RUTHFULLY YOURS

Anti-Zionism is an annihilationist ideology. They don’t want an entire people, the people of Israel, to live

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4872/anti_zionists_want_the_israeli_people_to_die

Contrary to the old wisdom about history — that it repeats itself — more often it moves in patterns. And where history goes, human progress, or regress, cannot be far behind.

Look at the pattern followed by human rights. From the dawn of recorded history to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and beyond, more rights have been recognized for more people in more conditions; so that today every living human is covered, notionally…Or nearly every human. In its opaque wisdom History ordained for one collective a different lot. Progressive rights were not for the Jews. Briefly consider how the powers of different epochs treated that people.

Effectively the Greeks and Romans decreed, “You have no right to live among us as Jews.”

After them came the Church: “You have no right to live among us.” And finally Hitler, and the Nazi decree: “You have no right to live.”

Today who decrees what for the people of Israel? Brace for it. Anti-Zionism, the axis of two religions and a secular movement, decrees no more rights than Hitler did. Effectively anti-Zionists tell the people of Israel, ‘You have no right to live.’

We may cast a disdainful look at Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or even the Mullahs of Iran. Forget those anti-Zionists. The fiery placards in Durban or Gaza City might be worth a chuckle: ‘Kill the Zionists’; or ‘If only Hitler had finished the job’.

Forget the hotheads. Think BBC; think the Guardian; think CNN and the UN General Assembly; think the Human Rights Council and Europe’s Parliament; think Amnesty and Oxfam; think of the boycott movement; and yes – think of some homegrown Israeli academics and NGO schemes.

Those are the anti-Zionists to bear in mind. Attend carefully and we’d catch their verdict on the people of Israel, ‘No right to live.’

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/voter_fraud_the_lefts_tool_for_social_justice.html

Why did Democrats applaud the loathsome community organizer Melowese Richardson, a freshly released, unrepentant voter fraud felon, at a recent “voting rights” rally in Ohio?

Because, like Richardson, they believe they are entitled to vote more than once against a system they see as unjust. Some serial voters do what they do in order to exact revenge against a society they feel did them or their ancestors wrong. Richardson is far from alone. Double-voting is distressingly common.

Many leftists have contempt for the electoral process because they don’t believe in the electoral system as it is constituted in capitalist America. To them, elections are already a fraud – an instrument of the rich, or as Saul Alinsky prefers to call them, the Haves. If the electoral system doesn’t serve “the people,” but is only an instrument of the Haves, then election fraud is justified as the path to a future that will serve the Have-Nots, as David Horowitz has explained.

This belief helps Democrats and the rest of the left rationalize their habitual efforts to suppress and cancel out lawfully cast votes. It helps to explain the strenuous efforts of leftists like former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), now federal prisoner number 32451-016, to assure the public that voter registration fraud is no big deal and that fraudulent registrations almost never turn into fraudulent votes.

This is why liberal fascists inside and outside government routinely excuse electoral fraud – in all its manifestations – arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that such fraud is merely a Republican invention created to keep minorities and the poor down.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/mixed_socialistcapitalist_systems_dont_work_either.html

One does not have to point to the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or to the failure of Labor Party policies in the U.K. to justify the conclusion that governments are incapable of efficiently producing goods and services. (Some few exceptions exist, principally in areas that economists call “natural monopolies”, for example.) The problem that popularly-elected governments have is that democratic politics interferes with the essential efficiency force, competition.

The history of U.S. government involvement with financial institutions is especially egregious, as have been its efforts to provide public housing, subsidize higher education, and promote alternative green energy sources. Indeed, Wagner’s law of increasing government explains why there is no limit to government inefficiency. Governments do not compete with themselves.

Government enterprises have had some success in the production of electric power when it is a natural monopoly — especially in the distribution of energy — but its subsidies to energy-producing enterprises has been a failure regardless of what criteria you want to apply. We prefer economic efficiency. That requires the measurement of social costs and benefits. Unfortunately, the measurement of social benefits and costs is a political calculation and subject to the same difficulties as we have with running government enterprises.

Under common law, people could seek legal redress from private enterprises that committed a nuisance (a social cost). Unfortunately they are not able to do so when governments create the nuisance. The only recourse is political. Government-approved and subsidized windmills that generate electricity are a good example. They are a public nuisance that can be replaced or eliminated only by a political process. That same political process is what enabled them to be built in the first place since they required huge public subsidies. The competitive market system would not have enabled them to be built because they are inefficient producers of electricity. Often, they could not sell the electricity they produce without a government mandate requiring energy distributors to buy their product regardless of cost.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303456104579489813562362816?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5

The political left favors “single payer” health care, but that concept has new meaning in New Hampshire this year as just one insurer was willing to participate in ObamaCare. Thus the spectacle of Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen beseeching the feds to save her re-election from her own law.

The Granite State Senator rode the 2008 Obama wave to become the deciding 60th vote for the law’s passage, but now Ms. Shaheen must defend the mess it has made of her state’s insurance markets. She’s cashing in all her government chits amid a statewide uproar as patient access to hospitals and other providers has declined.
Related Video

Editorial board member Joe Rago on the skyrocketing health care premiums and limited doctor network under the new health-care law. Photo credit: Getty Images/Associated Press.

The only exchange option afforded to consumers comes from Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, a unit of WellPoint. The insurer built a narrow network that lowered premiums by 25% or 30% while still complying with ObamaCare’s other mandates. Limiting choice can generate volume discounts on rates and sometimes better medical performance.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579493410287663906?mg=reno64-wsj

Ms Hirsi Ali states: “The motto of Brandeis University is “Truth even unto its innermost parts.” That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.”….that “truth in its innermost parts” must include the fact that it is doctrinal Islam that oppresses, subjugates all people….women, men and children….that tolerates female genital mutilation and massacres of Christians….Only that truth will unveil the possibility of reformation of Islam…..rsk

We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking.

On Tuesday, after protests by students, faculty and outside groups, Brandeis University revoked its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at its commencement ceremonies in May. The protesters accused Ms. Hirsi Ali, an advocate for the rights of women and girls, of being “Islamophobic.” Here is an abridged version of the remarks she planned to deliver.

One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.

http://politicalmavens.com/

American college girls consider themselves harassed when a life-sized sculpture of a man in his underwear is placed on their campus.

So imagine how they must react to the story of a young girl from a patriarchal religious culture who is subjected to genital cutting, a planned arranged marriage with an older man, exile from her native land, the need to learn another language, her election to parliament in her adopted country, her determination to expose the fundamental abuse in a religious culture that treats women as the chattel of their fathers and husbands, her collaboration with a filmmaker to illuminate these issues, her trauma as the director is stabbed through the heart in the middle of a European city in broad daylight with a note attached to the dagger proclaiming the triumph of that religion and the subsequent threat to her of the same fate. American college girls, along with all other sane Americans would of course be overwhelmed by the bravery of this woman in speaking out despite her rational fear of murderous repercussions.

Unless, of course, the brainwash of political correctness insisting that a religion supporting such subjugation of women, not to mention the penalty of death for homosexuality, must command respect for values that are inimically opposed to our own constitutional laws. How shocking that only 13 years after 9/11, after the massacres at Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon, we are more intimidated by the word Islamophobia than protective of our own traditions of free speech and equal rights for all. How shameful that seemingly enlightened professors and students can bond with the culture of oppressors instead of with their courageous victims, one of whom overcame all obstacles to become a leading scholar, writer and award-winning activist.

The students and faculty of Brandeis who pressured a pusillanimous president to rescind the honorarium originally extended to Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserve the opprobrium of all decent people. Americans who claim to believe in equality for women and gays should voice their protest at this inversion of our principles. To be opposed to the subjugation of women through mutilation, intimidation, exploitation and punishment by death is not Islamophobic. In fact, it is the mandate of every western country. To give in to the pressure of CAIR and other Muslim groups and not champion the hero who highlights the perfidy of discrimination and subjugation is to deny our American heritage and be traitors to our own civilization.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14815#.U0ctGyhy_Hg

Be mindful that “Jews who make trouble,” like Moses and Herzl, are an inconvenience to Zionists stricken by PC, political correctness.

Take this as another rule; that if PBS or CNN or the BBC and the rest of them offer you yet another History of the Jews, expect this – the worst.

Reluctantly, I sat through parts 2 and 3 of Simon Schama’s “The Story of the Jews” so you wouldn’t have to. This was a PBS extravaganza.

Schama is a well-known British/Jewish historian. He is also, in his own words, a “Zionist.” Not in my book. His Zionism is limited to Jews who behave.

More on “Jews who make trouble” came only yesterday from John Kerry who alleged before Congress that Israel was to blame for the breakdown in peace talks and that the conflict was “first and foremost among all the world’s leaders.” Really? How about nuclear-armed Russia on the move again, and 150,000-plus murdered in Syria –Arab against Arab?

Your obsession with Israel, Mr. Secretary…this is known as hysterical blindness.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2802/Enforcing-Islamic-Law-at-Brandeis.aspx

When Brandeis University withdrew an honorary degree for Ayaan Hirsi Ali after a student-professor firestorm branded her an “Islamophobe,” the campus in effect declared itself an outpost of Islamic law, American-style. Officially, Brandeis is now a place where critics of Islam – “blasphemers” and “apostates,” according to Islamic law – are scorned and rejected.

Not that Brandeis put it that way in its unsigned announcement about Hirsi Ali’s dis-invitation, which notes: “She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook … her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

Translation: Hirsi Ali’s advocacy on behalf of brutalized women is Good, but Hirsi Ali’s “past statements” – advocacy that connects such violence to Islamic teachings – are Bad, or, in faddish twaddle, “Islamophobia.” As a dhimmi (non-Muslims under Islamic law) institution, Brandeis cannot possibly honor the infidel.

Islamic blasphemy laws sanction the death penalty for exactly the kind of criticism of Islam ex-Muslim Hirsi Ali has engaged in: hence, the innumerable death threats she has received for over a decade; and hence, the ritual Islamic slaughter of Hirsi Ali’s co-producer, Theo van Gogh, for “Submission,” their short film about specifically Islamic violence and repression of women. In the U.S. (so far), punishment for such “transgressions” against Islam usually resembles an aggressive form of blackballing. There are horrifying exceptions, however, including the decision to prosecute and incarcerate Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of “Innocence of Muslims,” for “parole violations.” To be sure, when it comes to participating in the 21st-century public square – in this case, donning academic robes and making valedictory remarks – “Islamophobes” need not apply.

http://sarahhonig.com/2014/04/11/another-tack-st-edwards-and-the-empty-peace/

No devotee of Yes Minister, yesteryear’s BBC’s classic, can forget St. Edward’s Hospital – that spanking new cutting edge facility that had no patients or medical personnel. Nonetheless, St. Edward’s hustled and bustled, a veritable hive of activity and creative energy. For 15-months since its much-ballyhooed inauguration, an administrative staff of 500 bureaucrats filled the hospital’s offices, pushed papers and generated red tape.

Sounds exaggerated? A bit over-the-top for real life? Not really. John Kerry’s peace project, for example, replicates the parody’s blueprints with mind-blowing precision. It is for diplomacy what St. Edward’s was for health care – an incredible lot of much-ado about absolutely nothing.

The biggest snag in Kerry’s persistent peace offensive is that it lacks the commonsense basic essentials to even begin to achieve what it was promoted to do. It couldn’t possibly live up to the hype. St Edward’s couldn’t heal the sick because none had been admitted. No doctors or nurses were on hand either. It was a hospital in name only.

Kerry’s peace process is a process in name only. It featured no negotiations between seekers of peace. Indeed there was no one who wanted what Kerry tried to ram through, just as no one got treatment at the hospital with no patients. Kerry and his crew engaged in frenetic shuttles just as the hospital’s ancillary staffers busied themselves self-importantly.

In both cases no good came of it and no good could come of it. The prodigious hum and buzz benefited no one. There was no reality behind the façade.

Kerry’s peacemaking affectation depended on there being actual peacemakers. But the last thing any Palestinian honcho could afford was to strike any sort of a deal. If Arafat couldn’t do it at Camp David back in 2000 (despite Ehud Barak’s unprecedented concessions), surely Mahmoud Abbas couldn’t do it now. Abbas’s last-minute dodge is no different from Arafat’s hasty skedaddle from the talks that America’s then-President Bill Clinton fervently fostered.

Like Arafat, who was immeasurably more powerful, Abbas doesn’t want to end the conflict and be saddled with a puny Palestinian state. His aim is to discredit, delegitimize, destabilize and eventually destroy the Jewish state (which he significantly refuses to recognize).

That’s why he disdainfully rebuffed Ehud Olmert’s egregious largesse at Annapolis in 2007. No Israeli concession – no matter how generous – can ever be good enough when compromise isn’t the real Palestinian endgame but the barely disguised means to achieve the reverse of insincere pledges.

The in-your-face extortion practiced by Abbas didn’t simply attest to an insatiable appetite. It was an effort to stymie Kerry’s entire undertaking, to put up obstacles so outrageous that no one could possibly surmount them. To Abbas’s shock and dismay, however, his Israeli interlocutors proved to be softer soft-touches than he conceivably imagined.

Abbas could never have anticipated that Kerry would so stanchly side with the Palestinian Authority and essentially function as its accomplice in squeezing and duping Israel. The American Secretary of State repeatedly threatened Israel with petrifying BDS (Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions) punishment. He also offered one shriveled carrot – belatedly freeing Jonathan Pollard, who’s anyway soon up for parole and who by any criteria should have been liberated long ago.

The idea of exchanging Pollard for sadistic mass-murders isn’t just morally repugnant. It also substantiates suspicion that Pollard is kept behind bars as a bargaining chip. Erstwhile American Special Envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross, owned up that he had recommended using Pollard as a quasi-hostage to be held for ransom. Simple justice was evidently out of the equation in this case.

In his 2004 book The Missing Peace, Ross quotes himself as telling Clinton at the 1998 Wye Summit (p.438) that “I was in favor of his [Pollard’s] release, believing that he had received a harsher sentence than others who had committed comparable crimes. I preferred not tying his release to any agreement, but if that was what we were going to do, then I favored saving it for permanent status.”

Get it? Pollard, as an asset of statecraft, should not be squandered on any interim arrangement but reserved for the bigger barter transaction – official Washington’s variation on the human-trafficking theme.

Clearly, then, the notion of trading Pollard isn’t new. This leads us, on the eve of Passover to ponder one more Seder-like “how-is-this-different” question. How is this recent Pollard sweetener different from the sweetener dangled under Netanyahu’s nose 16 years ago?

Really now…why the high dudgeon at Brandeis now? I would think that the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be honored at being disinvited by the radical campus that passes for a “liberal arts” university in Waltham , Massachusetts. Why just this past November 2013 Brandeis professors called on university to ‘resume, redouble’ ties with Al-Quds […]