RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Obama administration is not the first to stick itself into an Israeli election ‎process. During the Clinton administration, when for a short period there was a ‎direct election of the prime minster, the White House was happy to send over its ‎most savvy and experienced campaign team, including pollster Stanley Greenberg, ‎James Carville and Bob Shrum, to help Labor Party leader Ehud Barak oust Benjamin ‎Netanyahu in his re-election bid in 1999. The White House had also favored ‎Shimon Peres in his race against Netanyahu in 1996, which ‎Netanyahu narrowly won.‎

Demonstrating that Democratic U.S. presidents continue to want Netanyahu out of ‎the way, some of the same campaign team from 15 years back, including Stanley ‎Greenberg, are again descending on Israel to help the current Labor Party leader ‎Isaac Herzog try to oust the prime minister in the March 17 elections. Of course, American ‎campaign operatives are free agents, and have not been ordered to report for duty ‎in Israel by either President Barack Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry. But the ‎campaign messaging as to the favored party from the American perspective is ‎nonetheless pretty clear. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans ‎by and large supported Israel’s elected leader, whether that leader was from the ‎Right or the Left, and kept out of Israel’s elections. It was generally a bit tougher for ‎American administrations if Israel’s leader was from the Right, but today any ‎pretense of equal treatment is long past. The same splits and partisanship which ‎now divide American politics have carried over to how American officials try to ‎participate in and influence Israeli elections.‎

Both Obama and Netanyahu came into office in 2009. They had vastly ‎different agendas and expectations of each other. Netanyahu wanted America to ‎focus first on stopping Iran’s nuclear program, which it considered an existential ‎threat. Obama wanted Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians and stop ‎settlement construction. In essence, Obama wanted to bring American policy more ‎into line with that of the Europeans and the “international community,” which was ‎always ready to blame the absence of peace on Israel, and in particular on Israeli ‎building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Obama also wanted something much ‎bigger than a halt to Iran’s nuclear program — but rather a new American and ‎Western relationship with Iran, creating a strategic partnership with the mullahs, ‎much as say Henry Kissinger accomplished with China in the early 1970s. ‎

A virus of devastating proportions has been let loose on the world stage. This one is far more dangerous than Ebola and much more difficult to contain. It is the use of violence as a political tactic.

The anarchists, the professional agitators, the Muslim radicals, the “lone wolves” have reached the conclusion that violence works. It achieves attention; it forces the hand of authority; it challenges the rule of law.

When people die in the wake of hostage taking in Sydney, or two New York police officers are assassinated on the streets of Brooklyn, or children are killed in Pakistan, or people are decapitated by ISIL leaders or property is destroyed by soi disant defenders of justice, the stabilizers of order are put on notice. Clearly these actions aren’t the same, and there is the temptation at conflation, but from the point of view of those challenging “the system,” either the prevailing religious sentiment or Constitutional principles, violence is a mechanism that inhibits action or intimidates a foe.

By any reasonable historic standard, the virus of the 21st century is nowhere as deadly as the violence in the 20th century. Yet there is a difference. The present virus is random. It can break-out anywhere, any time. The present virus has legs because of instant communication and social media. Most significantly, the “sensitivity trainers” have made it difficult, if not impossible, to restrain violence with counter-violence. As a consequence, the offense dominates the field of play.

“The Obama administration is ushering in a transformational era for millions of Cubans who had suffered as a result of more than fifty years of hostility between the two nations;” so opined the New York Times last Thursday in applauding Mr. Obama’s “historic move on Cuba.” Certainly, talking is better than not, and the benefits of trade tend to be mutual, but I had no idea that the people of the United States were responsible for the repressive conditions under which most Cubans live. I, obviously naively, had always thought that the absence of the rule of law, the suppression of free speech, the poverty, the jailing of dissidents had something to with the communist government the Castro brothers had imposed on their Country fifty years ago. The opinion leaders of the Times apparently believe differently. We Americans, according to them, share in the blame.

Mr. Obama emphasized that point when he mistakenly inferred that the United States had been a colonizer of Cuba, rather than its liberator in the Spanish-American War. He spoke on Thursday, with words directed at the Cuban people: “Others have seen us as a former colonizer, intent on controlling your future. Let us leave behind the legacy of both colonization and communism.” While it is true that the Cuban Constitution, until the early 1930s, included an “intervention” clause,” Cuba was never colonized by the United States. It was true, though, that American companies like United Fruit operated in Cuba, with advantages accruing to shareholders at the expense of Cuban employees, and the Mafia, an American institution, made Havana an open city in the post-World War II era. So, why does Mr. Obama twist and exaggerate history for his own purposes? Why does mainstream media not call him out?

The Timid Generation

Well for starters….Roosevelt caved to the Marxists….President Kennedy caved to Castro in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. President Johnson caved to the North Koreans when they captured the USS Pueblo and its crew in 1968, Ronald Reagan caved to the Jihadists..in the Marine Barracks bombing that occurred in 1983 when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. An obscure group calling itself ‘Islamic Jihad’ claimed responsibility for the bombings. Reagan ordered evacuation….no revenge. ….Obama may be the worst but certainly not the first….rsk

Aristotle thought courage the preeminent virtue. Without it, there could be no morality. Virtue becomes a mere abstraction, a high-sounding platitude that is easy to live by in one’s sleep.

The present generation may be the most abjectly cowardly cohort in memory. When the Sony Corporation was victimized by North Korean–sponsored hackers upset over Sony’s new movie The Interview, it caved and withdrew the film. The Obama administration so far has offered no real support. Instead it blamed Sony for its appeasement. By joint inaction both Sony and the United States government sent the message that foreign dictators can determine what Americans see or read, as long as their targets are private citizens.

Or is it even worse than that? In 2012, when Islamists attacked the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Obama took the cheap way out and blamed an obscure U.S. resident for making a low-budget video faulting Islam. Indeed, in a speech at the United Nations Obama damned the video rather than the true culprits, al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic terrorists, for the violence against Americans. It was, after all, reelection time, and the last thing Obama wanted was an incident to upset his dual narratives that al Qaeda was on the run, and that his new, kinder approach to radical Islam had lessened global tensions.

They’re going after Geert. Again.

Free-speech watchdogs will remember the founder and head of the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, and his 2011 show trial.

Three years ago, Wilders was brought up on charges of “inciting” hatred and discrimination for comments about Muslims and certain sections of the Netherlands’ immigrant populations. He compared the Koran to Mein Kampf; he contended that Moroccan youths in the country were violent; when asked what his party, also known as the PVV, would do if they took power, he said that he would end “non-Western immigration” to the country. Despite certain authorities’ machinations, he was acquitted of all five charges.

This year, Wilders is again being charged with “insulting a specific group based on race and inciting discrimination and hatred.” But the result this time may be different.

In March of this year, Wilders appeared at a nationally broadcast rally in the Hague, where he proceeded to ask supporters if they would prefer more or fewer Moroccans in their city. “Fewer! Fewer!” they chanted. Wilders replied: “We’ll arrange that.”

More than 6,000 complaints flooded local police, many from Moroccans who said that they felt discriminated against. A short while later, in a television interview, Wilders referred to “Moroccan scum.”

In his previous trial, a court found that, while “some of Wilders’s statements were insulting, shocking and on the edge of legal acceptability . . . they were made in the broad context of a political and social debate on the multi-cultural society.” A Dutch court is unlikely to rule that “Moroccan scum” similarly advances the debate.

Well, at least he didn’t say police “acted stupidly.” But President Obama’s call for “patient dialogue” in the aftermath of the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of NYPD Officers Wenjian Lu and Rafael Ramos is maddening.

Dialogue is an exchange that takes place when there are competing points of view and it is reasonable to believe that both of them may have a point.

Does the president really think there are two sides to this story?

In the absence of any proof of racial animus on the part of police – in fact, in the face of overwhelming proof that police take great personal risks to protect minority communities – Obama and his attorney general have joined the administration at the hip with notorious demagogue Al Sharpton. Together with like-minded radicals like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, they promote a lethally dangerous smear that police lack human regard for the lives of black Americans.

This has not only divided our society – and Obama, like Sharpton, divides us out of the most shameful of political calculations. It has further signaled to a violent fringe Obama well knows is out there that savage acts against police and others are likely to be rationalized and tolerated – and, indeed, that violent acts short of murder will be ignored or sugar-coated as “peaceful protest.”

BOCOTT THIS YOU BDS GROUPIES…RSK
“There are more than 200 digital health start-ups in Israel, and funding reached record levels in 2014,” said Shapiro. MHealth Israel will, he hopes, enhance that performance, and “connect promising entrepreneurs with senior healthcare industry executives from around the globe.”

Tel Aviv has tech start-ups, but Jerusalem, already a center of life-science technology, is the perfect place to develop a digital health infrastructure, according to Ori Choshen, CEO of VLX Ventures.

“Digital health applications is a growing field, and there is not yet a national or even world center for an ecosystem to develop those apps. Jerusalem has a strong medical and academic research community, so we think this is the right place to build that ecosystem.”

Part of that ecosystem-in-formation will be on display next week at the second annual mHealth Israel Conference, the biggest digital and mobile health-tech event in the country. Entrepreneurs, experts, academics, and industry representatives will gather to discuss topics such as how pharmaceutical firms are using digital health apps, regulatory issues, health trends, digital health tech and wearable technology, and more.

“MHealth Israel is meant to encourage a broader community of Israeli entrepreneurial talent to address healthcare challenges,” said Levi Shapiro, organizer of the event.

To help bring that digital health ecosystem to life, VLX Ventures — a cooperative project of Van Leer Ventures and the Xenia Venture Capital Fund, specializing in early-stage investments — is investing in start-ups that marry digital technology with health solutions.

In a deal that Economy Ministry officials say benefits Israelis, the state will give the firm a large grant to be spent locally.
Intel has promised to spend at least $550 million in Israel in the next five years. The sum is part of a commitment by the company to spend a total of $6 billion to upgrade its Kiryat Gat plant for the manufacture of new advanced chips for its next generation devices. Intel and the Economy Ministry’s Industrial Cooperation Authority announced the deal on Sunday.

The $550 is part of Intel’s offset purchase arrangement with the state, which is providing the company with grants of up to $600 million over the next five years as well as a major tax break through 2023. Intel is set to receive two $300 million grants, distribution of which will be spread over five budget years. More valuable for Intel is likely to be the fact that it will have to pay a corporate tax of only 5% through 2023 (the standard rate of company tax in Israel in 2014 was 26.5%). In return, Intel committed to hiring at least 1,000 new employees, at least half of whom will be residents of communities in southern Israel. In addition, the company promised to spend at least $550 million over the period.

Some might point out that Intel is basically committing to spend what it is getting from the government in direct grants, but statements by Economy Ministry officials were enthusiastic about the benefits of the deal to the Israeli economy. “This arrangement will have a very positive effect on hundreds of small businesses and suppliers,” said Ziva Eiger, director of investments at the Industrial Cooperation Authority.

“Offset agreements such as this are platforms for leveraging public expenditures for the benefit of the Israeli economy, both for training and encouraging further expansion of small suppliers for the local and world market, and to enhance Israel’s brand as an attractive place for foreign investment,” Eiger added. “As a result of this agreement, Israelis can look forward to thousands of more jobs being available. It is a model for offset agreements that can provide benefits to all sides.”

A decade ago, a Danish publication posted cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that roiled the Muslim world, resulting in death threats for the editor whose life was subsequently lived under constant security watch. Although this was international headline news, The New York Times refused to publish any of the cartoons, buckling in fear for the security of its own establishment. So of course it’s ironic and amusing that their editorials have been so self-righteous about the need to uphold our absolute freedom of speech in the wake of No Korea’s hacking of SONY and threats to theater owners of a 9/11 type of retribution for screening The Interview. The most sensible suggestion I have read is that the government pay SONY for the rights to the film and then air it free on television and over the internet. It seems patently unfair to call for greater courage from commercial theater owners than the Times was able to summon in its role as dispatcher of all the news that’s fit to print.

In considering the sequence of events, I’m troubled by the notion that private businesses, in this case theater owners, should be expected to pay the penalty for the foolishness of other for profit private ventures. Even if no act of terrorism resulted from the hackers’ threat, wouldn’t audiences stay away from that possibility and wouldn’t theater owners suffer a financial loss? And what would their liability have been if any act of violence had occurred? Would Seth Rogen’s movie have been any different with a fictitious name for an Asian dictator? Is any work of fiction justified in using the real name of a living head of state or public personality? At what point does freedom of speech clash with the right to live without being threatened? What would the reaction of American pundits have been to a satiric movie about President Obama being lynched? We live in a society where you cannot say or print the word nigger without euphemizing it with just its initial – does that represent freedom of speech? Is one word more inflammatory than a movie whose plot concerns a political assassination?

Sharia Law: Draconian Legal System — on The Glazov Gang
Dr. Edward L. Dalcour unveils the nightmare spawned by Islamic “theocracy.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/sharia-law-draconian-legal-system-on-the-glazov-gang/