officer (RSO), entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack.”

Imagine if Benjamin Netanyahu swaggered like King Abdullah; But what’s exhorted in some is unthinkable for others.

Jordan’s King Abdullah may be barely hanging in there – thanks mostly to Israel’s tacit support – but there are times when we Israelis must envy him. His PR is peerless. We see him posing in camouflage combat gear and the entire civilized world can’t applaud the machoman loudly enough.

In a photo circulated by his palace, Abdullah strikes a daunting figure – the great hope of the world’s democracies. Their hype/hope is that Abdullah will fight their fight against Islamic State (ISIS a.k.a. ISIL). To boot, Abdullah is a Muslim which is awfully handy for the spin that IS barbarities shouldn’t color our attitudes toward Islam.

But Muslims have always been fighting Muslims in numerous internecine wars between rival factions of Islam. Abdullah, moreover, isn’t the only Muslim headliner who today wages war – such as it is – on IS.

“There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people….If it please Your Majesty, let an edict be drawn for their destruction….”

Every Jewish child recognizes that miserable request as the whiny voice of Haman, the voice of doom for Jewry were it not for Queen Esther, who, when told, said, “How can I behold the destruction of my people?” thus setting in motion instead the destruction of Haman—and giving us the festival of Purim.

Now, by fate or coincidence, on the day before Purim, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is scheduled to address the United States Congress. Like Esther, he will plead for Israel, threatened this time by the modern Haman in the modern Persia, busily assembling the very latest tools of destruction. For as an Iranian computer engineer said not long ago, according to YNet News, the Islamic Republic “could destroy the Jewish state in less than nine minutes.” Apprised of that potential, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, approvingly said, “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.”

On addressing Congress: Netanyahu shouldn’t go – but he must.

Over the past few days, jotting notes on paper napkins, I had it figured why Benjamin Netanyahu shouldn’t go.

By the time I got to the computer and then started reading what others were saying, I completely changed my mind.

When even momentarily I find myself on the same side as Haaretz and The New York Times, on anything, I know something’s wrong.

They’re against Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress and bypassing the White House on the perils of a nuclear Iran.

Israel’s Prime Minister, they say, ought to terminate the trip that was extended by Speaker of the House John Boehner. Netanyahu says he’s going.

Watch out, they say. There will be hell to pay for antagonizing President Barack Obama. Better to heed Democrat Obama who is willing to give Iran all the time it needs to act sensibly, rather than heed Republican Boehner who, like Netanyahu, favors heavier sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Boehner and Obama are at odds on practically everything, and now that Republicans run the show in the House and Senate, it’s each man to his corner.

In a vote along party lines, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved what amounts to a government takeover of the Internet. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his fellow Democrats, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, approved placing the Internet under Title II regulations. They will reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, and regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like utility companies, or “common carriers,” rather than “information services” that remain outside the agency’s regulatory power. Republican commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly dissented, with Pai explaining that net neutrality is “a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.”
The arrogance of Wheeler and his allies has been evident for some time. The 332-page proposal they approved was never made available to the public or Congress prior to the vote, even as Wheeler ignored pleas by Pai and O’Rielly to do so. “We respectfully request that FCC leadership immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it,” they said in a statement released Monday.

Reform Judaism: Is It a Bad Thing? — on The Glazov Gang

Three Jewish thinkers ponder what reform Jews contribute to Jewish identity and to the defense of Israel.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/reform-judaism-is-it-a-bad-thing-on-the-glazov-gang/This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Aaron Shuster (Writer/Producer), Ari David (Host, The Ari David Show Podcast) and Barak Lurie (Host, Barak Lurie Show).

The guests gathered to discuss Reform Judaism: Is It a Bad Thing?, pondering what reform Jews contribute to Jewish identity and to the defense of Israel. (The dialogue was an extension of last week’s show, The Psychology of Left-Wing Jews.)

Whilst the American-led coalition continues its largely ineffectual air strikes in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State has spread its barbaric tentacles into Libya with alarming rapidity.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for:

1. Attacking Tripoli’s downtown luxury hotel in January – the Corinthian – which left 11 dead

2. The brutal mass beheading of 21 Egyptian Christian Copts

3. A multi-pronged suicide attack that killed at least 45 people in the town al Qubbah in Libya’s east.

4. Seizing the university in Sirte – deposed dictator Muammar Gadaffi’s hometown.

Egypt’s President – Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi – has called for intervention by the United Nations:

A man seen in multiple ISIS propaganda videos speaking with a British accent and beheading Western hostages had his identity revealed in the Washington Post this morning, and yet again the suspect is another case of what I have termed “known wolf” syndrome since he was already known to authorities before engaging in acts of terrorism.

The Washington Post reports:

The world knows him as “Jihadi John,” the masked man with a British accent who has beheaded several hostages held by the Islamic State and who taunts audiences in videos circulated widely online.

But his real name, according to friends and others familiar with his case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming. He is believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined the Islamic State, the group whose barbarity he has come to symbolize.

But the article goes on to reveal that Emwazi had been detained by authorities not once, but twice:

Embattled presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is taking some rhetorical sniper fire for her charitable foundation, which received large contributions from several nations while she was secretary of State.

The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and others have hinted at impropriety on two levels…

1) A potential presidential candidate becomes beholden to certain foreign nations.
2) A Secretary of State whose private foundation grows in prestige from foreign donations, while those same nations lobby the State Department for special treatment on human rights.

Both questions merit vigorous exploration, but for two of the Clinton Foundation’s “donor nations” there’s a third, perhaps more troubling, specter: taxpayer money laundering.