RUTHFULLY YOURS

BY Moshe Phillips, president and Benyamin Korn , chairman of the Religious Zionists of America, Philadelphia.

During an old controversy involving Martin Indyk, then the U.S. ambassador to Israel, one Israeli political official invoked a particularly nasty historical analogy. Indyk reportedly had been contacting individual Israel cabinet ministers to demand they support making more concessions to the Arabs. “Ambassador Indyk needs to be reminded that he is not the British High Commissioner,” said the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Not many Israelis today remember when a foreign power ruled Eretz Yisrael through the proclamations of an absolute dictator, nor how oppressive it was to live under his rule. But prior to Israel’s independence in1948, Jews living in the Holy Land could not shape their own fate. Outside powers – in this case, the British ruling authorities – called the shots, with their High Commissioner deciding what was best for the Jews.

Martin Indyk also acts as if he knows what’s best for the Jews. As President Obama’s special envoy, he declared in an August 2010 New York Times op-ed that Israel should “withdraw from at least 95 percent of the West Bank and accept a Palestinian capital in Arab East Jerusalem.”

In one job or another, Indyk has spent the last two decades trying to bring this about. First as part of the State Department’s Middle East team under President Bill Clinton, then as ambassador to Israel (twice), and more recently as President Obama’s envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Indyk has always pursued his goal of forcing Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.

Indyk’s passion for his imposed solution is so strong that he has at times even come close to justifying Palestinian violence against Israel. On May 2 of this year, an unnamed “senior U.S. official” told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot: “The Palestinians are tired of the status quo. They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.” Three days later, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Indyk was the official who said it.

That remark recalled a statement made by “a senior U.S. official” to the Jerusalem Post on June 22, 1997, that recent Palestinian rioting against Jews was “a plausible safety valve” which “lets the Palestinians vent their anger.” At the time, Indyk was the U.S. ambassador in Israel.

A mosque in the disputed territories town of Mughayer near Ramallah suffered severe fire damage back in November. The word out immediately was that Jews were responsible. Not just any Jews, of course, but those evil extremist “settlers.”

The mayor of Mughayer, Faraj al-Nassan, told the Associated Press that the Jews were to blame for the fire.

“Only Jewish settlers would do this,” he said.

He neglected to mention any other possibility, including the actual one, the electrical malfunction of a space heater.

Nassan made the statement to the AP, which dutifully reported it, and then the unverified rumor ossified firmly into fact, showing up in dozens of media sources throughout the world.

Yahoo! News posted an AP photograph of an Arab man holding a heavily burned Quran, describing the fire as having resulted from “an attack” against the mosque which “ignited a fire that destroyed its first floor.” The Yahoo! caption included the village’s mayor “blaming Jewish settlers for the attack.”

It wasn’t only an understandably distraught town mayor who blamed the Jews. Reports from villagers blaming Jews were not mere suppositions, they were stated as fact.

The fire in Mughayer took place during a spate of terrorist attacks against Israelis. Many media outlets happily invoked a standard trope known as the “cycle of violence,” where harm to anyone or anything on both sides are presented as similarly motivated acts of hatred.

But as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) revealed on Tuesday, Dec. 16, an investigation of the Mughayer mosque fire conducted by Israeli firefighters determined that “the cause was actually an electrical malfunction.”

I love Chanukah, particularly in New York City. The days are short and by late afternoon the city glows with Christmas lights, menorahs, and enticing shop windows with extravagant displays. I love crispy potato fritters (latkes) with apple sauce and exchange of presents with my kids and grandchildren. It is a happy holiday with a very serious side.

First: It is a happy holiday which celebrates the miraculous lasting of oil for the candles. We see that today as we celebrate the emergence of energy independence in America and Israel with vast supplies in both nations of domestic sources of fuel.

Second: It is a serious holiday that celebrates the triumph of faith and principles against wicked tyrants and faithless coreligionists who worshipped Hellenist idols and profaned the Torah.The word Chanukah actually means “rededication.”

In our great nation we are beset by modern “Hellenists” who profane democracy by worshipping and promoting cults and falsehoods such as man made global warming; the so called war on women; the politically correct notions of root causes for savage behavior; prescriptives for peace that enable enemies; domestic “compassionate” agendas that enslave citizens with perpetual gripes and entitlements; total hypocrisy, confusion and double standards in judging allies such as Israel; and finally, a disdain for and perversion of our great founding principles.

I pray for an American Chanukah- a rededication in America to capitalism, entrepreneurship, academic freedom and all the blessings of democracy for all our citizens….rsk

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/ferguson-and-an-arsonist-in-chief-on-the-glazov-gang-2/

This week’s Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Michael Finch, the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He was joined by Morgan Brittany, Conservative TV and Movie Star, Nonie Darwish, author of “The Devil We Don’t Know” and Mell Flynn, the president of Hollywood Congress of Republicans.

The Gang gathered to discuss Ferguson and an Arsonist-in-Chief, analyzing how and why Obama emboldened the thuggery, chaos and violence (starting at 7 minute mark). The episode also focused on Feinstein’s Destructive Torture Charade, dissecting the reasons the Democratic Senator chose to humiliate her country and endanger its citizens’ lives.

Torture is one of those topics that often overwhelm sober reason with lurid emotion. Even people who usually are clear-eyed and rational sink into sloppy thinking and incoherent argument when it comes to torture. Peggy Noonan’s recent Wall Street Journal column about the Senate report on the CIA’s interrogation techniques illustrates this phenomenon perfectly.

Noonan is usually an astute analyst, but her column on the report is riddled with received wisdom and unexamined assumptions. For Noonan, the “important lesson” of the report is not that progressives, as usual, are shameful hypocrites and partisan hacks who will damage their country’s interests for ideological or political advantage. It is not that when fighting a brutal enemy who obeys no laws of war, things are done we’d rather not do in order to save lives. No, her “lesson” is that the enhanced interrogation techniques, “torture” in her view, are “not like us” or “part of the American DNA,” and that, quoting John McCain, such techniques damage “our reputation as a force for good in the world.” These assertions, however, are based on simplistic psychology and flawed reasoning.

First, with very few isolated exceptions, none of the interrogation techniques meets the U.S. Code’s legal definition of torture, which requires the intent to cause severe suffering “other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions,” in the words of the statute. Noonan may think the EITs are “what I believe must honestly be called torture.” But what Noonan, or I, or anyone else “believes” does not trump what the law actually says, and it is the law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340) that our officials must follow, not subjective perception or even international laws that conflict with our own. As I said before, if people disagree with the law, then there is a political process for changing it.

The begged question that the EITs are torture undermines by itself the rest of Noonan’s argument. But it suffers from other problems as well. She also makes the fuzzy but simplistic statement that it “won’t help us fight it [war against jihadism] to become less like ourselves and more like those we oppose.” This is a version of the progressives’ mantra since 9/11 that the “terrorists win” if we do certain things that the critics believe are immoral or contrary to our “values”––as if our crisis of national identity is more important than destroying the enemy, the only way we “win.”

The Obama administration is shamelessly outsourcing the United States’ historic leadership in facilitating negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel of a workable, secure two-state solution to the United Nations and European governments. In putting its trust in these two centers of anti-Israel sentiment, the Obama administration refuses to say categorically that it would veto a UN Security Council resolution setting some sort of deadline for the creation of a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 lines.

In the words of an unnamed senior U.S. State Department official quoted by Reuters, “These things are all very much in flux, it’s not as if we’re being asked to take a position on any particular Security Council resolution right now. It would be premature for us to discuss documents that are of uncertain status right now.”

Any Security Council resolution the Obama administration would agree to, which imposes pressure only on Israel to make more unilateral concessions for an illusionary “peace,” will serve to legitimize a United Nations timetable for Israel’s surrender to forces that wish to destroy it. The Gaza debacle following Israel’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and give the Palestinians a chance to build a prototype Palestinian state illustrates the danger Israel would face from being pressured into more withdrawals at this time.

The Palestinian Authority leadership is pressing for action on just such a Security Council resolution as early as this Wednesday, according to a Palestine Liberation Organization official and Palestinian U.N. Ambassador Riyad Mansour. The Palestinian resolution, to be sponsored by Jordan (a non-permanent member of the Security Council), would reportedly set a two year deadline for complete Israeli withdrawal from all “occupied” territories, although Jordan’s UN ambassador told reporters it was news to her that any action to vote on the resolution would be taken as soon as the Palestinians are demanding. There is some speculation amongst UN insiders that a vote on a Palestinian resolution could be put off until early in the new year. The Security Council makeup will then be even more inclined towards the Palestinian position, because Malaysia will be replacing South Korea as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

Small Business Administration (SBA) Abuses Lending Programs “The findings (re: OpenTheBooks.com report) are certain to spur new oversight of the SBA program on Capitol Hill.” The Washington Times | December 1, 2014     “We must never demonize success,  but we don’t need to subsidize it either.” SBA’s Welfare to the Wealthy Click here to read our editorial […]

The Democrats, suddenly shocked by the CIA’s tactics, dishonor the people who died on 9/11.

New York — I personally pledge to purchase for the Central Intelligence Agency as much Kleenex as needed so that those whom it waterboards can dry their noses after detailing their plans to exterminate Americans. This signals how little I am bothered by the “torture” alleged in Senate Democrats’ borderline-treasonous “report” on the CIA’s post-September 11 interrogation techniques.

Democrats’ highly convenient collective amnesia has erased their memories of being briefed on these probes. As a giant hole replaced the World Trade Center and Americans feared follow-on attacks, top congressional Democrats did not wail that interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects “are a stain on our values and our history,” as Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) now moans. Instead, top Democrats told the CIA to squeeze these scum even harder.

As the December 9, 2007, Washington Post explained, congressional leaders from both chambers and parties — including then-House Democratic boss Nancy Pelosi of California — received “graphic and detailed” updates on the CIA’s questioning efforts, including waterboarding, as early as September 2002. While then-representative Jane Harman (D., Calif.) counseled caution, the overwhelming response was applause.

“Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Porter Goss, former House intelligence chairman and then director of Central Intelligence from 2004 to 2006, told the Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

According to an American official who attended these sessions, “The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough.” One official also observed that “there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, ‘We don’t care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.’”

Obama has fundamentally transformed America, all right — but not as he intended.

A perfect storm brought into power Barack Obama, a previously little-known Illinois community organizer. He had at best a mediocre record as a state legislator and rookie senator. Yet he quickly dazzled the liberal establishment. Joe Biden and Harry Reid were wowed by his sounding and behaving like a white liberal, while retaining the ability to turn on his supposedly authentic black persona when needed. That he had no record of achievement was seen as an advantageous clean slate. Teleprompted glibness was preferred to ad hoc repartee, as if an entire presidency could be scripted and Photoshopped with backdrops of Greek columns and Latin mottos.

In general, since World War II the American electorate has not voted into the presidency Northern liberals like Obama — or any Democrat (except JFK) without a Southern accent. A drawl apparently offered voters in the past some superficial reassurance of centrism. In the last five decades, Northern progressive candidates — Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis — all failed, whereas Southerners like Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore all won the popular vote.

But the events of 2008 were exceptional, and were hyped as 1932 all over again: as evidence of the failure of market capitalism and the need for a neo-socialist correction. The McCain–Palin lead late in the campaign collapsed after the September financial meltdown, as Wall Street excess was, fairly or not, tied to the supposedly rich, uncaring Republican establishment. John McCain, we were told, did not even know how many houses he owned. The successful surge in Iraq was still dubbed by the media a failure and did not assuage American anger at the costly war. After Iraq, Katrina, and the failed reform of Social Security, incumbent president George W. Bush had grown abjectly unpopular.

McCain, in the manner that Adlai Stevenson had distanced himself from an unpopular Harry Truman, ran as much against Bush as he did against Obama. In 2008, there was no incumbent president or vice president on the ticket; it was the first orphaned and wide-open election since 1952.

Obama ran on his iconic status as the would-be first black president. For the most part, he hid his spread-the-wealth agenda. A plumber did better than establishment journalists at prying out a smidgen of Obama’s worldview. The media helped reduce Obama’s Chicago friends such as Bill Ayers, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko to complete strangers. To evoke them was tantamount to racism.

Whatever spin is put on it, Islamic adherents’ frequent recourse to violence marks their creed as the fountainhead of a destructive cult. The siege in Martin Place — the work of a local jihadist, complete with an ISIS flag — proves once again that enlightened societies must set aside political correctness and challenge it at every turn, at every opportunity

Mohamed Karroum, the father of a young woman, Amira Karroum, killed in Syria in January has been widely reported as blaming the Australian government and Tony Abbot for allowing her to travel there. I don’t want to comment directly on the way Mr Karroum is expressing his grief. We can all feel for him. But where does the blame really lie?

How does a young woman educated in an Anglican girl’s school in Queensland end up radicalised and a member of an al-Qaeda offshoot. No-one can know what was in her head. As it happens, we don’t need to in order to find an explanation.

Many young people at impressionable stages in their lives have joined destructive cults. By all accounts, many seem to have had the benefit of good homes and good schools. Maybe some people are psychologically predisposed to this kind of wayward behaviour? Even if this is true, it can never be discovered in time. The best that society can do is to remove the temptation by exposing cults as they arise and, if feasible, by dismantling them legally.

Let me move from cosy concord to potential discord by hypothesising that Islam is the longest-lasting (from the 7th century is a long time) and most destructive cult the world has ever known. Sam Harris, featuring in the heated debate between Bill Maher and Ben Affleck, describes Islam as ‘the motherlode of bad ideas’. Geert Wilders describes it as ‘a violent totalitarian ideology’ (See Gatestone, 9 December). If they are right it is not surprising that it leads impressionable young people astray.

At question is whether Islam is a violent totalitarian ideology at its heart or a religion of peace or, as some would have it, both — depending on the version. A history of conquest and the current carnage and mayhem stretching from Sub-Saharan Africa across the Middle East; the terrorist bombings and killings which have occurred across Asia, Europe and America; the capricious beheadings and threatened beheadings; and the social dissention wherever Muslim migrants settle – is not, to be frank, a good advertisement for Islam.

Neither is the finding by Pew Research in 2010 that 84 percent of Egyptians, 86 per cent of Jordanians and 76 per cent of Pakistanis favoured death for apostasy. Then there are the various group incarnations of Islam like the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, Jabhat al-Nusra; and, too numerous to count, radical preachers like Imam Adjem Choudary.