RUTHFULLY YOURS

Former violinist with tremor regains ability to play while undergoing brain surgery

Naomi Elishuv, a former violinist at Lithuania’s national philharmonic orchestra, had to give up her beloved instrument 20 years ago when she was diagnosed in Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center with essential tremor. When she came on aliya, she performed at the chamber orchestra and conservatory of Givatayim. After the symptoms began, she learned that there was no medical intervention then that could have reversed it.

But on Wednesday, she returned to violin playing while being awake during brain surgery that treated her shaking.

“It’s a shame that I didn’t know about this operation before,” said Elishuv, as she manipulated her bow and touched the strings to produce a normal melody. “Now I’m going to live again.”

A video on YouTube shows the musician playing Mozart as behind a plastic curtain, Sourasky surgeons are painlessly fiddling with her brain to locate the spot that needed to be repaired with deep-brain stimulation.

“My great love is playing the violin, but for many years, I have had to make do with only teaching. The tremor didn’t allow me to play professionally, and this was very hard for a woman who was used to performing all her life,” she said before being wheeled into surgery.

Prof. Itzhak Fried, head of functional neurosurgery at the hospital who performed the operation, explained that he and his team installed a pacemaker with an electrode in the brain region that was damaged. Sterotactic technology was used to reach the area within a few millimeters. Only a local anesthetic was needed, as the brain itself does not feel pain. To find the exact region, Elishuv’s cooperation was needed to stop the tremor. As she played the violin – at first with very shaky notes and finally with a normal sound, the surgeons located the affected area. The electrode was inserted through a small hole made in her skull.

In a televised address this evening, President Barack Obama outlined his ideas on how to defeat the Islamic State. Along the way, he declared the organization variously known as ISIS or ISIL to be “not Islamic.”

In making this preposterous claim, Obama joins his two immediate predecessors in pronouncing on what is not Islamic. Bill Clinton called the Taliban treatment of women and children “a terrible perversion of Islam.” George W. Bush deemed that 9/11 and other acts of violence against innocents “violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.”

None of the three has any basis for such assertions. To state the obvious: as non-Muslims and politicians, rather than Muslims and scholars, they are in no position to declare what is Islamic and what is not. As Bernard Lewis, a leading American authority of Islam, notes: “it is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.” (That Obama was born and raised a Muslim has no relevance here, for he left the faith and cannot pronounce on it.)

Indeed, Obama compounds his predecessors’ errors and goes further: Clinton and Bush merely described certain actions (treatment of women and children, acts of violence against innocents) as un-Islamic, but Obama has dared to declare an entire organization (and quasi-state) to be “not Islamic.”

The only good thing about this idiocy? At least it’s better than the formulation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (known as CAIR) which has the nerve to call ISIS “anti-Islamic.”

In the end, though, neither U.S. presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that ISIS, like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic. And most Westerners, as indicated by detailed polling in Europe, do have eyes and ears. Over time, they are increasingly relying on common sense to conclude that ISIS is indeed profoundly Islamic. (September 10, 2014)

TED CRUZ: HATRED, BIGOTRY, OPPOSITION TO ISRAEL LED TO ME LEAVING EVENT
Reports surfaced Wednesday night that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was “booed off the stage” at an event hosted by a purportedly Christian organization.
Cruz, the keynote speaker at the new “In Defense Of Christians” organization’s dinner in Washington DC, had offered the crowd–a number of whom were Christians from the Middle East, including Palestinian Christians–public support for Israel. After doing so, some members of the crowd booed at Cruz, and they persisted until he left the stage, noting their hatred and saying he can’t stand with them if they don’t stand with Israel.
“Tonight, in Washington, should have been a night of unity as we came together for the inaugural event for a group that calls itself ‘In Defense of Christians.’ Instead, it unfortunately deteriorated into a shameful display of bigotry and hatred,” Cruz said in a statement provided to Breitbart News. “When I spoke in strong support of Israel and the Jewish people, who are being persecuted and murdered by the same vicious terrorists who are also slaughtering Christians, many Christians in the audience applauded. But, sadly, a vocal and angry minority of attendees at the conference tried to shout down my expression of solidarity with Israel.”

President Barack Obama has announced a plan for fighting the Islamic State (IS) militants.In an interview that preceded his speech Obama tried to sound confident: “Keep in mind that this is something that we know how to do. We’ve been dealing with terrorist threats for quite some time.”

The claim is unsettling. As it happens, “they” don’t know how to do it. “They” have been dealing with terrorist threats, hesitantly and with disastrous results. The rise of the IS in itself provides conclusive evidence of “their” overall ineptitude, and in particular “their” inability to collect reliable intelligence, anticipate events, and develop coherent strategies to protect American security interests in a volatile region.

“I want people to understand, though, is that over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum of ISIL. We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We’re going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately we’re going to defeat ‘em,” Obama went on. There will be no American troops on the ground, but “because of American leadership, we have, I believe, a broad-based coalition internationally and regionally to be able to deal with the problem.”

Obama was alluding to a “coalition” that is strictly regional: his attempts at the recent NATO summit in Wales to obtain backing for a more “internationally based” coalition were an abject failure. Even Britain proved squeamish. He is now left with a would-be “coalition” of Sunni Muslim countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates – which have been aiding and abetting ISIS for years, and which have neither the will nor the resources to fight it. Obama will announce on Wednesday that he will rely on those countries to work together – with American air support and ill-defined overall “leadership” – in fighting the IS.

Those countries’ military forces are unable to confront an enemy which consists of highly motivated light infantry, knows the terrain, enjoys considerable popular support, and operates in small motorized formations. On the basis of its poor showing in Yemen it is clear that the Saudis in particular are no better than the Iraqi army which performed so miserably last June. Even when united in their overall strategic objectives, Arab armies are notoriously unable to develop integrated command and control systems – as was manifested in 1947-48, in the Seven-Day War of 1967, and in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Their junior officers are discouraged from making independent tactical decisions by their inept superiors who hate delegating authority. Both are, inevitably, products of a culture steeped in strictly hierarchical modes of thought and action. Furthermore, their expensive hardware integrated into hard to maneuver brigade-sized units is likely to be useless against an elusive enemy who will avoid pitched battles.

Last week here at PJ Media, I reported on the ongoing relations between the U.S.-backed “vetted moderate” Free Syrian Army and ISIS. I also noted that, at this time last year, the received wisdom of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment was that the Syrian rebels were largely moderate.

Now, a report in this past Sunday’s L.A. Times from the frontlines in Syria finds that another “vetted moderate” rebel group, Harakat Hazm – which has received anti-tank missiles from the U.S. — has been working with al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra: a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. (HT: Tim Furnish and Tom Joscelyn.)

As Al-Akhbar reported back in May, in addition to having U.S. backing, Harakat Hazm is also backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, and Qatar.

As the L.A. Times reporter rides with two U.S.-backed and armed Harakat Hazm fighters, the topic of conversation turns to Jabhat al-Nusra:

Harakat Hazm, for example, has struggled with being regarded as a U.S. pawn and labeled as secular in the midst of an opposition movement that has grown increasingly Islamist.

“Inside Syria we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us,” Zeidan said, referring to an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group that has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Then he smiled and added, “But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”

But the L.A. Times reporter then immediately adds:

In July, eight West-backed rebel brigades — all recipients of military aid — released a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with Al Nusra Front.

But at the same time Harakat Hazm was supposedly releasing a statement of “rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination” with Nusra, it signed a statement of alliance with Nusra to prevent the Assad regime from advancing into Aleppo. The alliance statement was published on Twitter:

Shame of fake EU climate change “aid” to Third World

It is quite staggering that the EU is “helping” poverty stricken countries in Africa by pumping taxpayers’ money into, wait for it, “green energy”. The figures have to be seen to be believed

Last week the European Union announced it was giving €499 million in aid to one of Africa’s poorest countries, the Republic of Benin. With 40 percent of the population living below the poverty line, 65 percent lacking access to clean drinking water, and one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world, there are few countries more deserving of our help.

Unfortunately for Benin, the EU is ignoring these issues completely and spending the overwhelming majority of the grant on green energy.

Of the €499 million, €450 million will be spent on “promoting renewable energies and energy efficiency” over the next seven years. Despite the staggeringly short supply of clean drinking water in Benin, a mere €19 million is being spent on improving drinking water. Clearly the bureaucrats of Brussels are more concerned with fighting climate change than they are ending poverty.

This is by no means the only example of the EU wasting foreign aid. In July Get Britain Out exposed the Eurocrats’ pocketing £340 million from the European Development fund. Only a week ago the EU pledged to spend €339 million on 21 developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Again a stunning €129 million is earmarked for promoting sustainable and renewable energy and dealing with climate change.

This brings the total amount of money pledged for foreign aid last week to €838 million – with €579 million being spent on energy and climate change. As Britain contributes 13 percent to EU funds, 87.5 million punds (€109 million) of the €838 million will come directly from the British taxpayer.

With the EU lavishing such a colossal sum on promoting renewable energy, whilst dressing it up as foreign aid, it is becoming increasingly clear Brussels cannot be trusted with member states’ aid budgets.

The EU would rather the poverty-stricken of the Third World die of thirst than well-off citizens use the ‘wrong’ light bulb. If we want to ensure the funds levied off the backs of the British taxpayer is going to the people who need it most, we must Get Britain Out of the EU.

We are told by government-funded climate alarmists that their forecasts of dangerous man-made global warming rely on “settled science”.

Their “settled science” represents a mare’s nest of computer models, resting on a few match-sticks of science, surrounded by tall forests of uncertainty.

It is indeed settled science that all gases in the atmosphere can affect the exchange of heat between the sun, the Earth and outer space, and this can affect global temperatures. It is also agreed that certain gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide can absorb and redirect radiant energy passing through the atmosphere.

It is also settled science (but seldom mentioned) that the warming potential of each additional unit of carbon dioxide is progressively less, and is trivial at and above current levels. It is also agreed that water vapour has a far greater “greenhouse effect”, because it is fifty times more abundant, and it affects more radiation wavelengths.

However, it is not settled science that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main controller of global temperatures. Nor is it proven or agreed that man’s production of carbon dioxide is harmful to life on Earth, or that it will cause catastrophic global warming.

The official climate models are based on a theory that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drives surface temperature changes. However, not one of the dozens of computerized climate models relied on by the IPCC predicted flat-lining temperatures over the last 17 years. This indicates that their carbon-centric assumption is wrong. At last count, there were 53 different explanations for these failures. This is hardly “settled science”.

The Invasion of Enterovirus EV-D68 By Jeannie DeAngelis

Unfortunately for the rest of America, liberals are not going to realize the damage they have wrought on all of us until they personally experience the ramifications of supporting Barack Obama.

At this juncture, maybe an illegal-immigrant-caused mini pandemic will rouse liberals out of the fevered delusion that this president somehow has the best interests of the nation’s children at heart.

What is obvious is that Barack Obama does have the best interests of children at heart: illegal immigrant children harboring viruses and communicable diseases. American children who are defenseless against the onslaught, not so much.

Maybe liberals haven’t noticed yet, but it hasn’t taken all that long for the infective consequences of President Obama’s refusal to put Americans first to befall the most innocent among us. For starters, Ohio, California, and Kansas are just a few of the states already struggling to contain measles outbreaks.

Now, in addition to measles, more than 1,000 children in 10 states — Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Georgia — have suddenly become infected with a rare respiratory virus, not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s, called human Enterovirus EV-D68. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim that the rare strain is related to the same rhinovirus responsible for causing the common cold.

The dire prediction is that in the coming weeks and months, Enterovirus EV-D68, origin unknown, is due to spread to all 50 states and afflict great numbers of otherwise healthy children.

Referring to borders between states, ABC News Chief Health and Medical Editor Dr. Richard Besser said a mouthful when he pointed out that “Viruses don’t tend to respect borders.” The problem for America is that if international borders are not respected, viruses native to other countries migrate as well, and to date are being scattered around the nation, rather than deported.

What more potent a formula for disaster than “unaccompanied minors” with all sorts of contagious diseases coming across the border into our communities, and more specifically into our schools, where American children are now falling ill.

That’s why the obvious question is this: Where did Enterovirus EV-D68 originate and did it ‘entero’ the U.S. via illegal children?

Obamacare, as its advocates increasingly point out, has succeeded in expanding the number of Americans with insurance. Even though this achievement came at enormous cost, still leaves millions of Americans uninsured, and dumped millions more into Medicaid, this is still one of the few “successes” that the health-care law can claim.

However, health insurance and access to health care are not the same thing. And evidence is growing that Obamacare is likely to make it harder for us to see a doctor or otherwise obtain care.

Of course, we already know that the limited network of physicians available through most Obamacare exchange-based insurance plans is making it more difficult to see the doctor of your choice. Despite efforts by state regulators to mandate that insurers include more doctors and hospitals in their networks, most Obamacare plans, especially the comparatively low-cost bronze and silver plans, continue to have restricted networks. Nationwide, roughly 70 percent of Obamacare plans offer fewer doctors and hospitals than typical pre-Obamacare plans.

But there is an even bigger issue lurking below the surface.

Even without Obamacare, the Association of American Medical Colleges warns us that we face a shortfall of at least 130,000 doctors by 2025. While both enrollment in medical schools and graduation are up slightly, the increase is nowhere near enough to offset expected retirements. Roughly 40 percent of current doctors are age 55 or over. Moreover, the United States already trails many other countries in the number of physicians per capita, at just 2.5 per 1,000 people. This is compared to nearly 4 per 1,000 in Germany and Switzerland.

Medicine is simply no longer the profession that it once was. In 1970, the average income of general practitioners was $185,000 (in 2014 dollars). Today, even though doctors now see nearly twice as many patients as they did back then, average physician income has fallen to just $161,000. At the same time, the average medical-school graduate now begins his career with more than $170,000 in debt.

Obamacare will squeeze physician incomes still further.

Countries don’t act only in a narrow, largely financial definition of self-interest.

‘I should have anticipated the optics,” President Obama said by way of acknowledging that golfing right after making a statement about the beheading of James Foley looked bad. “Part of this job is also the theater of it,” he said. “It’s not something that always comes naturally to me. But it matters.”

For those who remember that this is the same guy with the Greek pillars, the campaign stop in Berlin, the newly minted “seal” of the president-elect, it was an odd confession. Obama likes theater just fine; he just doesn’t like having to read from a script not of his choosing.

That is probably why it took him so many tries to come up with the right words for what we will do about the Islamic State. One wonders whether he looked at the prepared remarks, turned to Valerie Jarrett and asked, “What’s my motivation?”

Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) has a similar problem. Much like Obama in 2007–08, he has been enjoying swimming with the current on foreign policy. War-weary, fed up with Arab countries hating us for trying to help, and convinced that our priorities are closer to home, Paul’s noninterventionism was sounding just right to many Americans.

Then some jihadi punks beheaded two Americans and taunted the U.S. in the process. The same jihadis conquered and enslaved territories that Americans fought, bled, and died to liberate. They boasted that they beat us in a war and vowed — ridiculously — that their flag would fly over our White House. Lo and behold, it turns out that Americans don’t like that sort of thing.

Attitudes, particularly among the very patriotic and pro-military tea-party crowd, suddenly and predictably shifted. This time last year only 18 percent of Republicans told pollsters for the Pew Research Center that the U.S. does “too little” abroad. That number had more than doubled according to a similar poll last week. And a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 71 percent of Americans favor strikes in Iraq and 65 percent favor them in Syria.

Suddenly, Paul, who just weeks ago was calling Hillary Clinton a warmonger, is doing some mongering himself.