RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/286075
No Credible Case Against Keystone
Republicans force President Obama to decide on the pipeline.

To recap:

Some 160 million Americans will watch their taxes rise about $1,000 each, if the current payroll-tax cut ends on January 1.

Millions of jobless Americans will see their unemployment benefits run out, if the federal government does not extend them by year’s end.

The Iranian government this week threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz and bottle up a key route that oil tankers use to deliver petroleum to an energy-hungry planet.

President Obama could fix the first two problems and ameliorate the dangers of the third, if he would sign legislation to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits.

The sticking point, of course, is Republican language requiring Obama to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport friendly oil from the Canadian oil sands to refineries in Texas. While America moans beneath an 8.6 percent unemployment rate, the pipeline would create 20,000 well-paying jobs in labor-happy industries. That’s why the AFL-CIO and other unions support Keystone.

Obama and the Democrats claim that Keystone XL is environmentally risky. To hear them speak, Keystone would scar the pristine line separating America from its peaceful neighbor and then despoil sensitive land and habitat across the fruited plains. As this map shows, however, the U.S.-Canadian border and the path the project would take already are swarming with pipelines:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/28606

I can’t wait to see what those courageous atheists come up with for Ramadan.
Christmas in America is a season of time-honored traditions — the sacred performance of the annual ACLU lawsuit over the presence of an insufficiently secular “holiday” tree; the ritual provocations of the atheist displays licensed by pitifully appeasing municipalities to sit between the menorah and the giant Frosty the Snowman; the familiar strains of every hack columnist’s “war on Christmas” column rolling off the keyboard as easily as Richard Clayderman playing “Winter Wonderland” . . .
This year has been a choice year. A crucified skeleton Santa Claus was erected as part of the “holiday” display outside the Loudoun County courthouse in Virginia — because, let’s face it, nothing cheers the hearts of moppets in the Old Dominion like telling them, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus — and he’s hanging lifeless in the town square.” Alas, a week ago, some local burghers failed to get into the ecumenical spirit and decapitated him. Who are these killjoys? Christians intolerant of the First Amendment (as some have suggested)? Or perhaps a passing Saudi? Our friends in Riyadh only the other day beheaded Amina bin Salem (so to speak) Nasser for “sorcery,” and it would surely be grossly discriminatory not to have some Wahhabist holiday traditions on display in Loudoun County. (The Islamic Saudi Academy, after all, is one of the most prestigious educational institutions of neighboring Fairfax County.) Across the fruitcaked plain in California, the city of Santa Monica allocated permits for “holiday” displays at Palisades Park by means of lottery. Eighteen of the 21 slots went to atheists — for example, the slogan “37 million Americans know a myth when they see one” over portraits of Jesus, Santa, and Satan.
I don’t believe I’ve mentioned the city of Santa Monica in this space since my Christmas offering of 1998, when President Clinton was in the midst of difficulties arising from his mentoring of a certain intern. My column that year began:
“Operator, I’d like to call Santa Monica.”
“Why? Just ’cause he’s a little overweight?”
Crickets chirping? Ah, how soon they forget. Perhaps Santa Monica should adopt a less theocratic moniker and change its name to Satan Monica, as its interpretation of the separation of church and state seems to have evolved into expressions of public contempt for large numbers of the citizenry augmented by the traumatizing of their children. Boy, I can’t wait to see what those courageous atheists come up with for Ramadan. Or does that set their hearts aflutter quite as much?
One sympathizes, up to a point. As America degenerates from a land of laws to a land of legalisms, much of life is devoted to forestalling litigation. What’s less understandable is the faintheartedness of explicitly Christian institutions. Last year I chanced to see the e-mail exchanges between college administrators over the choice of that season’s Christmas card. I will spare their blushes, and identify the academy only as a Catholic college in New England. The thread began by asking the distribution list for “thoughts” on the proposed design. No baby, no manger, no star over Bethlehem, but a line drawing of a dove with a sprig of olive in its beak. Underneath the image was the following:

What is Christmas?

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/

Whatever comes to pass in this election season — whatever scandals emerge, gaffes are gaffed, turns twisted, figures fudged, wars waged, etc. — what I would I most like to see, even if I don’t get to, is the Gingrich-Obama debates.

Conventional modern liberalism (leftism, Keynesian economics, etc.) is dead in our country, indeed in the world, and yet a sizable portion of the populace clings to it. Like a massive cargo cult waiting for John Frum, these people cleave to an ideology that has been useless for years and is self-destructive even to them, most of them anyway, undermining the lives of the rest of us in the process.

Newt Gingrich is the only person I can think of with the rhetorical skills to explain this in a manner in which at least some of these same people, perhaps even enough of them, would understand the situation and change. He could do so in debate with Barack Obama — those Lincoln-Douglas style debates he so assiduously seeks.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/thats_gratitude_for_you.html

One aspect of the end of the Iraqi War ceremony held in Baghdad that hasn’t gotten a lot of press is that there were no major Iraqi government officials who attended and no Iraqis made any remarks to thank the US for our sacrifices on their behalf.

CNS News:

Fox News Correspondent Jennifer Griffin reports that only a handful of Iraqis were on hand Thursday as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and U.S. military leaders formally ended the Iraq war with a subdued ceremony in Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not attend the ceremony at which the flag of U.S. Forces-Iraq was officially retired.

“You will leave with great pride — lasting pride — secure in knowing that your sacrifice has helped the Iraqi people to cast tyranny aside and to offer hope for prosperity and peace to this country’s future generations,” Panetta told U.S. troops. But even as a U.S. military band played a medley of patriotic American tunes, the ceremony — televised live in the 5 a.m. EST hour — seemed one-sided without Iraqi participation or even a thank-you.

Almost nine years of fighting in Iraq leaves 4,500 Americans dead and 32,000 wounded, according to the Associated Press tally. The cost to the U.S. — more than $800 billion. But it was worth it, Panetta says:

“We spilled a lot of blood there,” the defense secretary said earlier this week. “But all of that has not been in vain. It’s been to achieve a mission making that country sovereign and independent and able to govern and secure itself.”

The BBC reported that in the city of Falluja on Wednesday, Iraqis burned U.S. flags to celebrate the war’s end. Some Iraqis say the U.S. did not live up to its promise to leave behind a secure and stable Iraq.

Only time will tell if the if we have left behind a “secure and stable” Iraq.

http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/12/help-stop-this-dangerous-candidate-hes-told-the-truth.html

US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (whose Lazarus-like trajectory to the Republican nomination I flagged up here a month ago) has recently demonstrated yet again Melanie’s First Rule of Modern Political Discourse – the more obvious the truth that you utter, the more explosive and abusive the reaction.

For Gingrich said the Palestinian Arabs were ‘an invented people’ – and the world promptly started hurling execrations at him, as if such a statement proved beyond doubt that Gingrich was indeed a dangerously extreme individual who, when it came to political positioning, was just off the graph altogether.

http://times247.com/ Romney’s hardships abroad included living in a ‘palace’ \Read more at: http://times247.com/ Stabenow begged in vain for Corzine cash Washington Examiner Friday, December 16, 2011 Blogs Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chaired the first Senate panel before which former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine testified this week. She had reasons to scold him — he […]

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1022

ALSO PLEASE READ:
YORAM ETTINGER: WHO ARE THE PALESTINIANS? http://bit.ly/up8bJm

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the geographic term “Palestine” was predominantly associated – from biblical times until the 1948 establishment of Israel- with the Jewish people, Jewish history and Jewish geography. It was the crux of Jewish national aspirations, the Jewish Homeland.

In 135 AD, Judaea was renamed “Palestina,” by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, following the suppression of the Jewish uprising, in order to eradicate Jewish nationhood and to uproot the inherent Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel. Similarly, Jerusalem was renamed “Aelia Capitolina,” in honor of Aelius Hadrian and the Roman Capitol, in an attempt to obliterate Jewish association with the spiritual and physical core of Judaism.

Since 1949, and increasingly since 1967, the term “Palestine” has been employed, by Israel’s enemies, in order to delegitimize the existence of the Jewish State. In April 1950, Judea and Samaria were renamed “the West Bank”, by the Jordanian occupation, in order to assert Jordanian rule, and expunge Jewish connection to the cradle of Jewish history. Until 1950, all official Ottoman, British and prior records referred to “Judea and Samaria” and not to the “West Bank.”

“Palestine” is a derivative of the Hebrew term “Plishtim” (invaders), the Biblical name of the Philistines, non-Semites from the Greek islands and from Phoenicia, who migrated in the 12th century BCE to Pleshet, along the Mediterranean. The term “Palestine” was established, in the 5th century BC, by the Greek historian, Herodotus, and adopted in 135 AD, by the Roman Empire, in an attempt to erase “Judaea” from human memory.

According to Prof. Bernard Lewis, the icon of Mid-East historians (International History Review, January, 1980), “the earliest attempts at a territorial definition of the country later known as Palestine are in the Bible.” In its attempts to devastate Jewish national aspirations, the Roman Empire attached Palestine to the province of Syria. In 400 AD, Palestine was split into Palestina Prima – with its capital in Caesarea – and Palestina Secunda – with its capital in Bethshean, further diminishing the stature of Jerusalem.

Prof. Lewis notes that the 7th century Arab conquest of Palestine perpetuated the neglect of Jerusalem, while elevating the status of Lydda, Ramla and Tiberias. “In the early medieval Arabic usage, Filastin [Palestine] and Urdunn [Jordan] were sub-districts forming part of the greater geographical entity known as Syria…. Under Roman, Byzantine and Islamic rule, Palestine was politically submerged. It reappeared only under the Crusaders…. the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem….

“Under the successors of Saladin, and still more under the Mamluks, the country was redistributed in new territorial units … with its capital in Damascus…. After the Ottoman conquest in 1516-17, the country was divided into Ottoman administrative districts… subject to the authority of the Governor-General of Damascus….

“[The term Palestine] was no longer used by Muslims, for whom it had never meant more than an administrative sub-district and it had been forgotten even in that limited sense….

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/12/16/main-feature/1/the-trouble-with-hitchens

HIS BROTHER PETER JONATHAN HITCHENS IS A MOST HONORABLE MAN. CONDOLENCES AND GRATITUDE FOR DEFYING HIS BROTHER’S SHODDY RECORD ON ISRAEL ARE EXTENDED TO HIM. HITCHENS WAS OFTEN WITTY AND ARTICULATE AND HIS “DISH” ON THE BRITISH ROYALS WAS HILARIOUS. HIS COLUMNS IN VANITY FAIR WERE A PLEASURE TO READ. TOO BAD HE DID NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE AN EPIPHANY ABOUT ISRAEL AND JEWS AS HE DID ABOUT THE LEFT AND COMMUNISM….RSK

“Indeed, this final point is the essential one, because it goes to the heart of Hitchens’s attitudes toward Judaism. Like Shahak, Hitchens’s vision is of a world in which there will be no more Judaism. One should be honest about what this means: it means the religious, cultural, political, and social extinction of the Jews as Jews. In the world as Hitchens would have it, the Jew would cease to exist.”

When the celebrated columnist and author Christopher Hitchens passed away yesterday at the age of 62, the encomia started pouring in almost immediately. Most of this praise is deserved, as the acumen of Hitchens’s muscular criticism and the wit of his ripostes will be with us for a long time to come.

The praise comes not just for his work, but for his character. Christopher Buckley saw Hitchens, a famous disbeliever—indeed, a crusader against God—as himself possessed of a great soul. Perhaps a Jewish soul: When Buckley encountered the partially Jewish Hitchens at a bar mitzvah, “the word ‘Shalom’ sprang naturally from my lips.”

And there’s the rub. While we are told not to speak ill of the dead, it is no less crucial to have the record of their lives straight. Critics’ personal affection for Hitchens should not obscure the fact that he had a troubling bête noire in Judaism and indulged freely in some of the most barbarous and defamatory stereotypes about the Jewish people. One year ago, Benjamin Kerstein laid bare Hitchens’s views of Judaism, the Jewish people, and the Jewish state in Jewish Ideas Daily. We reprint his essay (originally titled “Christopher Hitchens’s Jewish Problem”) here, in hopes that readers will see the mixed legacy of this most epicurean epikorus for what it is. —The Editors

____________________________

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/12/violent-rioters-and-media-goon.php

On Monday night, hooligans identified with the national religious camp staged three unlawful, and in at least one case violent, protests against the IDF.
First, several dozen people surrounded by hundreds of reporters pretended to set up a new settlement along the border with Jordan. Their aim was to protest Jordan’s opposition to repairing the Mugrabi Bridge through which Jews and Christians alight to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The second and third protests’ declared aim was to prevent the IDF from carrying out orders to destroy Ramat Gilad, a small enclave of homes in Samaria located on land owned by rancher Moshe Zar and named for his son Gilad who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists in 2001.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=249674
The Palestinians aspiration is not to establish a state of their own but to dismantle a state of others

I think there is an Arab nation. I do not think there is a Palestinian nation. I think it’s a colonialist invention… When were there any Palestinians? …until the 19th century Palestine was the south of greater Syria. – Azmi Bishara, 1994

I think we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. – Newt Gingrich, 2011

Newt Gingrich is to be warmly commended on his recent statement underscoring the lack of authenticity of Palestinian nationality.

It is rare that someone of such public stature has the courage to give facts precedence over political correctness in his public pronouncements. It certainly has set the proverbial cat among the pigeons, sending analysts and activists scurrying for their history books in feverish search for passages or interpretations of passages that reaffirm or refute Gingrich’s assertion, depending on their political predilections.