RUTHFULLY YOURS

I have no interest in sports. Never had any. I don’t care who wins the world soccer championship, or comes out on top during the football, hockey or baseball seasons, or which team wins the pennant or trophy. It’s not that I’m anti-sports. I am consummately indifferent. I guess I was born without a “sports” organ. When work colleagues asked me if I’d watched “the game” last night, my traditional response was: “When they schedule the Pittsburgh Pirates versus the Green Bay Packers, then I’ll take an interest.” That friendly retort usually drove home the idea that they shouldn’t invite me to join a football pool. I’m not likely, either, to go wild in the streets, trashing shops and burning cars and being maced by riot police, if the Lakers lose to the Chicago Cubs, the Oshkosh Bears, or the Winnipeg Penguins.

However, the recent decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to de-register the name of the Washington Redskins is a serious matter, fraught with dangers not only to trademarks and trademark owners, but to patents and patent holders, in addition to copyrights and copyright owners, as well. Theresa Vargas in her June 18th Washington Post article, “Federal Agency cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging,” reported:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.”

The landmark case, which appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed….

Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”

Commercially, what the ruling means is that while the team’s owners won’t be forced to change the team’s name to something more saccharine (or politically correct, e.g., “The Big Hulking Guys Who Chase Obloids”), it has lost the right to control the usage of the team’s name in its logos and merchandising endeavors. That is, the name is up for grabs to whoever wants to sell T-shirts, mugs, glasses and apparel under that name. The team’s owners would not be able to even license the team name to other parties.

So they’ve been dancing and handing out candy in the Palestinian Arab territories in celebration of the three Taken Israelis. Good to know.

It’s always good to know your friends from your enemies and it appears that the IDF has been taking names of these brothers for terror.

So already the sweets may start tasting bitter.

Israel – an entire nation holds its breath and remains on stand-by for any word about the three kidnapped Israeli teens: Naftali Frankel, 16, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Eyal Yifrach, 19. On this, on the pain, on the tears, on the prayers for their safe return Israel stands together undivided.

Something else. This time Israel is positively outraged. We do not witness this too often from a people that have been conditioned to retreat and concede.

They’ll do anything for the sake of peace, even if it means swallowing false promises from false politicians – but this, trifling with their sons in broad daylight?

This is too much.

T
This would not be a good time for Shimon Peres to revisit the Vatican arms linked with Mahmoud Abbas as a fellow partner in peace. Even then it was lunacy.
ake it from someone who knows. You can mess with the Jews over and over again until something snaps.

You do not want to be there when the Israelis get really ticked off. I saw them in action.

“The challenges are in terms of giving evidence, particularly where the perpetrators may be those who are close to them i.e. family members, and the coercion and pressure that they may be subjected to in terms of withdrawing [the complaint].” — Aisha Gill, University of Roehampton.

The number of children who called ChildLine (free, 24-hour phone counselling for young people) over concerns that they could be forced into marriage nearly tripled in 2013. About one-quarter of those who contacted ChildLine were aged 12 to 15.

“Families pay bounty hunters [to track down the victims of forced marriage who try to run away]. We have cases where the family paid more than £100,000 [€125,000; $170,000] to track someone down and kill them.” — Diana Nammi, Director of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organization (representing women from the Middle East, North Africa and south Asia).

A new law has come into effect in England and Wales that makes it a crime to force people into an unwanted marriage.

Advocates of the law say it represents a benchmark shift in thinking because—after decades of kowtowing to multicultural sensitivities—British policymakers now view forced marriage as a gross violation of human rights rather than a socially acceptable cultural difference. They also say the law will create a deterrent effect because many perpetrators will fear criminal prosecution.

Skeptics counter that the new law is retrograde and will drive victims underground due to fears that family members will be criminalized and sent to prison.

The new law, which entered into effect on June 16, makes forced marriage a self-standing criminal offense in England and Wales (the law does not extend to Northern Ireland and will be introduced in Scotland at a later date) and is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The law also makes it a crime to breach a so-called Forced Marriage Protection Order (issued by courts to prevent people from being married against their will) in England and Wales, in line with Scotland where this is already the case. This crime now carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

These crises have fostered on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its followers a reluctance to examine any internal causes for their malaise, and has created a culture of denial that by now is part of the Muslim culture and history. It makes us Muslims refuse to take responsibility for our role in history, leading to a pathological proclivity to blame others — especially the Jews — for misfortunes that are really of our own making.

The idea that the sins of one generation, or one individual, might be visited upon another is explicitly rejected in the Quran by the following words: “And no bearer of burdens shall be made to bear another’s burdens.” [35:18] Muslims who accept the idea of abrogation use this for their own narrow, or bigoted, interests that neither their own logic not the universal message of the Quran warrants.

Just as a few drops of lemon juice curdle a bowl of milk, so Judeophobia sanctioned by the Quran and the Prophet would mean that Islam as a religion of mercy is a falsehood. Mercy is, in fact, the most important of the many attributes of Allah (God) referred to by Muslims. That Islamists have proven to be most unmerciful illustrates just how far they have strayed from God’s message as revealed in the Quran.

Islamists have shredded their “thin veneer of Islam” and displayed their “jihad” as a neo-pagan belief in a capricious tribal god governing a cult of violence. It was from such a pagan belief that Muhammad sought to lift the Arabs of the desert by having Islam bear the universal message of belief in one God, merciful and compassionate; but it is precisely this pagan cult of tribal violence that Islamists have resurrected or which , it might be said, they never really renounced.

“In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological.” — Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam.

As Caroline Glick and others have reported, scant media attention is paid to the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers. In fact The New York Times blames the poor kids. There is nothing new here.

Many years ago an elderly man in Jerusalem was stabbed by an Arab “youth.” While the man was rushed to a hospital, a group of enraged Israelis gave chase, caught the criminal and delivered a few hard punches before he was taken by the police. I don’t remember for sure which tele journalist (I think it was Peter Jennnings- a blackbelt Israel hater) reported it thus:

“Angry Israeli mob in Jerusalem chases and beats an Arab teenager.”

Congressional investigators are fuming over revelations that the Internal Revenue Service has lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure in the agency’s tea-party controversy.”

That’s the opening sentence of the Associated Press story on the IRS’s claim that it lost an unknown number of e-mails over two years relating to the agency’s alleged targeting of political groups hostile to the president.

But note how the AP casts the story: The investigators — Republican lawmakers — are outraged.

Is it really so hard to imagine that if this were a Republican administration, the story wouldn’t be the frustration of partisan critics of the president? It would be all about that administration’s behavior. With the exception of National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who called for a special prosecutor to bypass the White House’s “stonewalling,” and former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, it’s hard to find a non-conservative journalist who thinks this is a big deal.

Let’s back up for a moment. In 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner planted a question from an audience member at an American Bar Association meeting. She used her answer to apologize for — and favorably spin — the agency’s actions, and then later claimed that the apology came as an unprompted response to a question.

Lerner laid the blame for the inappropriate targeting of tea-party and other groups on a few low-level bureaucrats in Cincinnati. That was a lie. Senior officials in the IRS knew and helped to coordinate the effort. She said she only heard about the problem when tea-party groups protested. The targeting, in fact, had already been under internal and external investigation.

HILLARY’S MUSH-She Speaks at Length Without Saying Much. By Jim Geraghty
One of the first, and perhaps most stinging, critiques of Hillary Clinton’s book tour came from Game Change co-authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, with Halperin lamenting, “I don’t understand writing a book of that length without a message,” and Heilemann calling the book “mush.”

We shouldn’t expect much more than mush from Hillary Clinton between now and November 2016. If she’s truly pressed for a theme, expect nothing meatier than “It’s time for a woman.”

For one of the most controversial figures in American politics for the past two decades, Hillary Clinton offers strikingly bland rhetoric and proposals, making her memoir title Hard Choices ironic.

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton will not be pledging, several days before Election Day, to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Whatever instinct she had to overturn the applecart burned away in the backlash to Hillarycare in 1994. From her husband’s 1996 reelection campaign to her 2000 Senate campaign to her 2008 presidential campaign, her hard edges were sanded off, and almost every one of her words and proposals has been carefully chosen to maximize appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

No doubt the woman is a progressive liberal and would push American policy in a leftward direction. And from time to time, her temper shows, and a glimpse of the old claws can be seen. But she’s undoubtedly a comfortable creature of the establishment now. She speaks at $200,000 a pop to Goldman Sachs and scoffs at Occupy Wall Street. She is the Democratic party’s establishment, queen of the Acela class, perfectly at home with corporate executives as long as they’ve donated to the right party. She will not seek the presidency to change the way Washington operates because the way Washington operates has been quite good to her.

Her town hall on CNN last Thursday, hosted by Christiane Amanpour, was a master class on speaking extemporaneously for an hour and appearing to answer questions about the toughest issues of the day without actually saying anything someone could disagree with.

Amanpour and the questions from the audience began with the worsening chaos in Iraq. Hillary responded, “I think it’s imperative that the government of Iraq, currently led by Maliki, be much more inclusive, much more willing to share power, involve all the different segments of Iraq.”

Indeed, it would be great if Maliki were that kind of leader or there was any indication he wanted to govern in that way. But at this point, there’s not much reason to think he’s capable of that.

Bermuda Triangle of the Middle East – Kurdistan disappeared. In 1920 the League of Nations carved Kurdistan into Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

Kurds date back to 2400 BC where they live today. After the 7th Century they became followers of Mohamed. Saladin was a Kurdish Muslim and the Sultan of Syria and of Egypt. He led forces against King Richard I during the Crusades. Various empires ruled until the Ottoman Empire. WWI Allies promised a “Great Kurdistan”. It did not happen. Britain and France divided rule over Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran until each was granted statehood.

Kurdistan has rugged beauty, mountains, and waterfalls. The size of Ohio, it is within countries created by the League of Nations: Turkish Kurdistan, in eastern Turkey; Iraqi Kurdistan, in northern Iraq; Iranian Kurdistan, in northern Iran; and Western Kurdistan, in northeast Syria.

Saddam Hussein’s 1988 genocidal campaign was led by his cousin, Chemical Al. The town of Halabja was attacked with nerve gas and chemical weapons; killing 5,000 people. Sixty Kurdish towns were gassed in the “Arabization” campaign.

After the Gulf War of 1991 the Iraqi Peshmerga Kurds, trained by the CIA, took over parts of northern Iraq. US and Britain established a no fly zone. United Nations gave them safe haven. The Kurdistan National Assembly was founded and based in Erbil.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in breach of the cease fire, weapons of mass destruction, and had not complied with Resolutions from 1991 to 2002. Hans Blix addressed the Security Council twice in 2003; stating that Iraq had misplaced 1,000 tons of VX nerve agent and that issues of anthrax and long range missiles remained unresolved. March 19, the US led a coalition of nations that started the War with Iraq, which ended on May 1.

Economic development in Iraqi Kurdistan includes high level foreign investments. Millions of barrels of crude export through Turkey. Other oil and gas pipeline projects are in the works. President Massoud Barzani participated in the World Economic Forum in Davos. Perhaps he is paving the way for Kurdish independence.

Political analysts are having a field day combing through the ashes of the recent elections for the European Parliament.

Once fringe parties, they have now entered the European mainstream reflecting dissatisfaction with EU policies, including high unemployment, austerity measures, and excessive immigration. The ugly and persistent face of anti-Semitism has also arisen yet again as blame seekers search for a scapegoat.

There is little doubt that European politics will reverberate to domestic politics in France and the United Kingdom where the National Front and the Independence Party are bound to play significant roles. Clearly xenophobic concerns about the Muslim population and its inability to integrate into European societies is a factor behind the rise of the Right. But that isn’t the only, or in my judgment, the major factor for the electoral result.

The main take away from the election is EU skepticism. A position once in the minority, led by Lady Thatcher, has now gained traction across the continent. National voters do not want to be held hostage to decisions in Brussels. The Belgium bureaucracy has one overarching goal in mind and this is the harmonization of continental policies that overlooks history, national idiosyncrasies and the issue of self government.

Just as the tide is turning against the E.U., European leaders such as Merkel of Germany and Hollande in France are calling for greater economic coordination than Europe experienced in the past in order to ensure the survival of the euro. At the same time, leaders, heeding the message of the election result, are calling for curbs on workers from other parts of the bloc.

At the risk of prediction, this electoral earthquake is merely the first tremor. Europe is likely to be seized by painful decisions, most of them suggesting the E.U. experiment was a failure. What has been gained in lower transaction costs has come at the price of national sovereignty. Too bad the European leaders did not take Joseph Conrad seriously who said “sovereign power is a fixed standard of conduct.” Take it away and people rebel.

Remove the Illegal-Immigration Carrots As long as U.S. politicians game the system, so will the illegals.

In 2012, the current administration made it clear that certain unaccompanied illegal minors would not be deported if caught. This helped create an atmosphere of tolerance that would be conducive to the current rash of illegal dumping of thousands of children from south of the border into the United States. Now we have a humanitarian crisis that appears to have been manufactured for political reasons.

One would not have to be incredibly bright to predict that families in South and Central America, as well as in Mexico, would recognize a veiled invitation to get their children into the United States with little chance of deportation. Of course, the media are asking opponents of the administration for solutions to this crisis. Almost anything these opponents suggest will be either harsh, making them appear cruel and callous, or weak, making them appear to be amnesty supporters. Either way, they will take a political hit.

Meanwhile, the administration can stay above the fray and receive the political benefit of gratitude from many legal and illegal immigrants. It’s a clever and effective ploy with the added benefit of redistributing even more American wealth. It remains to be seen how many people will be hoodwinked.

We all have heard it said many times that America is a land of immigrants, some voluntary and some involuntary. We have plenty of space in our country, but insufficient jobs and insufficient resources to support everyone who wants to come here. When we see innocent children used as political pawns, it still tugs at our heartstrings, which is the intent. The real question is: What are we going to do about it?

The combination of immigration reform’s being a tough issue and a political football has led to governmental stalemates and no useful solutions for decades. To begin to solve this problem, we must have some understanding of why it exists.

Despite all of its problems, America is still the place of dreams. As such, it is small wonder that so many from other nations would like to live here. The benefits of an American domicile are so great that they currently outweigh issues of legality.

Immigrating is relatively easy for those in proximity to the United States — we have porous borders, and it is easy for illegals to hide and obtain fraudulent identification after they have penetrated the border. Although there is some fear of deportation, unenthusiastic and inconsistent enforcement of immigration laws is the expectation. Further incentives for illegal immigration are easy enrollment in public schools, easy employment for those willing to take jobs that others don’t want, easy access to health care, and easy acquisition of public support through welfare programs. These and other inducements produce an osmotic effect that attracts ever more people to our land.

Any discussion of immigration reform should include bipartisan solutions to these inducements. If these issues are not addressed, solutions will fall short. On the other hand, if all of these issues are addressed firmly and consistently, the osmotic effect will be reversed. Just as people found a way to get here, they would find a way to leave on their own, and others would be less tempted to attempt illegal entry.