RUTHFULLY YOURS

Over-analysing and under-analysing — are these not the two sins of thought which we are all meant to avoid? Believing a sniffle is a presage of imminent death. Not bothering about a pain in the chest. Thinking all the problems of the world are easy to solve. Deciding that most things are too difficult to solve. Over-thinking and under-thinking are the Scylla and Charybdis between which we all navigate. But there is one challenge at this moment in particular which the world would do well to understand a bit better and over-think a bit less. Our future depends on it.

Michelle’s hashtag: Celebrity support warmed the heart but more than 200 Nigerian girls remain in captivity or have been sold as slaves
During the last few months the world has seen several varieties of the same evil stretch out, assert themselves and proliferate. Last April 276 schoolgirls were abducted in north-eastern Nigeria by the terrorist group Boko Haram. The translation of their name is usually given as “Western Education is Forbidden” but “Non-Muslim Teaching is Forbidden” is a more accurate rendering. The world ignored this atrocity until the human interest angle of the story spurred people to virtual action.

But no political leaders were keen to explain why the group had taken the girls. Few media outlets explained the simple but crucial detail that the terrorist group was made up of Islamic fundamentalists and that their captives were Christians. Fewer still mentioned that the formal Arabic name of Boko Haram is Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’Awati Wal-Jihad or “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad”. Or that, as one of the group’s leaders, Abubakar Shekau, explained for anyone who would listen, “This work that we are doing is not our work, it is Allah’s work, we are doing Allah’s work.”

A Twitter campaign was started. Numerous well-meaning celebrities including Michelle Obama and David Cameron posed with the Twitter hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. Months later and, with the exception of a few dozen who had managed to escape, the girls remained either in captivity or had been sold into slavery. And so the world’s attention moved on, touched but unenlightened.

A little while back, leaving the local “swimming hole” frequented by residents and summer tourists, I noticed a large group of dark-clad visitors sitting in a circle and solemnly keeping what appeared to be a meditative vigil. They had occupied a considerable space where others would normally pass on their way to one of the promontories leading to the river. They were obviously Muslims, probably an extended family, conspicuously observing the traditions of their native culture and, oblivious to their surroundings and the people who had to detour by an arduous route around them, preparing no doubt to face the Qiblah (direction to Mecca) and to devote themselves to prayer.

Just the other day, I had a similar experience. Since there are no facilities at the beach, swimmers often change out of their bathing suits into street clothes beside their cars, shielded by towels held by friends and intimates or strung between the open doors of their vehicles, an operation conducted in an atmosphere of courtesy defined by a mutual and studied disregard. I was assisting my wife in this delicate maneuver when three Muslim men emerged from the trail giving onto the parking lot. Soon they were trying to stare over and between the towels, mesmerized by the partially hidden lure of a woman in semi-undress. My wife had to enter the car and slide low into the front seat while I glared indignantly at the intruders. Then, as I was about to confront them — the odds were not in my favor, but so be it — they moved aside and, after a few moments, spread carpets on the grass margin a few yards away and ritually prostrated themselves in prayer — close enough that I had to be careful when backing the car out.

It was not violence, but it was a violation, a transgression of the norm, remarked by several others in the parking lot who were struck by so blatant an infringement of both common decency and shared space. These men clearly did not realize or, more likely, did not care that they were contravening the tacit agreement of reciprocal discretion that prevailed among us, whether friend or stranger. They were animated by a robust and incontestable sense of their own priority, a conviction of privilege that need not take into consideration the cultural usages and social expectations of those they had come to live among. The same goes for the band of votaries blocking a public route, heedless of the inconvenience caused.

Such behavior is patently different from the Muslim-inspired havoc and thuggery erupting in Canadian cities like Calgary, Toronto and Montreal, or in the municipal war zones of many European cities with sizeable Muslim populations. But it was nevertheless a visible presumption of specialness and of indifference to the conventions of ordinary civility.

Every immigrant group in this country has variously adapted to the heritage culture, integrating more or less seamlessly by the second generation. However, second-generation Muslims are increasingly being radicalized, some going off to fight with jihadist militias in the Middle East and Africa, others plotting terror attacks on the very country that has offered them freedom, health care, education and the opportunity to prosper.

Five hundred people gathered on the third floor of the United Nations recently for a conference on the rise of anti-Semitism. Although held at the U.N., the conference was sponsored by the by the U.N. Permanent Mission of Palau and the Aja Eze Foundation.

“If you want to know why Palau is doing this, the answer is that it’s a matter of practicing our faith,” said Dr. Caleb Otto, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Palau to the United Nations. Otto, who delivered the opening statement at the conference, was among seven speakers at this event. “As a Christian nation,” he said, “we believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes of Israel. … This God has said, ‘I will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.’ ”

That is why, according to Pastor Mario Bramnick, vice president and chief liaison for Israel and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership, “every single nation historically that has come against Israel has, in fact, been judged by God.”

“This is a historic meeting,” he added, “There never has been a meeting on anti-Semitism like this in the halls of the United Nations.”

The reason for this, said Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, is “because the United Nations itself is the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism.”

To prove this point, Bayefsky stated that around 35 percent of all resolutions and decisions approved by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council condemn Israel. “That’s anti-Semitism,” she said. Fifty percent of the emergency sessions held by the U.N.’s General Assembly (GA) over the past 60 years “were convened to denounce Israel.” In addition, Bayefsky said, in 2013, 70 percent of the GA resolutions targeting a specific country for human rights abuses focused on Israel.

However, this conference didn’t merely focus on anti-Semitism coming from the United Nations, but largely on the vast number of anti-Semitic incidents that have been occurring around the world. Ron Prosor, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, illustrated this point, quoting the World Zionist Organization figures which state that during July, European anti-Semitic incidents increased by 436%, American incidents rose by 130% and anti-Semitic acts in South America rose by 1,200%

“Where is the outrage? Where are the universal condemnations? The silence of 2014 sounds very, very similar to the silence of the 1930s,” he said. “Seventy years have passed, yet there is little difference for European Jews in 1937 and 2014.”

The Democratic party has infantilized women…..making abortion and “women’s issues” priorities instead of issues like foreign policy, immigration, energy and healthcare. The GOP’s female candidates- incumbents and challengers- have moved on and have taken on the major issues and crises of our time…..rsk

It may seem unusual that the husband-and-wife team of Mary Matlin and James Carville have managed to carve successful careers in large part by being on the opposite sides of the political divide. But the really big surprise is that she’s a conservative and he’s a liberal!

Among married couples, it’s usually the other way around, a preference consistently reflected in polling data. In fact, women of all ages 18 to 85 and within all major racial, educational, and marital-status segments of society are more likely to register as Democrats. And the preponderance of liberal feminists in academia continues to prime the pump so that this gender gap persists into the future. Democrats count heavily on the crucial support of women in order to win elections. It helps, too, that women more reliably vote than do men.

Hollywood celebrity Rob Lowe once remarked that he was a liberal because, as an actor, he had greater “empathy” for the feelings and needs of others, the assumption being that Democrats are more empathetic and Republicans are, well, more pathetic. This fallacy continues to drive party rhetoric, as it seeks to portray Democrats as compassionate and Republicans as combative.

Naturally, women want to be seen coming down on the side of compassion. That’s why Democrat campaigns are heavy on the emotion of “doing the right thing,” even if in the end it takes society down the wrong path. For example, Democrat candidates rarely focus on issues like balancing the budget or easing the debt burden on future generations. In their appeal to women, Democrats have had greater success with issues onto which they can slap a face of injustice or immediate need.

Hillary Clinton, who lay low for a while, emerged from the shadows last weekend and headed hand-in-hand with Bill to the Iowa caucuses, hoping for better results than she’d had in her last bid for the presidency. After her usual coy act as to whether she is, indeed, running again, Clinton made a succinct statement to the effect that raising the minimum wage, making education affordable, supporting equal pay for equal work, and giving all people job opportunities is what her party is for – and the Republicans aren’t.

America needs a change of direction domestically to cope with a dangerous and disorderly world.

The reports of Darrell Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are a clinic on how government is really run. The latest on ObamaCare is no exception.

We see Chet Burrell, head of Maryland insurer CareFirst, emailing in alarm last April to White House aide Valerie Jarrett. The administration had just publicly stated its “risk corridor” plan would be revenue neutral—i.e., no extra taxpayer dollars would be available to cover insurer losses.

We see Mr. Burrell warning that sticking with this plan would mean politically “an unwelcome surprise,” namely premium hikes of 20% or more later this year as ObamaCare policies come up for renewal.

We see Ms. Jarrett emailing back in concern. We see her later assuring Mr. Burrell that insurers would get 80% of what they sought. After another program tweak in May, the figure would be closer to 100%.
Sure enough, this week came the fallout. Bob Laszewski, a policy wonk and former insurance executive whose bloggings are closely followed in the ObamaCare debate, writes that the administration has succeeded in temporarily suppressing incipient ObamaCare price hikes, contributing to an illusion of sustainability. He suggests that some insurers might even slash rates to “grab market share because they have nothing to lose with the now unlimited ObamaCare reinsurance program covering their losses.”

The non-surprise revealed here is that ObamaCare turns out to be just another subsidy program, throwing money at health care. In economics, you can’t subsidize everybody but we’re trying: 50 million Americans get help from Medicare, 65 million from Medicaid, nine million from the Department of Veterans Affairs, seven million (and counting) from ObamaCare, and a whopping 149 million from the giant tax handout for employer-provided health insurance.

Much of this money (which will total about $1.3 trillion in 2014) is shoveled out regardless of need, driving up prices and spurring production of services of dubious value. The spending is less effective at improving the nation’s health. An “Affordable Care Act” worth its title would have gotten us off this kamikaze mission. It didn’t.

http://unitedwithisrael.org/innovative-israeli-brain-procedure-broadcast-live-to-12000-american-doctors/

An Israeli medical team performed an innovative life-saving procedure while 12,000 American doctors watched via live broadcast.

A cutting-edge brain catheterization procedure was performed at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem while being broadcast live to 12,000 American doctors in Washington.

The procedure, another example of Israel’s important medical innovations, significantly diminishes the threat to the patient undergoing the operation. The revolutionary stent is covered with a microscopic net that opens up against the arterial wall and can prevent the passage of particles toward the brain, thus preventing cerebral-vascular accidents during its implantation.

The life-saving procedure was debuted in Israel and viewed by American clinicians attending the TCT (Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics) Conference, the world’s largest and most important educational meeting specializing in interventional cardiovascular medicine.
Shaare Zedek Medical Center

Shaare Zedek Medical Center. (Photo: Nati Shohat/Flash90)

Shaarei Zedek is one of 21 hospitals from around the world to participate in the conference and broadcast live medical procedures.
“This is a World Debut”

The medical team performing the procedure was rigged with audio and visual equipment so as to better present the technique to their audience. Two advanced broadcasting stations were set up at the entrance to the hospital to relay the event to the expectant spectators in the US. They received a step-by-step explanation of the ground-breaking treatment.

“This is a world début for this stent, which provides a first-rate solution to the problem,” says Dr. Yaron Almagor, director of the Invasive Cardiology Unit at Shaare Zedek. “There is no doubt that this is a world-class innovation which can revolutionize the treatment of the carotid arteries and will minimize cerebral damage in the future.”

http://unitedwithisrael.org/fda-approves-groundbreaking-israeli-lung-imaging-system/

The FDA recently approved a groundbreaking, non-invasive, radiation-free lung imaging system created by Deep Breeze an Israeli company.

Deep Breeze is an Israeli company based in Or Akiva in the Haifa District that has invented a non-invasive, radiation-free lung imaging system. Using Vibration Response Imaging, the system generates a real-time picture of the lungs.

This new technology is already being heralded by experts as the biggest breakthrough since ultrasound. It will be used to help diagnose cancer, asthma and other pulmonary diseases. Sales of the system will begin in the US shortly.

WATCH THIS AMAZING VIDEO AND SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS!

For four decades genetically modified organisms (GMO) have been vilified and caricatured as “Frankenfoods,” the abominations of mad scientists meddling with nature and putting the human race at risk. Currently, over sixty bills have been introduced in over twenty states that will require food labels indicating if the product contains GMO. Globally, over sixty countries restrict or ban GMO outright, including eight E.U. nations and countries in Africa suffering from famine and malnutrition that could be alleviated by genetically modified crops.

Critics accuse GMO of being unhealthy, increasing chemical pollution, threatening other species, causing dangerous side effects, and harming the environment. But as plant molecular biologist Robert Goldberg of UCLA points out, “In spite of hundreds of millions of genetic experiments involving every type of organism on earth, and people eating billions of meals without a problem, we’ve gone back to being ignorant.”

In fact, no one has yet documented a single case of illness from GM foods, even as about 3,000 people a year in the U.S. die of food-borne illnesses, many of them contracted from “organic” foods. All the dangers of GMO that worry critics are speculations of what might happen in the distant future. Mixing genes from different species, critics contend, will create alterations in the organism that will in the long term produce destructive effects, or genetic material from an engineered crop someday may transfer into the human genome.

There were few modern democrats among the armed opposition to Assad two years ago. There are far fewer now. So who can Obama trust not to turn Western-supplied weapons against us later?

The young rebels and opposition activists gathered in a school to discuss how the northern Syrian town of Al Bab should be governed after the departure of Bashar al Assad’s soldiers were taken aback by the question: “Why aren’t there any women here?” It was the summer of 2012, more than 12 months into the uprising against the Syrian president, and more than a year before Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced the formation of his al Qaeda breakaway, the Islamic State of Syria and Sham, or ISIS.

Initial surprise at my question was followed by smirks. The young men who had talked about ushering in a new era of modern democracy and freedom in Syria pushed forward a nervous young imam to explain. “It is not in our tradition for men and women to mix,” he said. “They can have their own meeting, if they want. And if we need advice on some issues, we can ask them.” There were some chuckles at this. So much for democracy, at least in its Western guise.

Later that night I sat with two local sheikhs who explained how they were forming a court to adjudicate civil disputes and rule on criminal cases. “We will use Sharia law,” said Abdulbaset Kuredy. “What else is there? After Assad, the whole country will be governed by Sharia.” Then he launched into a condemnation of the corrupt West and its acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. The sheikhs were aligned with the Free Syrian Army, the rebel group now touted in Washington as the “moderates” to support in the fight against Assad on the one hand, ISIS on the other.

There was nothing I saw in Al Bab in August 2012—still early days in the insurrection that is now halfway through its fourth year—that led me to feel that if the Syrian uprising toppled Assad, it would lead to an inclusive, minority-respecting, and more or less democratic outcome. Like other countries convulsed by Arab Spring insurrections, there was a mismatch between Western expectations and perceptions and the thinking and religious views of the majority involved in the fighting, and that was a year before the emergence of ISIS. The war back then was clearly becoming more sectarian and Islamic—the trajectory was obvious.

According to the media the diplomatic wunderkinds of Obama Inc. have assembled a coalition that is “broader and more committed” than the one that Bush put together against Saddam Hussein.

Bush couldn’t get France and Germany on board. Obama got France.

Unfortunately France is also about the only country in Obama’s coalition against ISIS. At least France appears to be the only country willing to commit militarily. Possibly the UK will join it, but after parliament turned down Cameron’s air strikes on Syria the last time around, that may be unlikely.

Kerry claims that some Arab countries might be willing to bomb ISIS, he just isn’t willing to say which ones, and meanwhile the standard for participating in the military campaign has been lowered to mean providing training and weapons to Sunni Jihadists in Syria. That means Qatar and Turkey, ISIS’ backers, can be in our anti-ISIS coalition.

Or maybe we’re in their ISIS coalition.

You would have thought that a Nobel Peace Prize winner and famous multilateralist (except when it comes to Congress or the Supreme Court) could assemble a bigger coalition than the crazed cowboy who alienated the French, but it turns out that while Bush could get multiple countries to commit actual troops to securing Iraq, Obama can’t even get anyone to do a flyby of ISIS.

Except the French.

What the multilateralists failed to understand during the Cold War was that countries join international coalitions for their own security. International law only matters when it is backed by iron and steel as a mutual defense pact, not when it wafts words of empty rhetoric at the podium of the General Assembly.

Poland wasn’t sending troops to Iraq because it was worried about Saddam Hussein. It made the commitment because it wanted to be part of a partnership with the United States that would also provide security in its own backyard.

That’s what NATO was originally for.