Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Daniel Gordis, ‘Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn’ a Review by David Isaac

It’s refreshing, in a world rife with anti-Zionist propaganda, to read a book written by someone who actually thinks Israel was a good, indeed a grand idea. Daniel Gordis describes the Jews’ return to their homeland as “one of the great dramas” of human history—the story “of a homeless people that kept a dream alive for millennia, of a people’s redemption from the edge of the abyss, of a nation forging a future when none seemed possible.” From a collection of “vulnerable settlements,” Gordis describes how Israel grew into a flourishing country with the largest Jewish population in the world using a revived language that even the founder of Zionism believed could not be resuscitated.

Gordis ascribes the book‘s origin to the request of a friend of his, a leader of a major Jewish organization, that he recommend a serious but readable history of Israel that he could give to a group of lay leaders he was bringing over for a visit. When Gordis couldn’t find one that fit the bill, he decided it was time to fill the gap himself.

Gordis brought to the task a talent for deftly summarizing complex events—a skill he displayed in his last book, Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel’s Soul. More important, Gordis has an ability to get to the core of issues and to discuss them in straightforward language that nevertheless conveys sophisticated analysis. Consider his treatment of the contradictions within Zionism. While it grew out of the millennia long Jewish yearning to return to Zion, modern Zionism was also a revolutionary effort to sever the connection to what came before. Gordis writes: “So desperate were the Jewish people to fashion a new kind of Jew that they even changed their names … it was time for a new Jewish worldview, a new Jewish physique, a new Jewish home, new Jewish names. It was time for a ‘new Jew,’ a Jewish people reborn.”

The story of modern Zionism cannot be understood without reference to ancient Jewish history, and Gordis manages to distill what needs to be told in a mere 15 pages. Gordis describes the Bible as ” a kind of ‘national diary,’” with the Land of Israel at the center of the story, its centrality maintained even when the Jews were repeatedly cast into exile.

One of the best features of this book is the way Gordis weaves into his narrative literature, music—even dance—that capture, and sometimes shape, the emotions of the people at a pivotal point. For example he quotes Chaim Bialik’s famous poem “In the City of Slaughter,” written after the poet’s visit to Kishinev following the pogrom there in 1903. Bialik attacks the Russian mob, but also the passivity of the Jewish men, whom he scathingly describes hiding behind casks as the Cossacks rape their women. The poem had a huge impact in underscoring not only the need for Jews to return to their land as a shelter from anti-Semitism but as a place to create a “new Jew.”

Gordis cites the enormously popular songs of Naomi Shemer: the first, Jerusalem of Gold, written just before the triumphant Six Day War, and the second, equally prescient, written just before the disastrous 1973 war, a version of the Beatles’ Let It Be. Just as Shemer had to add a stanza to Jerusalem of Gold to reflect the fact that the Old City was now in Israel’s hands, so she had to change the lyrics to the second song, “There is still a white sail on the horizon but beneath a heavy black cloud” and modify the chorus, “All that we long for, let it be.” To convey the country’s deep, ongoing sadness after the Yom Kippur War, Gordis offers the lyrics of a popular song written over 20 years later: “You promised peace; You promised spring at home and blossoms; You promised to keep your promises; You promised a dove.”

Hillary Clinton and the President’s ‘Longer Game.’ At home and abroad, a nation less affluent, less free, and far less secure. Lloyd Billingsley

The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, used a pseudonym to communicate with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her private, unsecured email server. As Andrew McCarthy contended, that was the reason the FBI declined to prosecute Clinton, because the president would have been part of the same action, and that wouldn’t be politically correct.

The current president of the United States is also on record that, contrary to custom, he will linger in Washington DC for a few years. Wherever he chooses to live, the email intrigue suggests continuing back-channel communications with Hillary Clinton, should she become president. That invites a look at what the man the New York Times dubbed “Obama’s narrator,” the White House adviser who sat closest to the president and signed off on his every word, had to say about the president’s vision of the future.

“Few of the decisions he had made would satisfy the politics of the moment,” David Axelrod explained in his massive 2015 Believer. “But at home and abroad, Obama was playing a longer game.” As he explained in Columbia, Missouri, on October 30, 2008, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

If this man was a liberal, as Barry Rubin wondered in Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance, why did he see a need fundamentally to transform a nation shaped by liberals such as Franklin Roosevelt with his New Deal and Lyndon Johnson with his Great Society? He saw the need because he was not a liberal but a lifelong leftist radical.

As David Horowitz explained in Volume 7 of the Black Book of the American Left, the president was “born, bred and trained in the progressive movement.” His mentors were “Communists and their progressive successors,” so no wonder he presided over “the institutionalizing of the policies of the left in government” for eight years. What that means in practical terms is becoming painfully evident.

The economy remains sluggish and under Obamacare, the president’s signature plan, premiums are skyrocketing. This suggests that, as many believe, Obamacare was simply a demolition plan. In the “longer game,” designated successor Hillary Clinton will impose government monopoly healthcare, what some candidates erroneously call “socialized medicine.”

Meet Hillary Clinton’s Secretary of State Send a $200 million check to Iran. Daniel Greenfield

September 11, 2001 has come and gone. Countless bodies lie scattered in fragments around where two of the country’s tallest skyscrapers once stood. Some have burned to ash. Others had their throats slashed by Islamic terrorists. Still others fought and died on a plane to prevent another Islamic terror attack from taking place.

But Joe has an idea. Joe is a guy with lots of big ideas and this one is a real doozy.

The Senator from Delaware has come a long way since his days as a sixties shyster drumming up business in Wilmington. His formerly bald head is covered in hair so shiny is gleams under neon lights. His teeth are capped and shine almost as brightly. After a generation holding down a squeaky seat in the Senate, seniority makes him a man to be reckoned with. And therefore a man to be listened to.

Even if you wish he would shut up.

“I’m groping here,” Joe says. For once he isn’t referring to his notorious habits with women that will go on to make him the star of countless viral photographs, massaging, squeezing, caressing. Instead he’s talking about foreign policy. The Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has no clue.

Joe is worried that the Muslims will think badly of us after they murdered thousands of us. And he has a plan to make them feel better.

“Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,” Senator Joe Biden says.

The remark isn’t quite as random as it seems. The Senator from Delaware, a state not known for its large Muslim or Iranian population, has a friendly relationship with the Iran Lobby. That relationship will only grow friendlier during the Bush era as he attacks America and appeases its enemies.

Iranian-Americans who hate the Jihadist government that has taken over their country and oppressed the Persian people are outraged when he attends a fundraiser at a pro-Iranian lobbyist’s home in California while treasonously attacking his own government for naming Iran one of the members of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

The Rats are Leaving the Ship By Frank Friday

The city I live in is sometimes called the biggest little town in the country because everybody seems to know everybody else’s business, but we have nothing on the nation’s capital. After James Comey’s bombshell announcement that thanks to Anthony Wiener’s laptop, the Hillary investigation is back on, who gets drafted by the Clintons to fight back? Jamie Gorelick. Yeah, that Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton’s cover-up artist who left DOJ for the big bucks at Fannie Mae, was involved in everything from the 9/11 hearings to the IRS scandal and was even considered by Obama to run the FBI. (Today, Ms. Gorelick tells us, James Comey is a threat to our very democracy, but just three years ago, her friend was “one of the great lawyers of the Justice Department.”)

Of course, when President Bush came to office he wanted to clear away all the Clinton mess, even appointing a lawyer of immeasurable talent and integrity, he was told, to look into the 2001 Pardongate scandal. A guy by the name of James Comey. It seems he had the goods on Hillary, her brother Hugh, Bill, and his brother Roger. But Mr. Comey went all squishy. If you’re a Republican, don’t expect that kind of treatment, though. Even if you quit and resign your office, then like Nixon, you’d better hope to get a pardon on the way out.

Comey certainly crossed me up earlier this year when I thought the enormous FBI investigation taking place meant he was serious about the Hillary’s latest scandals. In retrospect, it was just to keep from empaneling a grand jury that might get out of control. Comey is best friends with Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel/weasel who spent four years investigating the leak of CIA desk jockey Valerie Plame’s name, even though he knew within days of his appointment Richard Armitage was the leaker and no laws had been broken. No matter, scalps must be taken, so journalists were jailed for months on end and Scooter Libby eventually found guilty of an utterly trivial offense, most likely with false evidence.

Comey and Fitzgerald have an interesting pattern of prosecutorial toughness when it comes to Democrats. If you have no political pull, like Martha Stewart, or are an embarrassment like Rod Blagojevich, they throw the book at you, but the big shots get a pass. Lee Cary’s article in AT nicely explains the extent to which Comey, Fitzgerald and Loretta Lynch were willing to steer prosecutions around then Sen. Obama and nail Tony Resko and Blagojevich. No doubt Obama was grateful, for he even thought to reward Comey with a Supreme Court appointment.

Surrendering Our Birthright? By Eileen F. Toplansky

How do you tell a cynical millennial that there is still hope and promise in America? How do you persuade a young person who sees a tattered American dream that there are ways to reinvigorate this country? How do we convince a young American to realize that “if freedom is lost here there is no [other] place to escape to?”

How do you explain to a generation of students who have never learned about socialism and communism that these ideas are inimical to what the Founding Fathers wanted? How do you remind them of the radical idea that “government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people?” And that if we give up this birthright of ours, we have surrendered to the totalitarianism that describes far too much of the world.

How do you assert that America’s best years are not behind us but that the best is yet to be — if, and only if, we begin a return to America’s ideals of freedom and opportunity and not let an overweening government sap away our energies and our dreams?

How do you prove to a generation who receives its news in sound bites and from uninformed entertainers that a separation of powers is critical to maintaining a balance of power? How do you emphasize to them that when a government agency breaks the law and we do not rise up to demand a rectification, we, the American people, have foolishly chosen a “downward path?”

Time is truly short, but, it behooves us to be reminded of the words of Ronald Reagan when on October 27, 1964 he wrote “A Time for Choosing”

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

Consider that Hillary has hinted that she likes the confiscation of guns as she cites the Australian example and ignores the Second Amendment.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, ‘What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.’ But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

‘Asiya’ & Gabrielle Lord People Can Hear You (Highly recommended!!!rsk)

I thought Australians didn’t like us. We were always taught that Islam is all about temptation and being tested to prove your faith is unshakeable. Outsiders were to be kept away, because they were only coming to test us or try to change us, so we shouldn’t talk or engage with them.
Gabrielle Lord: In 2014, I published a novel titled Dishonour, about an Iraqi girl in Australia who is desperate to avoid a forced marriage to a cousin back in Iraq and the female police officer who tries to help her. The fictitious 18 year old Rana fears she will be taken out of the country against her will and forced to marry a man who is almost twice her age and who is “traditional” in his religious observance. This means that the intended fiancé lives his life under sharia law, and that Rana’s position back in Iraq would be that of a subservient, second-class human being, a servant subject to the domination and sanctioned violence of her husband and his family, relegated to childbearing and endless cooking. Rana rejects this; she wants that most basic of all human rights: the right to self-determination. She wants to complete her pharmacy degree, as well as follow her heart. She has become attracted to Christianity, is in the process of converting, and is in love with a young Copt who wants to marry her. In other words, she wants the freedoms that other Australian women take for granted, but which are prohibited to her by sharia law.

In the course of researching this novel, it was necessary to interview several women of Muslim background who had converted. This wasn’t easy and I was shocked to hear that they live in fear of their own communities and that if their families ever discovered that they were “losing their religion,” they would be shunned, their entire extended families shamed and they themselves possibly exposed to retributive violence. What I was writing as fiction in a novel, was the lived experience of women and girls living in Australia. I had to operate with a go-between, a trusted clergyman, in order to gain access and their confidence.

Recently, I was fortunate enough to meet “Asiya”, a highly intelligent Iraqi girl, in her early twenties, smart, elegant and insightful, who was willing to speak frankly about her childhood and her observations of family life as a young Muslima in Sydney’s western suburbs. Asiya is very concerned about the isolation of girls such as she was, growing up in Australia and yet completely unable to access the wider community of Australians, or “the Europeans”, one of the words her family used to refer to the rest of us.

As she spoke, I thought she was talking about her experiences back in Iraq, but no, her story is one which takes place in the western suburbs of Sydney. She believes there are thousands of young girls trapped as she once was.

_________________________________________

Asiya: We were kept locked up at home. We never went anywhere except to [Islamic] school. Even when our parents went shopping, we were not allowed to go. I didn’t know what a shopping mall was. I didn’t even know where I lived—apart from the name of the suburb—but I had no idea where that was. Sometimes, when the parents were out, my brother would disconnect the satellite dish and we could watch ordinary television. That was the only time I saw anything of the outside world.

My father was very devout, but he was an educated man and ran a very successful business. My mother was emotionally unstable and had a lot of issues. We were beaten for everything and the beatings were accompanied with threats about how we were going to hell where we would burn for eternity. I think my mother suffered from postpartum depression; a lot of the women do, because they’re forced to marry men they don’t want and then have children that they don’t want and so they take it out on the kids who are just another chore for them. They’re suffering because they’re “living beyond their own choice”. I honestly think that I would have died of neglect except for my older sister who cared for me. In fact, my mother used to openly say that I would have died except for my sister’s intervention. She wasn’t upset about saying that. She hated me.

According to my mother, I was a rebellious child, and was always being beaten. There were no bedtime stories, just the endless threats of hellfire because we were disobeying Allah. There were nine of us and the house was ruled by fear. If anything was broken or damaged in the house, we were lined up and interrogated, one by one.

In Year 5, I read Robin Klein’s novel People Might Hear You, which made a deep impression on me. (GL: It is the story of Helen, who tries to escape from an overwhelming religious cult, in which the girls are kept as servants, submissive and silent, in a regime imposed by her stepfather.) It was a turning point for me. I realised that what was happening in our house was actually strange, and not the norm. Then from about age ten to thirteen I became very religious and started to wear the hijab. But around thirteen to fourteen, I started to question my religion. I had a massive obsession with astronomy and as I studied science, I came to see that the planets and the galaxies move according to their own laws and that Allah has nothing to do with it. I was always in trouble at school because we are Shia and the school was Sunni. My answers were always wrong. The Sunnis say there’s only one person worse than a Jew and that’s a Shia. It’s twice the honour for killing a Shia than for killing a Jew. That’s what they say. At school, teachers saw the bruises on us from the beatings but they didn’t do anything. Even the Australian teachers. They’d try to make it up to us by being extra-sweet to us, or giving us better marks, but they never reported the abuse.

I was only a baby during the time the whole family fled to Saudi Arabia to avoid the war. My sisters told me about it later. It’s the most awful place in the world. The Sunnis despise the Shia so we were badly treated and forbidden to leave the camp which was in the middle of the desert. The religious police were on the alert for any breach of the rules, enforcing strict Wahhabism/sharia. If a woman stepped outside her tent without her scarf, she could be arrested and whipped.

Peter Smith Islam’s Apologists Encounter Reality

One-third of Australians, according to the latest poll, oppose Muslim immigration — down on an earlier survey which put the figure at around fifty per cent. Whatever the actual number, it is heartening to note that good sense continues to defy the elites’ favoured narrative
I was (pleasantly) taken aback by the recent Essential Research survey which found that half of those polled favoured a ban on Muslim immigration. Apparently half of my fellow citizens have a deep concern about the threat that Islam poses to our way of life. Alas, and unsurprisingly, this is a stretch. Another survey points to fewer Australians having this level of concern. Roy Morgan research (26 October) reports as follows:

In a special Roy Morgan survey conducted over three nights last week, clear majorities of Australians signalled their support of Muslim immigration (58% cf. 33% oppose) and Asylum-seeker immigration (66% cf. 25% oppose). This applies to the majority of all major political parties’ supporters (including L-NP voters). These results are in stark contrast to Essential Research’s recent poll, which claimed that half of the population would support a ban on Muslim immigration.

The report went on to criticise surveys based on internet soundings – which I assume refers to the competitor poll. There it is then. Sixty per cent or thereabouts of Australians are quite happy to welcome Muslim immigrants; only one third are opposed. Hold on, only one third? This ain’t bad.

Despite determined and concerted efforts to sanitise the problem on the part of the political and media class, and on the part of many ‘wets’ among Christian church leaders, one third of Australians have seen through the BS. This is striking as only a handful of people know anything at all about Islam. At a guess, 99.99 per cent would not have been within cooee of a Koran. And the BS would make Goebbels proud.
See also ‘People Can Hear You‘

First, Islam is described as religion of peace by the great and good Western political leaders; particularly (and gallingly to those not taken in) after each barbaric Islamic terrorist attack. Second, the welter of Islamic hate speech and barbarities are ascribed ad nauseam, by politicians and the MSM, to those who have a perverted their religion, in contrast to the overwhelming moderate majority. It doesn’t matter what Pew poll comes out vouchsafing the fundamentalism of vast swathes of Muslim populations worldwide. These are all ignored in favour of the moderate-Muslim narrative.

India and UNESCO: Historical View vs. Jihad View by Jagdish N. Singh

King Solomon built the First Temple here around 1000 BC. The Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar tore it down 400 years later. In the first century BC, King Herod refurbished a Second Temple. It is here that Jesus Christ lashed out against the money-changers. The Roman General Titus exacted revenge against Jewish rebels, sacking and burning the Temple in 70 AD.

UNESCO seeks to erase this history of faiths and replace it with a jihadi narrative that would deny both Christians and Jews their age-old access to the symbols of their faiths. If they are not stopped, the Islamist backers of the UNESCO resolution will be emboldened eventually to back Islamist elements in India to question its Hindu historical and religious sites.

After so many recent votes at UNESCO erasing Judeo-Christian history in favour of Islamist misrepresentation one thing is clear: the sooner democracies leave the UN, the better. Consider the UN’s oil-for-food scandal of 2004-2005 and its growing sex-for-food scandal that is still ongoing. Now, with the UN’s wholesale erasure of Biblical history, the only intelligent response is to head for the exits. The UN seems nothing more than a bloated, corrupt jobs program of champagne for diplomats. It does far more harm than good. Nothing worth having can come from such a degraded place.

One wonders what India’s Permanent Delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is doing in Paris today. India joined it way back on November 4, 1946. Given the potential of this cultural agency in spreading enlightenment derived from scientific education and fostering development throughout the world, New Delhi sent to the organization internationally acclaimed philosopher and future President, S. Radhakrishnan as a member. He rose to become its chairman during 1948-49. New Delhi’s abstention from voting on the October 18 resolution in UNESCO’s Executive Board, however, indicates the Indian delegation now in Paris is absolutely ineffective.

In a 24-6 vote, the Executive Board ratified a resolution that refers to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and its adjoining Western Wall solely by their Muslim names of Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the “Buraq Wall.” The nations that voted for it included: Brazil, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Morocco, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Russia, South Africa, and Vietnam.

The six countries that voted “no” were Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States.

Those that abstained included: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine.

Once the hope candidate, Obama in his final days faces a hopeless electorate By Greg Jaffe

LAS VEGAS — President Obama’s motorcade was still hurtling through Las Vegas traffic when the Rev. Anthony Harris took the microphone to deliver the opening prayer at a rally here for Hillary Clinton.

He looked out on the crowd of 3,000 in the high school gymnasium, waiting for the president to arrive. The feeling was different now than it had been eight years earlier, when Obama had just been elected and Harris led his congregation in prayer for the president. Then, there had been crying and cheering in his tiny storefront chapel and a sense that anything was possible.

Now, Harris, 47, took a deep breath. He hoped his words would rise above the anger and divisiveness of an election season unlike any in his lifetime.

“We pray that at the end of this political process we can learn to love each other, bless each other and trust each other,” he told the crowd, but that noble sentiment did not survive the rally’s first speaker.

Taking the microphone, Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) blasted Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as a “liar,” a “racist” and a “fraud.” Lock him up! Lock him up!” the pro-Clinton crowd in the gym started to chant, echoing the anti-Clinton chants of “Lock her up!” that have become common at Trump rallies

“I know people are frustrated,” Harris recalled, thinking as he returned to his seat. “But what does ‘lock him up’ even mean?”

In the week leading up to Election Day, the president will crisscross the country in an effort to help Clinton win the White House and safeguard his legacy. If those events are anything like last week’s campaign stop in Las Vegas, Obama will be met by rowdy, cheering throngs eager to see him one last time before he leaves office.

For many, who will wait hours in line to hear him speak, Obama’s 2008 election represented one of the most hopeful moments in American politics in decades. He was not only the first African American president but a relative newcomer to national politics with a remarkable life story who promised to bridge the country’s historic divides. “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama said that election night in Chicago’s Grant Park.

The Election: What Happens Now? By Roger Kimball

Back in Precambrian times — that’s to say, in June 2016 — I noted that, while the primaries were over, there was nothing to suggest that the multifarious oddities of this exceedingly odd election season had run their course. On the contrary, there were plenty of reasons to believe that the oddities would continue. “There is a powerful tendency,” I noted in that column,

to believe that, whatever local disruptions we face in the course of life’s vicissitudes, “normality” will soon reassert itself and the status quo ante will reinstall itself in the driver’s seat … Whether you embrace or repudiate Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton doesn’t signify in the context of my contention: the oddity of this campaign season is not over. We are likely to see not just local disturbances like the sudden sacking of campaign managers, but spectacular changes, reversals, upsets, and dei ex machina.

I’d like to take a moment to thank FBI Director James Comey for illustrating my thesis.

This election has been hard on pundits espousing the conventional wisdom. They might turn out to be correct—anything not self-contradictory might turn out to be the case—but mere possibility is cheap.

What about the odds, the probabilities? To be frank, I suspect the polls are more aspirational than accurate. What does it mean that a “respected” poll by The Washington Post and ABC reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton’s supposed 12-point lead on Donald Trump had suddenly narrowed to 2 points? That poll, by the way, was conducted before the revelation that thousands of new State Department emails were discovered on a device used by Anthony Weiner when he wasn’t sexting 15-year-olds.

The Clinton campaign has been thrown into hysterical (by which I do not mean “funny”) disarray by the revelations, which undermine The Narrative in about 38 different ways. (Remember that Clinton’s chief aide, Huma Abedin, swore under oath that she had given up all devices containing State Department emails.) CONTINUE AT SITE