Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

GIDEON ALLON: “GRADUALLY APPLY SOVEREIGNTY TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA”

http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2012/01/allon-gradually-apply-sovereignty-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LoveOfTheLand+%28Love+of+the+Land%29

The name MK Zeev Elkin started making headlines only over the past several months. What began with a caricature continued on to radio and television programs. Until a year ago, he was unknown by the general public, although he has served in the Knesset for the past seven years.

The media’s interest in Elkin, which began only when he introduced the controversial boycott law, increased when he began, together with his fellow faction member, MK Yariv Levin, to advance a bill that obligates candidates for the Supreme Court to undergo a hearing in the Constitution and Law Committee. It accompanied criticism from Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and continued in a disagreement over the candidacy of Justice Noam Solberg.

When Netanyahu made him head of the coalition, many people in the Knesset raised an eyebrow. Some thought that the task was too big for someone who was a fairly plain member of Kadima’s faction until he began rebelling against Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni.

But Elkin is considered to have proven himself the best at his job. For three years, the opposition has not managed to get a single bill passed in the Knesset that the coalition opposed.

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE AGE OF INSANITY THAT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA CHOSE AS THEIR SUPREME LEADER THE PERSON KNOWN AS “THE ONE”….SEE NOTE

http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=2548

THE AUTHOR OF THIS GEM FROM 2009 IS UNIDENTIFIED…..RSK

And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as “The One”.He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, “I am sent to save you. My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. For I shall save you with Hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who preceded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed.” And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what “The One” would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And “The One” said “We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!” And the people said, “Hallelujah! Change is good!”

Then He said, “We are going to tax the rich fat-cats.” And the people said “Sock it to them!” ” And redistribute their wealth.” And the people said, “Show us the money!” And then He said, “Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody” And Joe the plumber asked, ” Are you kidding me? You’re going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??” And “The One” ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe’s personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, “Isn’t that Marxist policy?” And she was banished from the kingdom!

IRFAN AL ALAWI: EGYPTIAN ISLAMISTS DEMAND “MORALS PATROLS”…..THERE GOES TOURISM, NOT TO MENTION CIVILIZATION

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2750/egyptian-islamists-morals-patrols The radical Islamist Nour party, or “Party of the Light,” has captured more than a quarter of votes in the post-Mubarak Egyptian elections. Nour, which ran second to the Muslim Brotherhood in the polling, is a Wahhabi party, reproducing the ideology of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, under the label of “Salafism.” Its rhetoric […]

MY SAY: “VOIDING” VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN

Urination, also known as micturition, voiding, peeing, weeing, pissing, and more rarely, emiction. Whatever you call it….and I prefer “voiding” .
Our troops have been asked to avoid insulting the enemy, avoid hitting civilians, avoid harsh interrogation, avoid any infraction of the COIN doctrine or rules of engagement that leave them in harm’s way.
So, they voided on the bodies of dead and deadly murderers whose only rules of engagement are to avoid any human rights and compassionate concerns about “infidels.”
So it’s not nice…..who gives a damn? Not me.
I say void the enemy with firepower and overwhelming force.

ELECTIONS ARE COMING: HOW DEPRESSING JAN POLLER

The United States has so many problems that I find it amazing that President Obama has even the remotest chance of winning. Here is a short list of them in no particular order:

The national debt

Jobs

The blah economy

Iran on the verge of getting nuclear weapons

An increase in anti-American terrorism

The decimation of the U.S. Military

A president who announced that he will rule by decree if congress doesn’t go along with him

Obamacare

More regulation

Failure to exploit American resources

I, as a voter, want to know how the candidates would tackle these problems. I want a complete picture. (Please note that I am not indicating any preference for any candidate except I abhor Rob Paul.)

What is the GOP giving us? They are giving us internecine battles that aren’t even honest.

Consider the attacks on Romney. To a large extent they are an attack on Capitalism, saying that there should be some moral limit on profits. Romney should respond by listing the jobs created and jobs lost while he was at Bain. Instead we get dragged out, non-informative discourse that does absolutely nothing to address the problems of the country.

Where is the GOP attack on the Rule by Executive order plan of the President? Where is the fight against Obama deciding when Congress is and is not in session when it is spelled out in the Constitution? It is non-existent.

The GOP won control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections. What has the GOP done with it? The silenced the new members and have yielded to almost all Democrat demands no matter how detrimental to the country.

How do they expect to win the Presidency when they just give us platitudes and President Obama victory after victory?

You don’t have to be a genius or on the inside to see what is happening to the parties or to our country.

It is depressing.

Jan Mel Poller

DAVID HOROWITZ: THE NEW YORK TIMES SHILLS AGAIN FOR LEFT WING MURDERERS

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/13/the-nyt-shilling-again-for-leftwing-murderers/

The New York Times, which played a key role in getting convicted and unrepentant murderer Kathy Boudin​ a parole, has now published a similar massive plea posing as a news story for her accomplice, Judy Clark. The piece is maliciously titled “The Radical Transformation of Judy Clark” as though Clark, understanding the heinous nature of her crime which left 9 children fatherless, is prepared to renounce the life that led to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course Clark is in her sixties now and regrets her separation from the infant she abandoned to commit the crime (her last crime not her only crime). Her daughter is now 31 and she would obviously like to be able to share the kind of life with her that her victims cannot share with their dead fathers. And, of course, being old and gray, she no longer thinks Amerikkka is on the brink of a violent revolution and liberation. Unlike Boudin, moreover, she does seem to have given some thought to the enormity of what she did to those nine fatherless children. But that said, there is no indication that her parole plea is anything but self-serving, or that she has turned her back on the progressive terrorists — Boudin, Bill Ayers​ and Bernadine Dohrn​ among them — who were her comrades-in-arms through the twelve years of armed warfare she conducted against her country and its citizens, which left more than a handful of people dead.

To begin with, Clark and her mouthpiece at the Times, present the culprit as an absent-minded accomplice to the one crime for which she was convicted, the Brinks robbery in Nyack NY in 1981. According to Clark, her participation was an “obligation” — the fulfillment of a promise she had made to participate as a getaway driver in a robbery she thought would never take place. This is baloney. Clark was part of a group that called itself “The Family,” which was a working alliance between the Black Liberation Army and the May 19th Communist Movement (so-named in part to commemorate the day the BLA murdered a black and white police team in New York for no reason other than that they were a black and white officer working together).

BOMB ATTACK ON SHIITE PILGRIMS NEAR BASRA KILLS 53

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-death-toll-attack-pilgrims-now-53-115615285.html

ZUBAIR, Iraq (AP) — An Iraqi health official says the death toll from a bomb attack on Shiite pilgrims near the southern port city of Basra has risen to 53 people.

The head of the Basra provincial health directorate Dr. Riyadh Abdul-Amir says hospitals received 53 killed and 137 wounded after the blast. He says some of the wounded are in serious condition, and warns the death toll may rise further.

The explosion was the latest in a series of attacks during Shiite religious commemorations that threaten to further increase sectarian tensions.

The attack occurred near the town of Zubair as pilgrims marched toward a Shiite shrine on the outskirts of the town.

___

Associated Press writers Bushra Juhi, Sameer N. Yacoub, Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Adam Schreck contributed reporting.

MARK STEYN: THE RON PAUL FACTION

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288090/ron-paul-faction-mark-steyn

In the 2010 election the New Hampshire Republican party took 298 out of 400 house seats, 19 out of 24 state-senate seats, and all five seats on the executive council. A little over a year later, in the state’s presidential primary, the same (more or less) electorate gave over 56 percent of its votes to a couple of moneyed “moderates,” one of whom served in the Obama administration and the other of whom left no trace in office other than the pilot program for Obamacare. Another 23 percent voted for Ron Paul. Supporters of the three other “major” candidates in the race argue that, if only the other two fellows would clear off, a viable conservative alternative to Mitt Romney would emerge. In fact, even if you combine Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum’s share of the vote, it adds up to a mere 19.5 percent: Were Bain Capital to come in and restructure the “conservative” candidates into one streamlined and efficient Newt Perrtorum, this unstoppable force would be competitive with Jon Huntsman.

According to George Mason University’s annual survey of freedom in the 50 states, New Hampshire is the freest state in the union, so one would expect there to be takers for Ron Paul’s message. On the other hand, facing a very different electorate in Iowa, Paul pulled pretty much an identical share of the poll. It may be time for those of us on the right to consider whether it’s not so much the conservative vote that’s split but whether conservatism itself is fracturing.

MARTIN SHERMAN: COMPREHENDING THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE PART ONE

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=253441

Into The Fray: The first of a two-part analysis of why Israel is losing the international battle for hearts and minds.

Israel has made itself defenseless. Israel has vacated the battleground of the mind. Israeli ‘hasbara’ is a JOKE! – British columnist Melanie Phillips, IBA Television, 2011

One of the gravest strategic threats facing Israel is its accelerating international delegitimization. This is developing into a strategic constraint that is increasingly curtailing the nation’s ability to protect itself and its citizens. Even more troubling, it is undermining international recognition of Israel’s right to exercise self-defense, even in the most blatant cases of aggression against it.

Strategic debacle
Without wishing to diminish the significance of innate hostility towards Israel and the Jews from many sources in the international system, the present dismal and untenable situation has arisen in large measure because of the abysmal job the Israeli leadership has done in conducting – or more accurately, misconducting – its public diplomacy.

Indeed, Prof. Eitan Gilboa, a well-known authority on public diplomacy, warns: “The lack of an adequate PD [public diplomacy] program has significantly affected Israel’s strategic outlook and freedom of action. Any further neglect of PD would not only restrict Israel’s strategic options, it would be detrimental to its ability to survive in an increasingly intolerant and hostile world.”

Many find it puzzling why Israel – with its proven record of extraordinary achievement in so many other fields of human endeavor – does such a poor job in presenting its case to the world.

SOL STERN: HANNAH ARENDT AND THE ORIGINS OF ISRAELOPHOBIA****

http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=7777Sol Stern
Hannah Arendt and the Origins of Israelophobia
The great antitotalitarian thinker was no friend to the Jewish state.
Winter 2012

In last year’s extensive commentary marking the 50th anniversary of the Eichmann trial, one name—Hannah Arendt—was mentioned nearly as often as that of the trial’s notorious defendant. It’s hard to think of another major twentieth-century event so closely linked with one author’s interpretation of it. Arendt, who fled Nazi Germany at 27, was already an internationally renowned scholar and public intellectual when she arrived in Jerusalem in April 1961 to cover the trial for The New Yorker. Arendt’s five articles, which were then expanded into the 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, proved hugely controversial. Many Jewish readers—and non-Jews, too—were shocked by three principal themes in Arendt’s report: her portrayal of Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion as the cynical puppet master manipulating the trial to serve the state’s Zionist ideology; her assertion that Eichmann was a faceless, unthinking bureaucrat, a cog in the machinery of the Final Solution rather than one of its masterminds; and her accusation that leaders of the Judenräte (Jewish councils) in Nazi-occupied Europe had engaged in “sordid and pathetic” behavior, making it easier for the Nazis to manage the logistics of the extermination process.

Since the publication of Eichmann in Jerusalem, serious scholars have debunked the most inflammatory of Arendt’s charges. Nevertheless, for today’s defamers of Israel, Arendt is a patron saint, a courageous Jewish intellectual who saw Israel’s moral catastrophe coming. These leftist intellectuals don’t merely believe, as Arendt did, that she was the victim of “excommunication” for the sin of criticizing Israel. Their homage to Arendt runs deeper. In fact, their campaign to delegitimize the state of Israel and exile it from the family of nations—another kind of excommunication, if you will—derives several of its themes from Arendt’s writings on Zionism and the Holocaust. Those writings, though deeply marred by political naivety and personal rancor, have now metastasized into a destructive legacy that undermines Israel’s ability to survive as a lonely democracy, surrounded by hostile Islamic societies.

One might imagine the young Hannah Arendt as the heroine of a Philip Roth novel about a precocious Jewish undergraduate having an affair with her famous professor. According to her late biographer Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Arendt grew up in a completely assimilated middle-class Jewish family in Königsberg, the capital of East Prussia. She identified herself as fully German by virtue of her love of the Muttersprache (mother tongue) and of German Kultur. The word “Jew,” Arendt would later recall, “was never mentioned” in her home; the only religion there was her mother’s ardent socialism.

In 1924, at 18, Arendt went to study philosophy at the University of Marburg, where Martin Heidegger was establishing his reputation as the most important continental philosopher of the twentieth century. Like many of Heidegger’s brilliant Jewish students (Herbert Marcuse was another), Arendt was mesmerized by his lectures. Heidegger, in turn, quickly recognized Arendt’s intellectual gifts and agreed to mentor her dissertation. He also became her secret lover, though he was more than twice her age and married with children. A decade later, Heidegger became a committed member of the Nazi Party and the head of the University of Freiburg, where he encouraged his students to give the Nazi salute and enthusiastically carried out the party’s directive to purge all Jews from the faculty.

Fearing a public scandal if their relationship were discovered, Heidegger sent Arendt to Heidelberg to finish her studies with his friend Karl Jaspers, who became Arendt’s second dissertation advisor and her lifelong friend. Arendt was just 23, and had been trained by two of the world’s greatest philosophers, when her treatise on Saint Augustine was accepted by one of Germany’s most prestigious academic publishers and was reviewed in several leading philosophical journals.

Up to this point, the young woman seems hardly to have given a thought to the “Jewish question” in Germany. But the rise of Nazism forced Arendt to act and think as a Jew for the first time in her life. Many of her university friends believed, in traditionally Marxist fashion, that the way to fight anti-Semitism was through the broader struggle for international socialism. Arendt had the foresight to see that if even deracinated Jews like herself found themselves under attack as Jews, they had to fight back as Jews. She praised the German Zionists for doing just that. In Berlin in 1933, she courageously carried out an illegal mission for her friend Kurt Blumenthal, the German Zionist leader. Her assignment was to collect material from the state archives documenting the Nazi-dominated government’s anti-Jewish measures, which would then be presented at the next Zionist Congress in Prague. Arendt was caught, arrested, and sent to jail for eight days.

That experience led Arendt to make the painful decision to flee Germany. Later that year, she illegally crossed the Czech border and settled temporarily in Prague. Eventually, she joined the growing community of stateless, destitute German Jewish refugees in Paris. There she worked for Youth Aliyah, the Zionist group that sent the children of Jewish refugees to Palestine. She studied Hebrew and declared to a friend: “I want to get to know my people.” She wasn’t committed to any Zionist party or even to the necessity of a sovereign Jewish state. But she now believed that immigration to Palestine and building the Jewish homeland there were honorable responses to the Nazi assault on the Jews.

Soon after the fall of France, Arendt and her husband, the communist Heinrich Blücher, were among the lucky few to obtain visas to the United States. Arendt was penniless when she arrived in New York in May 1941, but for her first few months in America she maintained herself with a $70 monthly allotment from the Zionist Organization of America, which helped Jewish refugees. Though she wasn’t fluent in English, her absorption into New York intellectual circles was seamless. Within a year, she had mastered the language well enough to write a scholarly article on the Dreyfus Affair for the prestigious academic journal Jewish Social Studies. She was then offered a regular column in the German Jewish weekly Aufbau. For the duration of the war, she used that platform and other publications to comment on the two most important issues facing the Jews—the struggle against Nazism and the future of the Jewish homeland in Palestine after the war.

During much of that period, Arendt wrote as a committed Zionist. She referred to Zionism as “the national liberation movement of the Jewish people,” for example, and she praised the socialist Zionist parties representing “the workers” in Palestine: “For if the Jews are to live in Palestine by right and not by sufferance, it will only be by the right they have earned and continue to earn every day with their labor” (the emphasis is hers, and these translations of the Aufbau columns are from a collection of her work called The Jewish Writings). Arendt’s intentions in supporting Jewish settlement in Palestine were sincere, but her writing displayed an astonishing lack of political judgment—as in her belief that the accomplishments of Jewish “labor” might somehow win Arab acceptance of Jewish rights in Palestine.

In her very first Aufbau column, Arendt suggested the creation of a Jewish army—independent of any nation, but under Allied command—to fight the Nazis. The project reflected the political lesson that she had learned from her own experience with Nazism: “You can only defend yourself as the person you are attacked as. A person attacked as a Jew cannot defend himself as an Englishman or Frenchman” (again, the emphasis is hers).