Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Obama Vows To Continue Community-Organizing America The ex-president lays out part of his agenda in Chicago. April 25, 2017 Matthew Vadum

Former President Obama suggested he will focus his post-presidency on redistributing wealth, emptying prisons, and sabotaging the economy with carbon-emission controls, during his televised return to the national stage yesterday.

Obama reiterated the politically tone-deaf radical policy priorities of his presidency in a speech at the Reva and David Logan Center for the Arts at the University of Chicago. (A transcript of Obama’s relatively brief oration is available here.)

In a statement preceding a roundtable discussion with students, Obama said:

The one thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that yes, we confront a whole range of challenges from economic inequality and lack of opportunity to a criminal justice system that too often is skewed in ways that are unproductive to climate change to, you know, issues related to violence. All those problems are serious. They’re daunting. But they’re not insolvable.

“What is preventing us from tackling them and making more progress really has to do with our politics and our civic life,” Obama said. “It has to do with the fact that because of things like political gerrymandering our parties have moved further and further apart and it’s harder and harder to find common ground. Because of money and politics.”

Of course, in blaming “political gerrymandering” – an irrelevancy – he got to leave out the social polarization and ethno-cultural balkanization he encouraged while president, along with his crusade to inject more and more money into politics while pretending to do the opposite.

So what Obama failed to mention was just as interesting as what he did get around to saying.

Hamas: The New Charter That Isn’t by Bassam Tawil

It is worthwhile to note that, contrary to what is being published in many media outlets, Hamas is NOT changing its Charter, which explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel.

The document goes on to clarify that even if Hamas accepts a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, “this would not mean recognition of the Zionist entity or giving up any of the Palestinian rights.”

Hamas and the PLO now have crucial common ground: sweet-talk the Western donors while laying stealthy plans to destroy Israel.

Yasser Arafat may have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but his PLO officials and he really deserve the prize for the art of deception. For decades now, the PLO has spearheaded one of history’s biggest scams, and now it seems that Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood movement, is about to join the bandwagon.

According to unconfirmed reports in the Arab media, Hamas is about to publish a “political document” in which it “accepts” the “two-state solution.” The purported document is already being hailed by some Western and Israeli analysts and Hamas apologists as a sign of the radical Islamic movement’s march toward moderation and pragmatism.

It is worthwhile to note that, contrary to what is being published in many media outlets, Hamas is NOT changing its Charter, which explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel. The new Hamas document is intended for outside consumption and is directed to the ears and eyes of Americans and Europeans only. The original Hamas Charter in Arabic will remain in effect even after the new document is made public and seemingly official. In fact, it does not have to do that. The New Charter, while mouthing all sorts of human rights bromides over which Westerners and the media can be counted upon to swoon, such as:

“Hamas believes that the message of Islam came with morals of justice, truth, dignity and freedom, and is against injustice in all its shapes, and criminalizes the criminals whatever their sex, color, religion or nationality,” and so on. (New Hamas Charter, Article 9).

It is, nevertheless, the same Old Hamas Charter as before. It does not even bother to renounce jihad as an acceptable means of “resistance.” This is Hamas talking in code; pursuing “resistance” against Israel means: We plan to continue launching terror attacks against Israel.

“Hamas confirms that no peace in Palestine should be agreed on, based on injustice to the Palestinians or their land. Any arrangements based on that will not lead to peace, and the resistance and Jihad will remain as a legal right, a project and an honor for all our nations’ people.” (New Hamas Charter, Article 21)

The PLO bluff began with the signing of the Oslo Accords with Israel in 1993, and reached its peak three years later, when PLO leaders managed to convince President Bill Clinton and the international community, including many Israelis, that they had changed the PLO Charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. The truth, however, is a far cry from that.

Back in 1996, the PLO’s parliament-in-exile, the Palestine National Council (PNC), held a session in Gaza City where its members decided to “entrust a legal committee with re-formulating the Palestinian Charter.”

No one knows if the committee made any of the proposed changes. It is also unclear whether two-thirds of the PNC members (the required majority) actually voted in favor of changing the PLO Charter.

To this day, some Palestinians maintain that the charter was never officially amended or revoked — and it certainly was not ratified — and that the whole performance was a lie to mislead the international community and Israel into believing that the Palestinians had abandoned their dream of destroying Israel through “armed struggle.”

The PLO Charter question, like the PLO’s pledge to work towards a two-state solution, is murky. What is clear is that many in the international community swallowed the scam and began to believe that Arafat and his cohorts were finally leading their people toward real peace, beginning with recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

A glance at PLO actions over the past two decades will show that this tiger has certainly not changed its stripes. Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, the PLO and its leaders, first Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas, have consistently and stubbornly rejected all Israeli peace offers, some of which were exorbitantly generous.

Open Letter to National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster ‘Radical Islamic Terrorism’ is Accurate and ‘Helpful’ by A. Z. Mohamed

In other words, as al-Kalbani has confirmed — and contrary to what McMaster has been telling his staff and his commander-in-chief, President Trump — Muslim terrorists are Islamic, and the term “radical Islamic terrorism” is apt, accurate and extremely “helpful.”

During his first “all hands” staff meeting on February 23, President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, called terrorism “un-Islamic” and the term “radical Islamic terrorism” not helpful.

Prior to the meeting, retired U.S. Army Col. Peter Mansoor told Fox News that McMaster, with whom he served in Iraq during the 2007 surge of American troops, “absolutely does not view Islam as the enemy… and will present a degree of pushback against the theories being propounded in the White House that this is a clash of civilizations and needs to be treated as such.”

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, President Trump’s National Security Adviser. (Image source: Center for Strategic and International Studies)

Let us put McMaster’s premise — which is antithetical not only to that of his predecessor, Michael Flynn, but to Trump himself and many of his senior advisers — to the test.

Less than three years ago, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh — a grandchild of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, the 18th-century founder of the Saudi school of Islam called Wahhabism — said, in an August 19, 2014 statement, that Islamic State (ISIS), and al-Qaeda, are Islam’s “enemy number one.”

This would be a good sign, if not for the fact that four days earlier, Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani, a former imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and a Salafi (a strict sect of Sunni Islam advocating a return to the early Islam of the Quran), tweeted: “ISIS is a true product of Salafism and we must deal with it with full transparency.”

Later that month, al-Kalbani published two pieces in the Saudi government-aligned daily Al Riyadh — on August 24 and 31 — criticizing elements “in the Salafi stream for appropriating the truth and Islam and for permitting the killing of their opponents, and… clerics and society that dared not come out against them.”

This was a bold assertion on the part of al-Kalbani: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on Wahhabism, a form of Salafism embraced by the monarchy.

In January 2016, al-Kalbani gave an interview to the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based network, MBC, in which he acknowledged with regret, “We follow the same thought [as ISIS], but apply it in a refined way.” He added that ISIS “draws its ideas from what is written in our own books, from our own principles.” (Author’s emphasis)

ISU Professor Faces Felony Charges After Fake Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Report By Debra Heine

Police were no doubt aided by their finely-tuned BS detectors.

Last month, a Muslim professor at Indiana State University claimed that he had received a series of threatening, anti-Muslim emails and was attacked while entering his campus office.

Azhar Hussain, 56, assistant professor of aviation technology, reported the threatening emails on March 8, and the physical attack on March 24. He told police he had been attacked from behind, had not seen his attacker, and no words were exchanged.

Police investigated the alleged hate crimes and thanks to their excellent detective work (and no doubt finely-tuned BS detectors) they concluded that Hussain had — get this — made it all up. He was arrested on Friday and charged with obstruction of justice — a felony — and misdemeanor harassment, according to Terre Haute’s Tribune-Star.

“Based upon the investigation, it is our belief that Hussain was trying to gain sympathy by becoming a victim of anti-Muslim threats, which he had created himself,” said Joseph Newport, ISU’s chief of police.

“It is extremely unfortunate that this situation caused undue concern on other members of the ISU community,” said Newport, who also noted campus crime alerts had been sent out following the first email and the alleged attack.

ISU Police were assisted in the investigation by the Cybercrime and Investigative Technologies Section of the Indiana State Police and ISU’s information technologies security engineer. During the investigation, ISU Police collaborated with the local FBI office and the Vigo County Prosecutor’s Office.

Investigators were able to track the computers from which the emails originated and uncovered evidence to charge Hussain with sending the emails himself, according to the university news release.

Mattis Slams Taliban as Being ‘Not Devout Anything’ After Massive Base Attack By Bridget Johnson

Defense Secretary James Mattis slammed the Taliban as having “no religious foundation” and being “not devout anything” after a Friday attack on an Afghan army base that left 150 soldiers dead.

Afghan Defense Minister Abdullah Habibi and Army Chief of Staff Qadam Shah Shahim resigned from their posts after the attack on Afghan National Army 209 Shaheen Military Corps Headquarters in Balkh province.

The Taliban claimed the attack was perpetrated by a “mujahid who had already infiltrated to the enemy ranks, managed to accomplice a heavy amount of explosive materials in a large dining room in the Corps; later on 9 further mujahideen equipped with heavy and light arms entered the installation tactically and launched attack on the enemy.”

They claimed the attack was retaliation for the killing of Taliban governors in Kunduz and Baghlan.

“The martyrdom offensive of 209th Corps conveys message to all enemy soldiers, police, intelligence apparatus and other relevant stooge organs that this spring operation will be more deadly and painful,” the Taliban message continued. “It is better for mercenaries to avoid sacrificing for American and foreign interests anymore. If they still continue protection of their masters they are then responsible for their actions.”

At a press conference in Afghanistan on Monday, Mattis said the attack on the soldiers “just as they were coming out of a mosque, you know, coming out of a house of worship — it certainly characterizes this fight for exactly what it is.”

“This barbaric enemy and what they do,” he added, “kind of makes it clear to me why it is we stand together.”

Mattis predicted it’s “going to be another tough year for the valiant Afghan security forces and the international troops who have stood and will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Afghanistan against terrorism and against those who seek to undermine the legitimate United Nations-recognized government of this nation.”

“If the Taliban wished to join the political process and work honestly for a positive future for the Afghan people, who have suffered long and hard, they need only to renounce violence and reject terrorism,” he said. “It’s a pretty low standard to join the political process.”

Asking the Right Questions about Health Care By Ted Noel, M.D.

If I set out to accomplish a task, I have to start with the basics. What is the job? What steps are involved? The list goes on. The same concept applies to ObamaCare. It’s broken. Whether we repeal it or fix it, we have to start with foundations. In other words, as Herman Cain notes, we have to ask the Right Questions.

Paul Ryan didn’t ask any of the right questions. And the very first one is simple: “What is our objective? Do we want to make health insurance affordable, or do we want to make health care affordable?” Put differently, do we want to guarantee a subsidy for the health insurance companies, or will we put patients first?

Health insurance is a subsidy to health insurance companies, because it has preferred status in the tax code. Taxpayers get a tax break for supplying health insurance companies with profits. That means that insurance companies will spend breathtaking amounts of money to support legislators who protect their profits. Legislators will respond by creating bigger tax incentives to buy health insurance, and the cycle will continue. Health insurance is a classic example of the Law of Subsidy in action.

The Law of Subsidy: Every time you subsidize something, you get more of it, and it gets more expensive.

Nobody asked, “Does health insurance improve health?” Had they asked, they would have learned that for the general population, health insurance does not improve health. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment showed that:

“Medicaid coverage resulted in significantly more outpatient visits, hospitalizations, prescription medications, and emergency department visits. Coverage significantly lowered medical debt, and virtually eliminated the likelihood of having a catastrophic medical expenditure. Medicaid substantially reduced the prevalence of depression, but had no statistically significant effects on blood pressure, cholesterol, or cardiovascular risk. Medicaid coverage also had no statistically significant effect on employment status or earnings.”

Notice that there was essentially zero overall effect on health. Insurance did reduce individual financial risk, and that’s what insurance is supposed to do. But because of a 20 percent increase in use of medical resources, it substantially increased overall cost, suggesting that there may be better ways to protect individual finances.

Where did that excess money go? Providers! Insurance is a subsidy to the health care industry. Since this was Medicaid, it took taxpayers’ hard-earned money and gave it to insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals. We didn’t get to decide whether to use (and pay for) their services. The money was taken from us and given to them. And it did no good for poor patients.

Women’s rights oppressor elected to UN’s women’s rights commission By Ethel C. Fenig

Ah, the UN. Spewing poisoned hot air with all its hateful talk, thus contributing to the oh-so-feared climate change while polluting the planet and endangering it even further with its corrupt and harmful actions, it really should be abolished for the safety of humanity, new sheriff in town, Nikki Haley, notwithstanding.

Consider the latest Alice-In-Wonderland, reverse film negative (remember those?) where black is white and white is black (calm down sensitive, safe-space culture appropriation victims) oxymoronic action: Saudi Arabia has just been elected to the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), reports Hillel Neuer of UN Watch. Yes, you read that correctly, Saudi Arabia, the country where women can’t drive or be seen in public without a man, among other repressive restrictions, has been elected to a commission which is, according to their official statement “the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women…established 21 June 1946 ”
For some reason terrorist enabler Linda Sarsour, co-organizer of the recent so-called Women’s March and her committee didn’t complain about this insult to women while the so-called mainstream media did not highlight this farce.

(I warned you it was Alice in Wonderland, reverse film negative.) From the UN’s own claptrap, read about all the good and progressive stuff Saudi Arabia is going to enforce on the CSW. NOT!

The CSW is instrumental in promoting women’s rights, documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on gender equality and the empowerment of women.

In 1996, ECOSOC in resolution 1996/6 expanded the Commission’s mandate and decided that it should take a leading role in monitoring and reviewing progress and problems in the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and in mainstreaming a gender perspective in UN activities. Following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, the Commission now also contributes to the follow-up to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development so as to accelerate the realization of gender equality and the empowerment of women (ECOSOC resolution 2015/6).

During the Commission’s annual two-week session, representatives of UN Member States, civil society organizations and UN entities gather at UN headquarters in New York. They discuss progress and gaps in the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the key global policy document on gender equality, and the 23rd special session of the General Assembly held in 2000 (Beijing+5), as well as emerging issues that affect gender equality and the empowerment of women. Member States agree on further actions to accelerate progress and promote women’s enjoyment of their rights in political, economic and social fields. The outcomes and recommendations of each session are forwarded to ECOSOC for follow-up.
UN Women supports all aspects of the Commission’s work. The Entity also facilitates the participation of civil society representatives.

Got that? But wait…there’s definitely more hypocrisy with Saudi Arabia and the UN that Neurer illuminates!

Middlebury Struggle Session The wrong man issues an apology for violent student behavior.

By now you’ve heard about the student mob at Middlebury College that roughed up Charles Murray, a visiting speaker and social scientist. The March mayhem ended with Mr. Murray’s faculty escort in a neck brace, but so far the public shaming has been reserved for a professor who dared to promote the free exchange of ideas.

Last week Bert Johnson, chair of Middlebury’s political science department, apologized in the campus newspaper for offering “a symbolic departmental co-sponsorship” to the Murray event “without wider consultation.” It seems Mr. Johnson lent the department’s imprimatur to the invitation to Mr. Murray that had come from a student group.

Mr. Johnson lamented in his statement that his decision “contributed to a feeling of voicelessness that many already experience on this campus,” though anyone paying (or getting subsidized) $200,000 for a college degree and a four-year respite in Vermont is not among America’s marginalized.

Mr. Johnson has since said on Twitter that he intended merely to extend good will, not to walk back his commitment to free speech. And Mr. Johnson is a unicorn on campus for his research on why campaign-spending limits are less effective than allowing more spending and more political speech. Yet his letter does read like a hostage confession to students who had screamed, punched fire alarms and jumped on cars.

What happened to those students? A Middlebury spokesman says more than 30 students have “accepted disciplinary sanctions,” though he won’t offer details. That could mean the dean invited folks to discuss their hurt feelings, when the correct punishment for violence is suspension or expulsion.

Meanwhile, the Middlebury faculty is divided over endorsing free-speech principles that the University of Chicago, Purdue University and others have adopted. The fallout from Mr. Murray’s visit has dragged on for nearly two months, but the drama will continue until the administration decides to restore order, punish offenders and govern the place as adults.

A Court-Martial for a Bible Verse The Supreme Court should hear out Monifa Sterling, a Marine punished over a line from Isaiah. By S. Simcha Goldman see note please

The case of a Bible verse on a desk is not the same as prohibition of head gear. In my view if you permit a yarmulke, then you have to permit a turban, and a hijab and Rastafarian dreadlocks …it is a slippery slope. rsk

Should Americans be prohibited from practicing their faith while serving in the military? The Supreme Court ought to take up Sterling v. U.S., which presents exactly that question. Around 2013, the plaintiff, Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling, had displayed a Bible verse above her desk. It was a message from Isaiah: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.” That small act of religious devotion mattered to her, but the military considered it inappropriate. Her superiors ordered her to take it down. When she refused, the quotation was removed by a superior. Lance Cpl. Sterling was court-martialed and discharged from the Marines, in part for her refusal to remove the biblical message.

Her story bears a striking resemblance to a lawsuit that I took to the Supreme Court in 1986. Several years earlier I had joined the U.S. Air Force, intending to serve my country while continuing to practice my Orthodox Jewish faith. As part of that faith, I always covered my head with a yarmulke. I did so for many years while in uniform, and without complaint.

That is, until I encountered a vindictive military lawyer in 1981 who disliked an element of my expert testimony at a military hearing. He made a formal complaint about my wearing a yarmulke while in uniform. My commander subsequently ordered me to remove it. When I refused, I was threatened with a court-martial. Whether my commander was motivated by personal animus, bigotry or simple narrow-mindedness, I cannot say. He outranked me and would not tolerate any longer my minority religious practice.

I filed a lawsuit, Goldman v. Weinberger , and took it to the highest court in the land. But the Supreme Court ruled against me, 5-4, and deferred to the military’s stated interest in uniformity. Four justices dissented, arguing that the military had no good reason to quash the religious freedom of a serviceman who wanted to follow both his God and his country. I thereafter decided to leave the military.

In 1993 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, to protect believers like me. The law guarantees that men and women in uniform can exercise their faith freely except in the rarest of cases: when the military can prove that a compelling interest is being pursued in as narrow a way as possible. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Two Faces of Qatar, a Dubious Mideast Ally Doha undermines U.S. security by sponsoring Islamic radicalism. By Charles Wald and Michael see noteMakovsky

THE COGNOSCENTI PRONOUNCE THIS CASH REGISTER POSING AS A NATION…..AS “GUTTER” WHICH IS VERY APPOSITE…RSK

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited several of America’s Middle Eastern partners last week—including a dubious one. Qatar hosts an important air base but also undermines American security by sponsoring Islamic radicalism.

Nearly all coalition airstrikes against Islamic State are commanded from America’s nerve center at Qatar’s al-Udeid Air Base, which also supports missions in Afghanistan. The U.S. Air Force stations many of its larger aircraft there—refueling tankers, advanced surveillance and early-warning aircraft, and heavy bombers. Al-Udeid also houses the Combined Air and Space Operations Center, which commands all coalition air operations in the region. With all these key assets in one place, the Pentagon expects to stay through 2024.

But the host nation supports some of the groups the base is used to bomb. According to the State Department, “entities and individuals within Qatar continue to serve as a source of financial support for terrorist and violent extremist groups,” including al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. Qatar has also supplied advanced weaponry to militants in Syria and Libya.

Doha poured billions into the radical Muslim Brotherhood government of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who urged supporters “to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews.” The Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, has called jihad against Israel and America “a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.”

After Mr. Morsi’s government fell in 2013, Qatar offered safe harbor to many Brotherhood leaders. Pressure from neighbors eventually forced Doha to eject them, but Qatar still hosts Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood-affiliated preacher who once declared, “Those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs.” Qatar is also a key financier of Hamas, a Palestinian spinoff of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has repeatedly attacked Israel with rockets.

Qatar wields tremendous soft power on behalf of radical Islam through its state-funded Al Jazeera news channel. Mr. Qaradawi has a weekly show, and the network became notorious in America for broadcasting Osama bin Laden’s videos, repeatedly and uncut, far exceeding their news value. CONTINUE AT SITE