RUTHFULLY YOURS

Palestinians Butcher Israelis, Wall Street Journal Pivots to Blaming Israel
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2014/11/palestinians_butcher_israelis.html
Joshua Mitnick and Nicholas Casey, correspondents for the Wall Street Journal, have long evidenced a bias favoring the Palestinians in their reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But in recent months this bias has spun out of control. In a deluge of articles on the upsurge in violence around Jerusalem starting in October, Mitnick and Casey have struck a monotonic chord that always point to Israeli actions and policies as the problem.
Even the most recent case in which two Palestinians butchered four rabbis praying in a synagogue is not spared the usual spin. On November 20, page A10 of the Journal published two articles on the violence encompassing nearly the entire page. The top-of-the-page headline states, “Israel Destroys Home of Car-Attack Suspect.”
The entire thrust of the article is to condemn Israel for “reviving an internationally condemned demolition policy.”

In mantra fashion, each paragraph begins with a harsh Israeli action or a criticism of Israeli action.
Paragraph two starts with “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened a harsh response…”
Paragraph three starts with a description of the action taken by Israeli soldiers against the family of one of the terrorists.
Paragraph four starts with “The demolition marked the return of one of israel’s m ost controversial policies…”
Paragraph five starts with “The U.S. views home destruction as counterproductive…”
Paragraph six starts with “Palestinians and rights groups say home demolitions aren’t a deterrent and only encourage families to seek revenge, fueling a vicious cycle.”
Paragraph seven starts with a quote from a pro-Palestinian leftist group B’Tselem, “You cannot punish people for other people’s actions.”

Video: Sonnie Johnson on “Change the Game”
The CEO of the Freedom Center’s new website and activist program exposes the failure and racism of progressive policies.
by Jamie Glazov
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/video-sonnie-johnson-on-change-the-game/

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/there-is-no-moral-equivalency-in-the-jerusalem-synagogue-attacks

Peace in the Middle East will come when the two parties involved both seek peace – not when one must constantly defend itself against terrorist attacks. Since the original two-state solution was first floated in the 1930’s, one side has never found it acceptable and has embarked upon decades of violent aggression and terrorism in order to advocate its case. In the meantime, he other side has created a prosperous multicultural democracy and is the target of constant assaults against its innocent citizens – including, as we recently reported, the killing of a three-month-old child.

Of course Israel, the recognized nation-state, is not only targeted by kinetic attacks, it must also survive propaganda attacks as it is demonized for defending its existence. I once again ask, how do you establish a cease-fire with a terrorist group whose raison d’être is the destruction of said state?

And so the insanity continues between those referring to themselves as “Palestinians” – you can read the history of the term here – and the State of Israel.

As reported by USA Today, “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to “respond harshly” after five people – three of them U.S.-born rabbis – were killed in a synagogue Tuesday by two Palestinians wielding meat cleavers, an ax and a gun. The incident was the latest violent event in the tense city where relations between Arabs and Jews have been deteriorating for weeks over a contested shrine holy to both Jews and Muslims. Netanyahu immediately ordered the demolition of the attackers’ homes, as well as homes of Palestinians who carried out several recent attacks.”

Of course the focal point for some media will be the ensuing consequences and punishment levied by Prime Minister Netanyahu – but he understands there must be consequences to the actions of terrorists.

It will be interesting to see how much we discuss the celebrations of this heinous attack, which occurred in Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Many people are understandably asking: What is the true nature of Islam? Is it that although there are many peaceful Muslims, Islam itself is not peaceful?

Classical Islamic law, developed over the history of Islam, is definitely not peaceful or benign, and therefore not suitable for this age; neither are its violent and grotesque progeny, such as Islamism and jihadism.

If Islam is a religion that stands for justice and peaceful coexistence, then this policy of jihad cannot be justified as sanctioned by a just and merciful creator.

Religious traditions have changed and evolved over time, therefore it is the duty of us Muslims, using reason and common sense, to reinterpret the scriptures to bring about an Islam that affirms and promotes universally accepted human rights and values. It is our duty to cleanse the traditional, literalist, classical Islam and purify it to make it an Islam that is worthy to be called a beautiful religion.

Looking at a year of beheadings by ISIS, child grooming abuses in the UK, judicial misconduct by the hanging judges of Iran, slaughtering and enslaving of Christians in Egypt and Africa, and various murders justified in the name of Islam throughout the world, many people are understandably asking: What is the true nature of Islam? Is it that although there are many peaceful Muslims, Islam itself is not peaceful?

If, for us Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace, justice, and mercy, how come the militants, who claim to be staunch Muslims — who are ready to die for Islam and who claim to have established a state in the name of Islam in Iraq and Syria by sacrificing blood and lives — are beheading journalists and aid workers, and enslaving religious minorities, all by citing Islamic Sharia Law?

The Taliban (literally “students”) in Afghanistan have persecuted religious minorities and inflicted human right abuses against women — and men who disagreed with them or who have fallen afoul of their laws. Boko Haram has also carried out human rights abuses in the name of Islam and Islamic law. In Malaysia, where “moderate” Islam is practiced, Christians cannot call God “Allah.” In Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, and supposedly an ally of the U.S., the policies and practices carried out by the state, and the Wahhabi religious scholars in the name of Islam, are woefully anti-humanitarian. Many Muslims from around the world perform the religiously required pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina; a number of them are on the dole of the petrodollars provided by the Saudis, but do not show much concern for the human rights abuses carried out in the name of Islam by the Saudi establishment.

Many devout Muslims, like monks in monasteries, are busily trapped in performing rites and rituals, and ceding ever more ground to extremists, without adequately reflecting on the history of Islam, the nature of God and the nature of revelation from God.

Even amidst death threats and Islamist violence, Flemming Rose remains a staunch advocate for freedom of speech. In a Europe with ever-increasing speech restrictions, he argues for the equivalent of a global First Amendment.

On October 13, 2014, both the Cato Institute and the Newseum in Washington, DC, hosted Rose, author of the recently published book, The Tyranny of Silence. Rose and his paper maintain high security generally. But surprisingly, the only apparent security at these two events consisted of security guards from institutions holding them. Cato had approximately 75 people in attendance, including a young man from FIRE. The Newseum had a smaller audience, consisting of about 35 people, most of whom were older and likely Newseum members, as only members were sent prior notification. Both audiences were attentive, responsive and had numerous questions for the editor during Q&A. Additionally, both events were taped for online viewing.

Rose is an editor of Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, notorious for its 2005 publication of twelve cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad. Considered blasphemous, the drawings provided Islamists with an excuse to riot across the Muslim world and destroy Danish embassies, killing approximately 200 people.

Preceding these events, Danish author Kåre Bluitgen, wrote a children’s book on Islam’ s Prophet and wanted to include illustrations. Bluitgen sought to commission several illustrators for the Mohammad images. Two declined and one agreed on the condition of anonymity. The illustrators cited safety concerns stemming from death threats to Salmon Rushdie in the United Kingdom and the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, both of whom allegedly “blasphemed” Islam. Questions arose as to whether fear caused the illustrators to engage in self-censorship concerning Islam, and whether individuals in the media should cater to a small minority that reacts violently to discussion deemed offensive.

Jyllands-Posten asked members of the illustrator’s union to draw Mohammad as they saw him. The newspaper accepted submissions for seven to ten days. It subsequently published twelve illustrations along with an article addressing free speech and self-censorship. “No one could have anticipated” what would follow, Rose explained. The cartoons were the purported cause of violence that erupted throughout the Middle East, making Rose and his newspaper the center of a media storm. All context was lost.

Rose had sought a debate about ideas and a civil way to maintain a dialogue. Yet jihadists threatened to bomb the Jyllands-Posten’s offices and murder the cartoonists, forcing several of them into hiding. Both Rose and Jyllands-Posten have had to maintain heavy security ever since.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/extremism-in-islam-tiny-or-large-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Bill Warner, a scientist who has studied Islam since 1970. He has used the scientific method in the study of Islamic texts and has made its doctrine easy to understand. As an example, he had produced a Koran that anyone can read and understand. Visit his site at politicalislam.com.

Dr. Warner joined the show to discuss “Extremism” in Islam: Tiny or Large? He applies the scientific method to the study of Islamic texts and reveals how Sharia compliance defines a way to gauge civilizational “extremism” that goes beyond beheadings:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has helpfully cataloged all 22 times that President Barack Obama admitted that tomorrow’s illegal immigration executive is illegal.

The president’s statements go back as far as 2008 and are as recent as this year. They repeat similar themes, so there is no Gruberesque “speak-o” here. It’s just Barack Obama saying things that he now intends to pretend he did not say, but which clearly show that he knows that what is doing is illegal.

Here is the full list.

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)
“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)
“Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it’s going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. … I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)
“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

I am with Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff on the too-clever-by-half choice by Speaker Boehner to retain leftwing law professor Jonathan Turley as counsel in the House’s long-delayed lawsuit against President Obama. In the end, I don’t think it will matter. As Paul points out, judges tend to decide cases based on the merits. When they don’t, their own political leanings matter a lot more than those of the lawyers for the parties.

Moreover, as I’ve opined, the lawsuit is frivolous: The Framers gave Congress its own powers to deal with a rogue president and would have been appalled at the thought of the powerful first branch asking the “least dangerous” third branch to do its heavy lifting. Moreover, as I recounted in Faithless Execution, Obama pays no more attention to court decisions against him than to statutes he dislikes. Since judges have no power to execute their rulings (they need the executive branch for that) a decision against Obama would have no effect – which makes it even less likely that a judge would agree to hear the case, in which the House already faces a daunting challenge to establishing legal standing to sue. (And by the way, that standing challenge now includes not only the fact that courts are not meant to resolve these policy disputes between the political branches, but the problem of mootness: Boehner talked a big game on the lawsuit but has waited so long to file it that many of the president’s Obamacare “waivers” that the suit was to target are about to lapse.)

But even if we indulge the dubious assumptions that a court will take the case and could give a rat’s rump about the politics of the lawyers, the relevant fact about Professor Turley is not that he is a liberal taking a principled stand against a Democratic president’s lawlessness. It is, as Paul notes, that he is an extreme opponent of executive power, even in areas where the president has broad inherent authority. So if a judge bothered to weigh Turley’s politics, he would either discount the professor’s advocacy as the product of excessive skepticism about presidential action; or adopt Turley’s theories and issue a ruling that hampers future Republican presidents in matters of foreign affairs and national security.

That is the problem with political stunts like the lawsuit. They don’t have real upside but they’re not always harmless.

Just a few years ago, a prominent national Democrat firmly and unequivocally rejected the idea that the president of the United States could singlehandedly enact an amnesty program for millions of illegal immigrants.

In 2011, for example, this Democrat reminded us that “there are laws on the books that Congress has passed,” and that therefore it would not be permissible for the president to “suspend deportations through executive order.”

In 2013, this same Democrat noted that granting a unilateral amnesty for adults residing in our country illegally was “not an option,” because it would amount to “ignoring the law.”

As you might have guessed, that Democrat was President Obama.

Yet the president is now poised to authorize the type of action that he previously opposed, even after his go-it-alone approach on immigration and other issues was soundly rejected by the American people at the ballot box.

Though the president promised he would tackle immigration reform with Congress during his first year in office, his record has instead been a series of empty promises and unilateral policy changes that have produced disastrous results. Because of his decisions to bypass the legislative branch and the rule of law, we have seen thousands of deportable criminals, including many with violent records, released from immigration detention. We also saw a genuine humanitarian crisis unfold along our southern border, as tens of thousands of Central American minors — motivated at least in part by President Obama’s non-enforcement of U.S. immigration law — made a treacherous journey in order to cross illegally into the United States.

Despite these results, the president has decided to announce yet another unilateral policy change that will dwarf all the others — and also make it that much harder for Congress to pass real immigration reform. Republicans and Democrats alike have ideas for how to improve the system, and many of these ideas command bipartisan support. Indeed, members of both parties agree on measures that would address border security, legal immigration, and legitimate commerce at our ports of entry. We agree on measures that would boost our economy, promote assimilation, and strengthen the rule of law. Yet the president is poised to sabotage the legislative process.

As head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano followed the U.S. government’s official practice of refusing to negotiate with hostage-takers. As head of the University of California system, she has become the hostage-taker.

Napolitano is demanding that the cash-strapped state of California pony up an additional $100 million for the UC system, and she threatens to inflict a 5 percent tuition hike on students for each of the next five years in retaliation if Sacramento does not comply. This puts her on the wrong side of Governor Jerry Brown, who by being eternally fixed in anno Domini 1978 has become, strangely enough, the face of relative fiscal sanity as the rest of California rushes headlong into madness. It is easy to make too much of Governor Brown’s relative fiscal conservatism — much of the state’s purported budget miracle is the result of simply putting off necessary pension payments — but the Honorable Governor Moonbeam is here in the right: California is not out of the fiscal woods by any stretch of the imagination, and it cannot afford what Napolitano is demanding.

On the subject of what higher-education expenses California can afford: Napolitano is paid just shy of $600,000 a year in salary, along with $8,916 annually in car expenses, and a $142,500 relocation grant. Even in that tax bracket, she apparently cannot afford to live in the Bay Area, so the university system rents her a home at ten grand a month. And the usual shenanigans — a six-figure outlay to study whether unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or Facebook; similar expenses for Robosquirrel, “a taxidermied actual squirrel that is stored with live squirrels so it smells real” — turn up with diurnal predictability.

How much could it actually cost to provide California students with a first-rate college education? The answer — as predictable as the dawn of Robosquirrel — is this: Nobody knows. If there is one thing that government institutions excel at, it is ensuring that they do not know that which they do not wish to know. (E.g., How prevalent is sex-selective abortion in the United States?) The bundle of things that the University of California system does is large and complex, and a great many of them — most of them, by some calculations — do not have anything directly to do with undergraduate education.