RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the fall of 1991, the relatively small and quiet university of Alfred University in New York State was engrossed in controversy. Indignant professors led students in protests, heated debates raged throughout the divided campus, editorials filled the school and local papers. At the heart of the controversy was the newly-installed statue of King Alfred, the medieval English monarch after whom the town and school was named. Ten years prior, when the monument was commissioned, no one could foresee the controversy it would eventually cause. Yet, its placement offended the sensibilities of the university’s history professors.

By the strong and negative reaction one would think that Alfred must have been a tyrant, an oppressor of his people, a man deserving of the title Alfred the Terrible. Surprisingly, it is the opposite that that is true.

From 871 to 899, Alfred was the King of Wessex, one of the four kingdoms that would eventually become England. During his reign he revived the tradition of learning that had died with the fall of the Roman Empire. He required all of his nobles be literate and increased their education by translating the great Latin texts into English. Additionally, he has the honor of being the first king in English history to write a book, preceding King James by eight centuries. Thus, he is known as the “education king.”

More significantly, for the first time, English law would be written and would establish the tradition of England being a land ‘ruled by laws’ rather than by the whims of powerful men. Within these laws we find the genesis the principles of due process, trial by jury, and respect for the individual; no matter how lowly. His laws protected the commoner from arbitrary and excessive punishment. Even slaves were protected by his laws. There were limits on the number of hours they could be forced to work and were granted 37 work-free holidays per year. Furthermore, the slaves were allowed to work on their own behalf and retain all proceeds from their endeavors. Through the church, Alfred created a system that fed the poor and provided them with medical care.

It has been a good year for that misunderstood and once oppressed Zionist philosophy known as Revisionist- Zionism and the legacy of its protagonists, Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin. Aside from left-wing Israeli politicians like Tzipi Livni celebrating the legacies of Jabotinsky and Begin, two books were published this year on these two right-wing figures by centrist authors.

Yet those who still revere the master and teacher and his star pupil may have little to be happy about, since the mainstreaming of these two founding fathers appears to come at the price of the principles they fought for.

Published in May, Hillel Halkin’s concise and highly readable Jabotinsky: A Life analyzes portions of Jabotinsky’s life and thought which other Jabotinsky biographers paid less attention to, such as certain non-political themes in Jabotinsky’s writing and his relationship with his wife. Halkin also touts Jabotinsky’s literary achievements, commitment to individual rights and his interesting personality.

“If I could raise any of the great figures of Zionist history from the dead for an hour’s conversation,” Halkin writes in the epilogue, “I would choose Jabotinsky,” who “would chat affably over a beer… .”

With an emphasis on Jabotinsky the artist, Halkin thus makes the man once called “Vladimir Hitler” more palatable to the liberal American Jewish audience.

While lacking Halkin’s literary talents, Daniel Gordis’s Menachem Begin: the Struggle for Israel’s Soul, published in March, is still enjoyable and provides a more in-depth basic text on Begin as compared with Harry Hurwitz’s short Begin biography.

Gordis similarly proffers a Menachem Begin more acceptable to the American Jewish community that once denounced him as a fascist, by grounding Begin’s decisions, from his granting asylum to the Vietnamese “Boat People” to his fiery opposition to reparations from Germany, in his Jewishness or “Jewish soul.”

Israel cannot expect to earn the world’s respect until it learns to respect itself.

This murder would be different. So we thought. There can be no justification. A 3-month-old Hebrew baby was slain in Jerusalem.

Her sweet name runs longer than the coffin in which she was buried, Chaya Zisel Braun.

Her sweet name runs longer than the coffin in which she was buried, Chaya Zisel Braun.
Her killer was a Palestinian Arab who answered the call from his leader, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, a man who provokes a new blood libel each day with cries that grow increasingly shrill and hysterical as if coming from a raving lunatic who needs to be locked up.

This time Abbas shrieked about “Jewish encroachment” on the Temple Mount, referred to Jews as a “herd of cattle” and demanded vengeance “by any means.”

Chaya Zissel paid the price. (Most unbearable is to think of the parents and grandparents who waited and prayed for this precious child.)

Someone else drove the car that purposely bulldozed into a crowd, but Abbas needs to be arrested.

England is debating whether to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood, the religious, ideological and operative supporter of Hamas. Various political pressures, however, have prevented British security from designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. One can hope that the ISIS execution of American correspondent James Foley, carried out by a British-born Muslim, would be a wake-up call for not only the British, but all the European security services. The chilling similarity between the horror of Foley’s execution at the hands of a British-born ISIS operative and the Hamas execution of dozens of Gazans, as well as the ISIS slaughter of hundreds of virtually naked Syrian soldiers, should have sounded alarm bells regarding the dangers inherent in the fermenting Islamic enclaves in America and Europe. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

The West’s decades-long apathy toward Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians turned into shock and horror when the Hamas’ sister organization, ISIS, used the same tactics on Yazidis, Christians, Shi’ites, Kurds and anyone else the group classified as “infidel.”

The activists of the Muslim enclaves in Europe, which bred volunteers for ISIS, are now demonstrating in the streets – not only against Israel – but against their host countries. They are testing the limits to see how far they will be able to go when they decide to organize riots. When that happens, they will not only be inspired by their political sheikhs, they will be supported by mujahedeen, volunteers who fought in Syria and Iraq and returned to the back yards of their home countries as seasoned fighters.

The whole world is slowly becoming aware of the situation, yet American Secretary of State Kerry still tries to promote Qatar and Turkey, which openly support terrorist organizations all over the globe, as “honest brokers” to negotiate peace between Israel and Hamas. State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf still actively defends Qatar, whose Al-Jazeera TV is shamelessly used for propaganda against Israel, Egypt and Jordan, and calls for rioting on the Temple Mount. It accuses Jordan of collaboration with Israel in Israel’s so-called attempts to “Judaize” Jerusalem and uses all means at its disposal to foment unrest in Jordan against the king and to dethrone him.

Real and wannabe censors are up to their old tricks again. Real censors are the Democratic members of the Federal Election Committee (FEC). The wannabe censors are also members of the FEC, and are Republicans. If the latter didn’t think anyone should be censored in any venue – print, radio, television, or Internet – they wouldn’t accept appointments to the FEC, nor wish to be in the same room with the real censors.

That being said, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act of 2002) is the typical miscegenational product of bipartisanship between Republicans and Democrats that advances further government controls. But then, that’s all one can expect of pragmatic bipartisanship efforts, in which the Republicans forget or discard their alleged principles, but the Democrats don’t and get some or all of what they want: More controls.

I happened by chance to hack into the personal blog of the Vice Chair of the FEC and discovered this startling and secret memo passed on to her fellow Democrats on the Commission. The text of it follows, and seems to be addressed, not to her ideological ilk, but to a hypothetical individual for whom Ravel nurtures a revealing, disturbing, if not psychotic animus:

My name is Ann M. Ravel, Vice Chair of the FEC. I’m a pal of Cass Sunstein. Remember him? And David Brooks? And Justice Stevens? They wanted to regulate your speech, too, or at least “nudge” you painlessly to politically acceptable and responsible speech. Now, don’t tell me that you, a lone blogger eking out an existence in Milord Obama’s trashed economy, aren’t a one-man political action committee, that you aren’t incorporated anywhere, not even in Delaware, you don’t sell your drivel to others or pay anyone to run it, and that your only expenses are your time and whatever it costs you to write and publish in the way of printer ink and paper. It doesn’t matter to me if you’ve spent a zillion dollars or the cost of a store-brand chicken pot pie, your speech ought to be regulated, and, if necessary, squelched.

And if you persist in running off your mouth about things you aren’t qualified to even think about, I can sic the IRS or the DOJ on you. All it will take is a phone call and a pen twirling between my fingers, just as my boss, President Obama, boasts he can do. He’s my guy!

I am sitting with Geert Wilders, leader of the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, and the news has just flashed that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Canadian convert to Islam who terrorized Ottawa on Wednesday, had previously had his passport lifted by the Canadian government as an officially designated “high-risk traveller.”

That means that before Zehaf-Bibeau put a bullet through the heart of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, a young reservist standing guard with an unloaded rifle at the Canadian war memorial, and before Zehaf-Bibeau rushed into parliament where, thankfully, he was gunned down by security before he could murder again, Canadian authorities had already identified him as someone likely to join the jihad in the Middle East. In fact, so likely was Zehaf-Bibeau to join a jihadist group such as ISIS that Canada did what many Western governments are now doing in the name of counter-terrorism: they took Zehaf-Bibeau’s passport away.

“That’s the same as the other one!” Wilders notes energetically, referring to Martin Couture-Rouleau, also an Islamic convert and “high-risk traveller,” who drove his car into two Canadian soldiers in Quebec earlier in the week, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Couture-Rouleau, who was shot dead at the scene of his crime, had had his passport taken from him in July when he was arrested at the airport before he could travel to Turkey.

In other words, but for good Canadian police work, it looks as if both of these Islam-inspired murderers would have left Canada and disappeared into the bloody maw of the Islamic State. Phew — that was close?

No, that was insane. Such a policy, which the Dutch government also follows, frustrates Geert Wilders to no end.

September 19th was an anniversary you did not read or hear about in the nation’s news media. It marked six years—2008—since the first permit application for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was submitted to the federal government. Can you imagine how many jobs its construction would have created during a period of recovery from the 2008 financial crisis? President Obama is universally credited with delaying it.

Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, pointed out that World War II, the construction of the Hoover Dam, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition all took place in less time. In a September Forbes article, he noted that “Earlier this year a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 65 percent of Americans support building the pipeline, while only 22 percent oppose it. In Washington three-to-one margins are usually referred to as mandates.”

In contrast, in March 2013 the then-Interior Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, boasted “In just over four years, we have advanced 17 wind, solar, and geothermal projects on our public lands.” It is not these projects that Americans depend upon for energy. The opposite is a stark explanation why coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy remain the heart blood of the economy.
AA – Keytone in Perspective

Infographic courtesy of UTA Consultants. For a larger view click on the image.

The Daily Caller reported in July that the “U.S. Bureau of Land Management is currently sitting on a backlog of 3,500 applications that need approval to move forward on drilling for oil and natural gas on federal land,” just part of Obama’s war on U.S. energy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fossil fuels met 82% of U.S. energy demand in 2013.

Petroleum, primarily used for transportation, supplied 36% of the energy demand in 2013. Natural gas represented 27%. Coal represented 20% and generated almost 40% of all electricity. In the six years since Obama took office that is a loss of 10%!

“May you live in interesting times,” an expression (a curse) that may be traced back to post-World War II England, but is apt today, when times have become all too interesting – chaotic and troubling. We must be reminded of the July 7, 2005 bombings of a bus and three tube trains that killed 52. More recently, May 2013, when a Muslim beheaded a soldier on the streets of London; and September, 2014, when a Muslim sodomized a dog and stabbed two women, beheading one of them; and October, 2014, when Scotland Yard captured four Muslims who admitted their mission to terrorize and decapitate ordinary people on city streets, and another four who were plotting to kill police officers or soldiers on London streets – a total of 218 arrests in the past 12 months alone. Britain identified a “complex web” of 60 Muslim Brotherhood organizations now operating from London, Istanbul, and Doha, Qatar.

In Turkey, in August, Islamists shelled, beheaded, crucified and shot 700 members of the Shaitat tribe because they dared to rise up in their own defense. Over the past week, a recent convert to Islam ran down two Canadian soldiers in a Quebec province, and was shot while preparing to stab a woman police officer. A Canadian soldier was shot and killed by another convert at the National War Memorial in Ottawa; the suspect was killed. A Muslim terrorist ran his car into a crowd in a Jerusalem railroad station, wounding six adults and killing a 3-month-old baby. This was followed by rock-throwing session on a kindergarten and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s praise of the killer’s heroics. Two hospital guards at a Philippines hospital were murdered by a Muslim group. A suicide bomber killed another person in Libya, and six young people were executed and then hung, by ISIS, in Iraq.

America surely needs repeated reminding of 9/11, for which Islamist apologists persistently dismiss with a flick of the wrist. Major Hassan’s Allahu Akbar was cast aside with a flimsy “workplace violence” designation, and the stabbing and beheading of an employee at a meat-packing plant in Oklahoma was lost in the media amid all the other excitement of the times, including crimes called “scandals.” But earlier today, a hatchet-wielding, self-inspired terrorist purposely targeted four New York police officers, perhaps in keeping with the new Islamic directive discovered by Scotland Yard.

A Chinese student of Bible and the Ancient Near East studies at The Hebrew University (HU) of Jerusalem recently represented the school and Israel on China’s highest-rated game show, HU said on Sunday.

Lechao Tang, 24, of Wenzhou, China was invited by China’s national TV channel to participate in a Chinese version of an Israeli hit quiz show, “La’uf Al Hamiliyon” (Trying for a Million), in a meet against students from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and other leading universities.

The particular episode of the highly-rated trivia program, which offers contestants the opportunity to win prizes, was the second highest ranking TV show of the day, and the sixth highest ranked of the week — the program’s best recent achievement, according to HU.

“I’m glad to be a link between the Hebrew University and my home country of China,” Lechao said.

The language of deception

Perhaps the glory of the English language is that it so expressive. Its remarkable heterogeneous origins have given it an almost limitless vocabulary. And American English, particularly, has used that tool with an enormous flexibility to make it the international means of communication. One is able with a minimum of linguistic dexterity to capture every meaning, or almost every nuance. That’s why it is so depressing to note that of late there is a growing tendency to do the opposite, that is, to camouflage real meanings with obfuscation.

It has become the fashion – and interestingly enough the tendency swells as one moves up the educational ladder – to mask real meanings with words or phrases that tell less than one could easily relate. At the moment my favorite bete noir in this regard is the phrase “to reach out to” which has become omnipresent.

What the hell does that mean? There are dozens of words which describe in precision relationships and communication among individuals, and which would lend authenticity and further meaning to any such statement. If you have to obfuscate, how about “contact”? Long ago [but in my time] we turned “contact” from a simple noun into a verb, much to the horror of strict grammarians. But it still, generally, has retained the meaning of a spoken communication.

But “to reach out to” now substitutes for a wide variety of unknowable meanings: written communication, a face to face exchange, a telephone conversation, an exchange of e-mails or “snailmail”, a connection through an emissary or other intermediary. Or you name it! In any case, I doubt that most of the time it means extending an arm or a leg to touch another person.

Why? If you want to say that information has been exchanged about a particular subject, why not use one of many verbs which tell us how it was done and thereby give us more information?

I am afraid that this horrible example is only one of hundreds of such bromides commonly used these days.