RUTHFULLY YOURS

This truth has been overlooked even by Israel’s supporters….The great historian/writer Bat Ye’or, Professor Moshe Sharon, the late Professor Saul S.Friedman (” Land of Dust”) saw this decades ago, and, more recently Dr. Andrew Bostom in his book “The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism” have documented the faith driven hatred of Israel by Arab/Moslems. rsk
The beauty, more aptly stated, the ugly in writing about the Middle East is nothing really changes. You could do a piece in 2007 about a homicide bomber, or “peace talks” being broken off for some reason or other, or Fatah turning down two unprecedented offers of peace. The dictates fueling this contention remain the same.
The following is a summation according to Dennis Ross, the senior advisor to President Clinton at the Taba negotiations in 2000:

1. Yasser Arafat presented no ideas at Camp David.

2. The Taba talks would have happened in late September if not for the outbreak of violence. Arafat knew the US was ready to make a proposal and thus promised to control the violence, but didn’t. (I think he was hoping that he could leverage the violence into political gain.)

3. All of Gaza and a net of 97% of the West Bank were offered at Taba.

4. The West Bank area offered was contiguous, not “cantons”.

5. The Jordan valley would be under Israeli patrol for only 6 years.

Among the handful of non-pro-Islamic Balkans-observers in America, all eyebrows raised on Friday when The New Republic outdid its own famous fabulist Stephen Glass with two new ones, who penned an opinion article clunkily headlined “Putin is Behaving in Ukraine Like Milosevic Did in Serbia.”

Set aside that virtually no one outside the Balkans knows how Milosevic actually did behave in Serbia. And set aside that the headline and article read as if TNR has started outsourcing copy-editing to non-English-speaking countries. Set aside also TNR’s unequivocal policy-lockstep stance on every 90s war we waged against Orthodox Christians in the Balkans (a September 1999 article-rejection I got from a senior editor there: “i think there are other magazines that would be happy to publish it. the problem is that tnr has a fairly firm editorial line on the balkans, and i’m afraid your piece doesn’t quite match it…were it not for our disagreement on the issue this would have been a good piece for us.”)

Set aside all that, along with the consistent pattern that Balkans material in the U.S. is exempt from the usual editorial checks and balances when it’s written from the ‘correct’ perspective, giving writers free rein to make stories up out of whole cloth and, alternately, to graft their sources’ yarns directly from the reporter’s notebook to the newspaper.

One supposed it was only a matter of time before the deceased Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was yet again dredged from his grave, this time in service of some pathetic attempt at a Putin analogy. But if you can imagine, this product was a notch more ridiculous even than the usual.

This morning the Reiss Institute published director Nebojsa Malic’s reaction to the TNR “article” (some links added):

Holocaust Denial at The New Republic (Reiss Institute, June 23, 2014)

On June 19, The New Republic published an article by Vera Mironova and Maria Snegovaya, that not only violates the rules of journalism in a manner reminiscent of Stephen Glass, but also engages in outright Holocaust denial by declaring the very real genocidal atrocities committed by Croatian and Ukrainian fascists during World War Two to be “old myths” promoted by Serb and Russian “propaganda.”

http://www.cfact.org/

Friend,

Many of our friends and supporters will recall that CFACT submitted legal briefs in the important challenge to EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant (which it is not).

Today the Supreme Court ruled. You can read the full decision at CFACT.org.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, importantly held that EPA “exceeded its authority” and limited EPA’s power to write its own laws, but at the same time, he left the majority of EPA’s emissions regulations intact.

The Court struck down warming campaigner’s cherished notion that the Clean Air Act “compelled” EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Scalia made it plain that the Act does not.

He strictly limited EPA’s ability to in effect make its own laws, where Congress has not, writing, “since, as we hold above, the statute does not compel EPA’s interpretation, it would be patently unreasonable—not to say outrageous—for EPA to insist on seizing expansive power that it admits the statute is not designed to grant.”

However, to a large extent he left EPA’s discretion to regulate emissions intact. This is similar to the Supreme Court’s infamous “Obamacare” decision in which the court lectured the nation on constitutional principles, but then bent over backwards to find a way to let the policy proceed anyway.

The real world effect of today’s decision will be that larger emitters of CO2 will fall under EPA’s authority while some smaller emitters will escape. If your emissions other than CO2 leave you with EPA already regulating you “anyway,” you’re out of luck.

The Court served notice today that the Executive branch cannot unilaterally write its own laws. This is an important principle. However, the United States still remains fated to suffer most of the economic damage EPA’s regulations will cause.

True reform will require congressional action, or a wiser administration.

Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

In my last post I criticized an article which had appeared in The Australian, It is the young flesh they want.

I challenged a paragraph in which an academic, Associate Professor Jennifer Burn was quoted as claiming that “The Koran does not support child marriage”. However Associate Professor Burn asked the Australian to amend the article by removing this quote, as she had been misquoted: Anne Barrowclough, the journalist who wrote the article, had apparently not checked the quotation its alleged source. The Australian has made this correction.

The original offending paragraph was:

“It is critical that the whole community is educated,” says Jennifer Burn of Anti-Slavery Australia. “The Koran does not support child marriage and the Grand Mufti of Australia says that consent is vital. But there are over 60 different traditions within the Muslim community, with different interpretations of the religious scriptures. We need the religious leaders to take the message into the communities, because they will listen to their leaders rather than us.”

The corrected paragraph is:

“It is critical that initiatives to address child marriage and forced marriage are developed in consultation with communities and with community leaders.”

I have amended my previous post to inform readers about this correction.

The Nightmare on America’s Borders — on The Glazov Gang
How the Left spawned our illegal immigration crisis – and how it gains from it.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-nightmare-on-americas-borders-on-the-glazov-gang/

In view of the prospect that US money will soon go to Hamas personnel via the PA, the US Congress has every right to stop that financial aid. We still think, however, that it would be smarter to condition such aid money on a Palestinian commitment to remove all the rockets from Gaza under international supervision. Getting rid of those rockets would revolutionize the prospect of advances in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Imagine the prestige that would accrue to Secretary of State John Kerry if, within his term of office, the US succeeded in removing rockets from Gaza as well as chemical weapons from Syria.

A previous article pointed out that the new Palestinian “unity government,” since it rules Gaza as well as the West Bank, has made itself responsible for the existence of thousands of rockets in Gaza that are aimed at Israel. At the very least, the article argued, all aid money going to the Palestinian Authority [PA] should now be made conditional on a commitment of that government to surrender all those rockets to international control. The elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons provides an obvious model.

Now it has emerged that the entire personnel of the Hamas regime in Gaza is about to be put on the PA payroll. According to a report in YNet News:

Mofid al-Hasayneh, a minister in the Palestinian unity government, announced that a meeting had been held in Ramallah to discuss the issue of salaries of 40,000 officials who had been working under the Hamas government in Gaza. He said that the government is developing a system to pay these salaries before the beginning of Ramadan in two weeks.

“As soon as the mechanism is ready, we will announce the date for payment of salaries,” he said, adding that in order to highlight unity, the new government wanted to hold a special meeting in Gaza, but that Israel was preventing it from taking place.

This should surprise nobody. Ever since the unity government was formed, Hamas has been emphasizing that its support will be withdrawn if its operatives are not henceforth paid by the PA. The reason for this is also simple and well known: Hamas itself can hardly pay them any longer, since funds from Iran were cut after Hamas began supporting the anti-Assad forces in Syria, while the new Egyptian regime closed down the tunnels through which other funds were being smuggled into Gaza.

The most important issue is the proposed mosque’s patronage by Tablighi Jamaat [TJ], a group based on the radical doctrines of the Deobandi sect, which inspires the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

Deobandis, the progenitors of TJ, have been fighting for control of the British Muslim Community. TJ has made clear that its interest is not that of serving the Muslims’ spiritual needs, but of creating a Western European base.

Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslims who emigrate to non-Muslim lands have been called on to accept the laws and customs of the country to which they move. British Muslims have stood up in the past against the proposed TJ mega-mosque; they have a duty to protect their community and the broader society in which they live by repudiating all extremist doctrines, and by repairing conflicts with their non-Muslim neighbours.

Anti-radical Muslims must break their silence to oppose the revived for building a Tablighi Jamaat [TJ] mega-mosque in the West Ham neighbourhood of London. Mobilisation against the mega-mosque should include Muslims of all interpretations who are moderate, traditional, conventional and even conservative, in all locations where TJ is active. TJ cadres are mainly present in South Asia, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and North America.

The mega-mosque proposal had been perceived as ruled out of consideration after Newham Council, which governs the borough in which West Ham is located, rejected the application for its construction in December 2012. The previous year, Newham Council had heard and turned down a petition for placement of a mosque at the site.

Nevertheless, the mega-mosque supporters were later granted a temporary right to occupy the property for two years, according to the local Newham Recorder. During that period, about 3,000 congregants used the location as a mosque. That permission has now expired.

Newham Council’s Strategic Development Committee in 2012 found that the TJ mosque concept was too grandiose and would generate too much local traffic. The TJ mega-mosque promoters called for a structure that would accommodate 9,000 people at prayer, and, as detailed by the Newham Recorder, “a segregated space for nearly 2,000 women, a library, dining hall, visitors’ centre, and eight flats for imams and guests, along with tennis courts, football pitches, a garden, and a riverside walk along Abbey Creek.”

“Who is the head of the Muslim peace movement,” journalist Chris Plante asked of my Facebook friend Saba Ahmed at a recent, nationally notorious exchange at a Heritage Foundation panel.

Despite Ahmed answering with a willingness to lead any such movement, her past provokes deeply disturbing questions about oft-sought “moderate Muslims” and their ability to counter aggressive Islamic agendas.

Having previously met, the veiled Ahmed smiled to me in the audience during the first panel of a June 16 seminar on the September 11, 2012 attack upon America’s Benghazi, Libya, consulate.

“How can we fight an ideological war with weapons?” was Ahmed’s not particularly pertinent audience question for the panel.

Ahmed argued that “we portray Islam and all Muslims as bad” while 1.8 billion followers of Islam remained unrepresented on the panel. Agreeing with Ahmed’s emphasis on ideology, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney’s response distinguished between personally pious Muslims and a faith-based political agenda of brutal sharia law.

That Ahmed “stood there to make a point about peaceful, moderate Muslims” while showing no interest in the panel’s discussion of a lethal attack against Americans, however, irritated national security activist Brigitte Gabriel.

“We are not here to bash Muslims… I am glad you are here,” Gabriel stated before asking to a standing ovation, “but where are the others speaking out?”

Gabriel cited intelligence estimates from various countries rating 15-25 percent of Muslims worldwide as radicals, a group perhaps as large as the American population.

“Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda,” Gabriel argued in describing the outsized influence of a militant minority such as jihadists. Just as the peaceful majority were irrelevant in imperial Japan and Communist dictatorships such as in China and the Soviet Union.

“It is time that we take political correctness and throw it in the garbage where it belongs” Gabriel announced to cheers.

Monday, the Commonwealth Fund released a report claiming the U.S. has the worst health-care system in the developed world, and Great Britain has the best. But a closer look reveals serious problems with the report’s methodology: The criteria seem deliberately designed to elevate socialized health care while ignoring the strengths of the U.S. system – in particular its high survival rates. For example, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer in the U.S. has an 89 percent chance of surviving it, higher than anywhere in Europe.

The Commonwealth Fund’s dubious conclusion ordinarily wouldn’t deserve comment. But Commonwealth’s work is partly to blame for our current predicament, struggling with Obamacare. Earlier versions of the report issued in 2004, 2006, and 2007 bamboozled some members of Congress into believing that health care is better in countries where government calls the shots. For example, in October of 2009, Senator Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) pointed to a large blue chart during a Finance Committee meeting showing the United States in last place in health performance. “All of these countries have much lower costs than we do,” Conrad said, “and they have higher-quality outcomes than ours.”

Commonwealth gives heavy weight to “equity,” meaning equal access to care, so on this measure countries with government-run systems by definition come out on top. Another criterion gives countries points when doctors say “it’s easy to print out lists of patients by diagnosis.” And countries are rewarded when patients are “routinely sent computerized reminder notices for preventive or follow-up care”; the U.S. lost points because it is more common here to telephone patients than e-mail them. Never mind that American women have a better chance of getting regular mammograms than do women in most other countries, a reason for America’s top breast-cancer survival rate.

Justin Amash is Rated +2 by AAI, indicating pro-Arab pro-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – It is easy to confuse the incumbent with the insurgent in Michigan 3rd Congressional District race.

Brian Ellis, challenging two-term GOP incumbent Justin Amash, has picked up endorsements from three business organizations that backed Amash in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.

The rumored revolt of the West Michigan business community against the congressman they had backed in two previous elections became fact in the ides of June.

The Michigan Farm Bureau, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and even Amash’s hometown Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce PAC came out in favor of Ellis in mid-June.

However, beyond being a wake-up call for the incumbent — and a source of new campaign financing — perhaps political endorsements are not much more than the sound and fury that should be expected from the foundations of the political establishment.

And if the politician is an anti-establishment candidate, even if that politician would seem to be a two-term member of the establishment, perhaps those endorsements can be spun in the politician’s favor.

But still, for those at the eye of this Republican hurricane, the fact that the business establishment says it has more faith in the challenger than the incumbent is news.

“Brian is a business leader who will advance solutions to grow our economy, encourage job creation, and create more opportunities for job providers in West Michigan and across the state to succeed,” said the president and chief executive officer of the Michigan Chamber, Rich Studley.