RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Economist explains

Some wonder if Iron Dome’s main problem is in fact a political one. The system’s success means that Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has been able to use Iron Dome to maintain his policy of conflict management, with less fear of retaliation. “Iron Dome has altered the calculus of Israel’s political echelons in ways they have yet to understand,” says a former senior official. “It allows Israel to resist internal public and military pressure for a quick end to the conflict, and keep bombing Gaza.” It also provides some degree of immunity against other neighbours armed with missiles, such as the Lebanese Shias’ Hizbullah militia, or Syria, perhaps making the agreement of a lasting peace settlement seem less urgent. Nonetheless, as air-raid sirens sound, most Israelis are glad to have the protection of the Iron Dome.

How Israel’s “Iron Dome” works

ISRAEL has long been protected by its famed “iron walls”. Now those walls have a rooftop. Israel’s arms manufacturers have devised an anti-missile system, offering what they call an “Iron Dome” overhead. Iron Dome’s manufacturers claim it is the fastest and most reliable such system to date, able to shoot down missiles with a launch-to-impact time of 15 seconds. The $1-billion programme, subsidised by the United States, has served Israel well in Operation Protective Edge, its recent campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Palestinian militants have lobbed almost 1,000 missiles into Israel, but Iron Dome’s interceptors have struck down 87% of their targets, according to the Israelis, allowing life in Israel’s cities to proceed more or less normally. How does it work?

Iron Dome is the short-range component of Israel’s three-tier anti-missile defences. The other two elements are David’s Sling, still under development, which is intended to shoot down targets in the atmosphere, including over the Mediterranean; and the Arrow system, designed to intercept longer-range anti-ballistic missiles in space. As soon as enemy rockets are launched, Iron Dome’s radar tracks their trajectory, calculates their impact point and launches a missile which within seconds locks onto the rocket and shoots it down. Each interception costs about $60,000, but its architects claim to have saved Israel billions in physical damage and economic impact, as well as loss of life.

These ongoing pogroms, anti-Semitic attacks, the noisy and often violent demonstrations, and the individual attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere, apparently occur in cycles. But they especially explode when Jews fight back and take steps to trounce their tormentors. As Israel is doing now against Hamas in Gaza. How dare they?

Now, as an atheist, I have no special regard for any religion. The one I hate – and I hate it because I fear it, and fear that it is making inroads in my Western culture, because it is a malignant, death-worshipping, nihilist evil – is Islam. All the others, including Judaism, don’t worry me, because not a one of them is telling me to defer to it, walk on the other side of the street, or threatens me with death. All those others exist on the periphery of my consciousness and of my concerns. I try to imagine an Amish farmer in a suicide vest. It doesn’t compute. The idea is laughable. Although I suspect that if Muslims try to collect jizya from the Amish, I think Amish pacifism will come to an end, and Islam will have a problem. I especially look forward to the Quakers’ reaction to submission.

But, I am otherwise indifferent to religion. I was raised in a Catholic household without having become a Catholic. The contradictions, arbitrary restrictions, hypocrisies, scandals, and corruption prevalent in that creed alienated me permanently from any species of mysticism.

Jews? I don’t even regard them, collectively, as a “race.” In my mind, Judaism is a religion, first and foremost. Anyone can become or be a Jew: Caucasians, Latinos, Blacks, Asians. I wouldn’t know a Jew on a street unless he wore his religion on his sleeve, as Hassidic Jews do.

But it is also true of Islam, that it isn’t reserved to a specific race. Except the difference is that Judaism isn’t seeking rabbinical hegemony over the globe. Jews are not telling me that I’d better convert and wear a kippah, or lose my head, or see my daughter raped, or my son’s hands chopped off.

Jews just want to be left alone, and, incidentally, to benefit the rest of the world with their work and humanity.

But no one wants to leave them alone. Jews are the one-size-fits-all historical scapegoats for whatever miseries or catastrophes have beset mankind or brought about on himself. History abounds with instances of how Jews have benefited man, yet were banished or subjected to riotous murder. They have loaned money to bankrupt princes and spendthrift governments, yet were snubbed, insulted, or worse. They have excelled in medical and scientific research and technology, and in business and finance. They are generous to a perilous fault, such as the foolhardy supplying of their enemies in Gaza – and that includes all the hapless shnorers, Hamas’s human shields – with medical supplies, food, and other necessities.

The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism gets thinner every day.

Why are Western liberals always more offended by Israeli militarism than by any other kind of militarism? It’s extraordinary. France can invade Mali and there won’t be loud, rowdy protests by peaceniks in Paris. David Cameron, backed by a whopping 557 members of parliament, can order airstrikes on Libya and British leftists won’t give over their Twitterfeeds to publishing gruesome pics of the Libyan civilians killed as a consequence. President Obama can resume his drone attacks in Pakistan, killing 13 people in one strike last month, and Washington won’t be besieged by angry anti-war folk demanding ‘Hands off Pakistan’. But the minute Israel fires a rocket into Gaza, the second Israeli politicians say they’re at war again with Hamas, radicals in all these Western nations will take to the streets, wave hyperbolic placards, fulminate on Twitter, publish pictures of dead Palestinian children, publish the names and ages of everyone ‘MURDERED BY ISRAEL’, and generally scream about Israeli ‘bloodletting’. (When the West bombs another country, it’s ‘war’; when Israel does it, it’s ‘bloodletting’.)

Anyone possessed of a critical faculty must at some point have wondered why there’s such a double standard in relation to Israeli militarism, why missiles fired by the Jewish State are apparently more worthy of condemnation than missiles fired by Washington, London, Paris, the Turks, Assad, or just about anyone else on Earth. Parisians who have generally given a Gallic shrug as French troops have basically retaken Francophone Africa, stamping their boots everywhere from the Central African Republic to Mali to Cote d’Ivoire over the past two years, turned out in their thousands at the weekend to condemn Israeli imperialism and barbarism. Americans who didn’t create much fuss last month when the Obama administration announced the resumption of its drone attacks in Pakistan gathered at the Israeli Embassy in Washington to yell about Israeli murder. (Incredibly, they did this just a day after a US drone attack, the 375th such attack in 10 years, killed at least six people in Pakistan. But hey, Obama-led militarism isn’t as bad as Israeli militarism, and dead Pakistanis, unlike dead Palestinians, don’t deserve to have their photos, names and ages published by the concerned liberals of Twitter.) Meanwhile, hundreds of very angry Brits gathered at the Israeli Embassy in London, bringing traffic to a standstill, clambering on to buses, yelling about murder and savagery, in furious, colourful scenes that were notable by their absence three years ago when Britain sent planes to pummel Libya.

Raymond Ibrahim on Jihadi Foreign Travelers — on The Glazov Gang
Why we hear different languages in Jihadi murder videos — and what it says about Islam.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/raymond-ibrahim-on-jihadi-foreign-travelers-on-the-glazov-gang/

Kristi Noem (R) Incumbent http://www.kristiforcongress.com/     http://noem.house.gov/       http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Kristi_Noem.htm** Rated -2 by AAI, indicating anti-Arab anti-Palestine voting record. (May 2012) HOT BUTTON ISSUES HEALTHCARE   Repealing and Replacing the President’s Health Care Law   With the Supreme Court upholding President Obama’s healthcare law, it’s more important than ever for Congress to repeal and replace this ill-conceived law. Sadly, […]

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/south-dakota-2014-candidates-for-congress-where-they-stand?f=puball

Primary: June 3, 2014

To see the actual voting records of all incumbents on other issues such as Foreign Policy, Second Amendment Issues, Homeland Security, and other issues as well as their rankings by special interest groups please use the links followed by two stars (**).

U.S. Senate

John Thune (R)Next Election in 2016.

Tim Johnson (D) Retiring in 2014

Rick Weiland (D) Challenger

http://rickweiland.com/
Mike Rounds (R) Challenger

Former Governor 2003-2011 https://roundsforsenate.com/

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Endorses Rounds for U.S. Senate – Posted 5.15.14 – Pierre, SD May 13, 2014- Gov. Mike Rounds announced today that he has received an endorsement letter from the U. S. Chamber of Commerce supporting his bid to become South Dakota’s next U.S. Senator. “The U.S. Chamber is pleased to endorse Mike Rounds for his record of support on pro-business issues,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. “Round’s election to the U.S. Senate will help encourage economic growth and get our country back on track.”

“Mike Rounds is the kind of leader South Dakota needs, one who will fight for free enterprise in Washington and who has a proven record promoting hiring and removing barriers to growth here in the state,” said Dan Kirby, president of Kirby Financial and member of the U.S. Chamber’s Political Affairs Committee. “We are proud to highlight his experience as Governor working for the interests of job creators and fighting for South Dakota jobs.” “Supporting and developing successful businesses in South Dakota has always been a top priority for me”, said Gov. Rounds. “I look forward to working with the U.S. Chamber to promote South Dakota’s business interests to help boost the nation’s economy”

It no doubt strikes a lot of Americans as odd that a U.S. Marine reservist, Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, a 25 year old California native who had served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, was arrested in March for illegally entering Mexico when he made a wrong turn in Tijuana. Being in possession of registered firearms, about which he informed the customs officials, didn’t help. He is still in jail while awaiting a court judgment.

The fact is that Mexico’s illegal immigration laws are a lot tougher than those of the U.S. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be jailed for ten years. Visa violators can be sentenced for six-year terms and Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered to be criminals.

It doesn’t end there. Under Mexican law, foreigners can be deported if they are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests”, violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy”, or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance.” This applies to their dependents as well.

Somehow, though, thousands of “migrants” from nations to the south of Mexico are passing through to get to our border and are, in the process, no less illegal in Mexico than here. That has changed, however. On July 9, the Examiner reported that Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto had met with Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina and they held a joint press conference to “officially announce an agreement to make it easier for those making the illegal journey to the United States from Central American, to cross into Mexico.” They will be issued a “Regional Visitor’s Card” that allows them to stay in Mexico for 72 hours, just long enough to make it to the U.S. border. The arrangement will include Belize as well. No doubt it will be extended to San Salvador and Honduras.

I have no doubt this has the blessing of the White House. The result is a deliberate program to alter the demographic map of America, increasing the number of Hispanics. It is an illegal assault on the nation, a “transformation” few Americans could ever imagine.

When the people of Israel exercise their inherent right of self-defense, they are forced to withstand an additional onslaught from today’s morally bankrupt United Nations.

The 20th century job description of the United Nations was “to maintain international peace and security” based on “the sovereign equality of all its members,” and to do “nothing [to] impair the inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN.”

But the UN of the 21st century has an exception clause. Every time Israel is attacked, not only does the UN fail to maintain peace and security – it attempts to gut Israel’s inherent right of self-defense.

In accordance with this pathology, UN actors manufacture a cycle of violence that begins with Israeli aggression; assert a moral equivalence between Arab terrorists and their Israeli victims; and concoct a litany of Israeli human rights abuses. They conclude that Israeli actions in self-defense are crimes, and Israel’s enemies are understandably, if a tad too fervently, protecting human rights.

Ceasefires are just opportunities to shift gears from alleging crimes to demanding punishments.

The events of the past week have been a textbook demonstration of this toxic formula.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) issued a “situation report” on July 9, 2014. It provides a “background on the crisis” that states: “the latest escalation round started on 11 June when Israeli forces targeted and killed an alleged member of an armed group, along with a child accompanying him, and Palestinian factions responded by shooting rockets at southern Israel.”

OCHA could have started with something else that occurred on June 11, 2014 – a rocket sent from Gaza that narrowly missed a main artery in southern Israel. Or the UN body might have started with the rocket attacks perpetrated by the targeted Hamas operative himself, such as the rocket shot at Sderot on April 21, 2014. Or it could have chosen any of the other 200 rockets fired into Israel in the first six months of 2014.

This week’s special guest on The Glazov Gang was Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center who writes the blog, The Point, at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed Obama’s Burgeoning Constituency, unveiling what the invasion on our southern border is really all about. He also discussed Israel vs. Hamas, Obama’s Iraq Throwaway, Hillary’s Rape Defense Lies, and much, much more:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/daniel-greenfield-on-obamas-burgeoning-constituency-on-the-glazov-gang/

During the first 24 hours of the Gaza war, Palestinian terrorists fired more than two hundred rockets into Israel. Yet only one Israeli was wounded, and none were killed. How is that possible?

When Israel fires missiles at enemy targets, they strike with pinpoint accuracy. Sometimes they hit a lone terrorist on a motorcycle, or a single, targeted apartment in the middle of a dense cluster of apartment buildings.

Yet when Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terror groups fire rockets into Israel, the vast majority land in empty fields or parking lots or other uninhabited sites.

The difference is not that the Israelis have better aim. The difference is that the Israelis have the right equipment, and the Palestinians don’t.

Israel has the sophisticated computer systems necessary to ensure that their missiles lock on the desired target. The Palestinians don’t have that technology.

The reason they don’t is because of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

That’s right, the much-maligned Israeli blockade–the focus of so much griping by the Arabs, by Palestinian support groups around the world, by the United Nations and even by the Obama administration. That blockade. It’s working.

Israel took a lot of heat for intercepting the Mavi Marmara, the ship of pro-Hamas extremists from Turkey and elsewhere that tried to bust the blockade of Gaza in 2010. In the aftermath of that episode, various groups adopted the blockade issue as their cause du jour.

In 2011, for example, a panel of five “independent human rights experts” for the United Nations declared that the blockade is “a flagrant contravention of international human rights law.” In 2012, the UN’s annual report on the Gaza situation called the blockade “collective punishment.” In 2013, the UN’s “humanitarian coordinator” for Gaza, James Rawley, claimed that “Gaza is becoming uninhabitable” because of the blockade. And just this part March, the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency declared that the blockade “is illegal and must be lifted.”

The other usual suspects have chimed in as one might expect. Amnesty International has charged that the blockade is “suffocating Gaza.” Human Rights Watch has complained that the blockade is having “an awful effect.” The International Red Cross has declared the blockade to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.