http://www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com/ ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS Israeli robotic spine surgery in the USA. Israel’s Mazor Robotics has just sold its 18th Renaissance robotic spinal surgical guidance system in the US – this time to the Parker Adventist Hospital in Denver. Parker is a Blue Distinction Center for Spine Surgery, so the latest sale is especially prestigious. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000785405&fid=1725 […]
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/ohio-jew-tossed-out-of-sen-brown-event-for-asking-about-j-street-funding/2012/09/22/
SUPPORT JOSH MANDEL: http://joshmandel.com/
See an update at the end of this report. BY LORI LOWENTHAL MARCUS
In what originally was supposed to be a slam dunk, US Senator Sherrod Brown’s race for reelection in Ohio against the youthful Republican Josh Mandell may instead be turning into a squeaker, and Brown is none too happy about it.
Brown originally had as much as a 17 percentage point lead, but according to a report in Bloomberg, several polls last month showed the race to be deadlocked. Mandell claims the race has become intense because Ohioans are increasingly turned off by the “ultra-liberal, hyper-partisan” Brown, while Brown claims that millions of dollars in negative ads have been run against him by “outside, undisclosed interest groups.”
One Ohioan found out just how testy this race has made Sherrod Brown. Following a talk he gave at the Dayton, Ohio Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, September 18, Senator Brown invited questions. There were a few tough questions put to the Senator by business owners opposed to President Obama’s healthcare legislation, and a softball question about how to contact the Senator’s office.
And then 32-year old Ohio native Joel Griffith stood up. Griffith said, “I’m a proud Jewish American and I’m concerned that the single biggest entity funding you is J Street. J Street has given you $60,000, and as you know, J Street is funded by an attorney for the Saudi Embassy and has also been funded by the producer of one of the most anti-Semitic films ever made …” but Griffith was not allowed to finish his question. The Senator’s first response was that Griffith’s was “clearly a political question.”
True, but the Senator is a politician who was engaging in politics. The political question doctrine only forecloses the judicial branch from addressing a particular issue. In fact, political questions are reserved exclusively to the legislative branch of which Senator Brown is hoping to remain a part.
But as Griffith sought to continue asking his question, and paused to ask whether it was okay if he filmed the exchange, Senator Brown cut him off and told Griffith to “talk to that man in the back of the room who is Jewish,” because that Jewish man supports Brown and “knows that I am pro-Israel.”
On his third attempt to get out his question, the frustrated Griffith began once again, saying, “What do you say to those Jewish Americans who are very concerned…” But again, Brown cut him off. The Senator instead told Griffith what he should do before Brown would answer him. Senator Brown told his constituent, “You find out where the $18 million came from that is funding ads against me,” and said Griffith could then come back and ask his question next year. The Senator then wrapped up that portion of the program.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
Responding to the Sydney Mohammed riots featuring bloodied police officers and Muslim children holding beheading signs, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, “What we saw in Sydney on the weekend wasn’t multiculturalism but extremism.”
Muslim extremism is multicultural. It is the essence of their approach to multiculturalism. Only through, what Gillard calls extremism, do an Egyptian, a Pakistani and a Malay have anything at all in common with one another.
Immigrants from different nations can move to a nation and accept a new national identity. Hundreds of millions of Americans and Australians are the result of such an arrangement. The immigrants can meet up at folk culture festivals where they partake of each other’s national foods or they can stick to their own foods– it doesn’t make that much of a difference except for when politicians running for office gain 40 pounds eating bratwurst, pizza and bagels and drinking Guinness at campaign events.
When there is a strong national identity, either former or present, there is rarely a conflict between religious identity and national identity. Those conflicts have usually been settled in the past in some uneasy, but final way, that allows everyone to believe what they want to believe without turning that belief into the defining form of national identity. That way one can be a good Englishman without being a member of the Church of England or a good Frenchmen without being a member of the Catholic Church. Arriving at that point was not easy, but it ended the religious wars of Europe.
Muslims do not have a strong national identity. Their nations are a hodgepodge of military dictators, colonial leftovers and tribal alliances. Their societies are “multicultural” in the sense that they are composed of numerous hostile ethnic groups, tribes and families who are united only by a common religion. This unity is fragile, but it is the most common form of unity that they have and they value it far more than national identity.
To the Muslim, his nation is a fleeting thing, a historical accident by a colonial mapmaker digging up ancient names and drawing lines that cut across the lines of ethnic and tribal migrations, but his religion, though he understands very little of it, is a fine and great thing that has long preceded the nation and means far more to him than the nation does.
Even Muslims in moderate countries poll as identifying more with Islam than with a political faction or national identity. That is why what happened when Muslim democracy was unleashed on the Muslim World was completely inevitable. Muslims chose the one form of identity that they could agree on. It was an identity that excluded Christians, but democracy draws a circle around the largest number of people and outside Lebanon and Israel, those people are all Muslims.
Muslims bridge multiculturalism through religion and they do not accept any form of national identity that is not based on religious unity. That is what the Arab Spring really meant.
http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/scores-of-u-s-visas-for-ahmadinejads-bulging-entourage/ When Iran’s pro-genocide president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attends the United Nations General Assembly annual opening in New York this coming week, how many Iranian officials will he bring in his entourage? Far too many, if the numbers reported today by Iran’s Fars News Agency are to be believed. As Fars describes it, the U.S. has […]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9560773/Afghanistan-birth-soldier-named-as-Lance-Bombardier-Lynette-Pearce.html
By Andrew Hough, and Jonathan Pearlman in Sydney
The 28 year-old had a healthy son five weeks prematurely last week, after saying she was not aware of her pregnancy.The Fiji-born solider, from 12 Regiment Royal Artillery, arrived back in Britain from Camp Bastion on Friday and is recovering in hospital.
The daughter of a former policeman in the Fijian town of Nadi, she was captain of the country’s women’s football team from 2007 to 2009.Messages including “welcome to motherhood” were yesterday being posted on her Facebook site, where she reportedly has more than 1,200 friends.
Her friends said she was overjoyed about becoming a mother
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/newt_gingrich_on_the_islamist_challenge.html
WHAT A CURIOUS WORD “ISLAMIST” IS…..IF WE ADHERE TO THESE SENSITIVITIES WHY DON’T WE DEMAND THAT THE MEDIA CALL SOME OF THE ROWDY SETTLERS “JEWISHIST” ?
Newt Gingrich has and excellent analysis on what we face from his book Winning the Future published in 2006:
“We have two immediate opponents, the irreconcilable wing of Islam and the rogue dictatorships that empower the radical Islamists. The irreconcilable wing of Islam considers America the great Satan. The Islamists cannot reconcile with a secular system of laws. They cannot tolerate a West that maintains a presence in the Arabian Gulf or that would defend Israel’s right to survive as a country. They cannot tolerate freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom for women. In short, their demands are irreconcilable with the modern world.
“Politically correct secularists cannot understand that we are participants in a global civil war between the modernizing and irreconcilable wings of Islam. While the irreconcilable wing must be fought militarily, this is also a cultural, political, and economic war (as was the Cold War). This war is not primarily about terrorism, it is about an Islamist insurgency against the modern world.
“A reasonable estimate would be that this war will last until 2070 (the Soviet Union lasted from 1917 to 1991, or seventy-four years). An optimist could make a case for winning by 2025 or 2030. Alternatively this conflict could be a fact of life for several centuries (as the Catholic-Protestant wars were during the Reformation and Counter Reformation).
“Because secular post-modern analysts refuse to take religion seriously, we describe “suicide bombers” while our opponents describe “martyrs.” We see them as psychologically deranged where they see themselves as dedicated to God. We focus on body counts while our opponents see their dead as symbols for recruitment. We focus on weeks and months while our opponents patiently focus on decades and generations. We think of trouble spots while they think of global jihad. We are in a total mismatch of planning and understanding.
http://www.raymondcook.net/blog/
Whenever the UK media covers the Israel/Palestine conflict I worry about bias and misrepresentation of the facts.
This fear is based on experience over many years.
When the BBC broadcast a special programme about the Mavi Marmara incident last year I and many others were very surprised that the programme came out largely on the side of Israel in terms of who was telling the truth. It was rather less surprising that the BBC should be vilified for it, after all, Israel is always wrong, don’t you know.
On Monday this week, which also happened to be the first day of the Jewish New Year, when most Jews would not be watching TV, the same BBC programme and the same reporter, Jane Corbin, covered the Price Tag phenomenon in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.Given the fact that the BBC decided to cover the issue, it was lucky Jane Corbin covered it. I thought it was largely fair. However, the Palestinians came out as squeaky clean pacifists despite mention of Arab terrorism.
The Price Tag movement is an extremist, religious settler movement which attacks mainly Arab, but also Israeli targets as a ‘Price Tag’ for any action the Israeli government takes against settlements, such as dismantling those even the Israelis deem illegal.
The aim of the Price Tag movement is to make the government pay in terms of embarrassment and also international disgrace for the actions of its citizens. The objective is to further populate the West Bank / Judea-Samaria which the Price Taggers believe to be their god-given land. According to their beliefs, no Jew has any right to remove Jews from Eretz Israel.
The programme labelled them ‘terrorist’. The term ‘terrorist’ has been applied by the Israeli government itself. These despicable people are a disgrace to Israel and the Jewish people and there is no justification for their actions. However, the Price Tag people have killed no-one, not yet anyway. Graffiti, torching empty vehicles, setting small fires in mosques, insulting the Prophet and generally behaving like vandals in any other culture is barely terrorism. Compared with the real thing it seemed at times an almost laughable comparison as not all incidents were serious ones. Daubing graffiti is not terrorism. But the language of the Middle East has become so degraded that even Israelis are prepared to use it, probably as a linguistic way of registering their dismay and disapproval.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/09/22/bozell-column-islamic-exceptionalism
HILLARY THEN:
“As a carpet-bagging candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in New York in 1999, Hillary Clinton was no Profile in Outrage. After several days of silence after Chris Ofili’s dung-smeared Virgin Mary hit the fan when it was displayed at the taxpayer-funded Brooklyn Museum, Mrs. Clinton announced “Our feelings of being offended should not lead to the penalizing and shutting down of an entire museum.”
The “enlightened” who claim a firm grip on the steering wheel of Western civilization see the future through a lens in which man becomes ever more perfectible as outdated religious creeds fade away. And thus the irony. For all the contempt these cosmopolitans show for religion, there is one faith beyond public rebuke. Call it Islamic exceptionalism.
Public Enemy #1 right now is the man who made a ridiculously shoddy YouTube video titled “The Innocence of Muslims.” This man and his so-called “film” have been blamed with a very broad brush for every riot and protest across the Mideast.
It is all so….impossible. This video sat unwatched for months until an Egyptian television station decided to promote it as some kind of global insult. Not you, not anyone you know and not anyone they know ever heard of this. But when the “Arab street” decided to stage riots outside American embassies, our government derided “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/22/Obama-to-Condemn-Christian-Filmmaker-Before-United-Nations
Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations
John Holte, Breitbart.com
Not only are we seeing the White House and State Department call more attention to the Mohammed-mocking “Innocence of Muslims” than any terrorist network ever could’ve hoped for, but the President’s indefensible scapegoating of the film and filmmaker to draw attention and blame away from U.S. security failures apparently knows no bounds.
Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president’s speech to the UN General Assembly next week:
“UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World.”
“As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]
My God, between the media and the Obama White House, we are finally witnessing Orwell’s “1984” blossom to life.
As our economy slows, incomes shrink, unemployment creeps up, and poverty explodes — the media assures us we’re in “recovery” and that our frustrations should be taken out on “Emmanuel Goldstein,” also known as “America’s Successful.”
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx?nodeid=457204
Newsmax
Zuckerman Calls Obama Campaign ‘Dishonest, Divisive’
Mortimer Zuckerman, the influential Democrat editior-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report called the Obama campaign “dishonest, divisive” in an article published in the online edition of the magazine.
“It is a dishonest, divisive campaign. It’s discouraging of enterprise,” he penned. “It does the opposite of uniting the country to deal with the current economic crisis.”
Zuckerman, who is also the publisher and owner of the New York Daily News, said that Obama’s argument on taxes “is not just about whether the super-rich should pay more,” which he would support.
“It is about whether individuals, households, and small businesses should now be seen to cross the threshold into a plutocracy when earnings reach $250,000 a year — which buys much less in metropolitan areas than in the heartland,” according to Zuckerman. “It is outrageous to infer that aspiring to reach such a level is somehow un-American, and the Obama campaign surely must know that. Shame on them if they don’t!”
Zuckerman blamed “careless remarks” on the part of GOP challenger Mitt Romney for allowing Obama to “get away with a program that pits ‘the millionaires and billionaires’ against the people.”
He said that Romney’s gaffes have put his entire candidacy at risk “to the point where he may not even qualify for the dismissive equation of Barack Obama that Marco Rubio formulated for the Republican faithful: “Our problem is not that he’s a bad person. Our problem is that he’s a bad president.”
