RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Dole: New data on federal public assistance programs show we’ve reached an ignominious milestone: More than 100 million Americans are getting some form of “means-tested” welfare assistance.

The Census Bureau found 51 million on food stamps at the end of 2012 and 83 million on Medicaid, with tens of millions of households getting both. Another 4 million were on unemployment insurance.

The percentage of American households on welfare has reached 35%. If we include other forms of government assistance such as Medicare and Social Security, almost half of all households are getting a check or other form of government assistance. The tipping point is getting closer and closer.

So much is shocking and dismaying about these numbers. How is it that the number of recipients and the price tag for many of these programs kept skyrocketing though the recession officially ended in 2009? Normally, you’d expect welfare caseloads to fall in a recovery as the unemployment rate dips, but this time welfare participation keeps expanding.

Perhaps this is because this administration and many Democrats in Congress, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, have told Americans that welfare benefits are a stimulus to the economy (sic). Apparently, the left believes that if every family were on food stamps, the economy would return to its glory days.

The feds have also created outreach programs — including radio and TV ads in multiple languages — to encourage people to sign up for the dole because, as one ad put it, this “helps the local community.”

The new statistics also highlight how limited work requirements are for welfare benefits. In 1996 when a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton enacted landmark welfare reform laws, the old-fashioned cash welfare assistance (AFDC) was replaced with a time-limited assistance program (TANF) that required work for benefits.

The Stalin-Hitler Pact Turns 75

In June, Western democratic leaders invited Vladimir Putin to the 70th anniversary of D-Day memorial in France, but there’s no good reason he should have been be there. Putin is an autocrat, not a democrat. He laments the demise of the Soviet Union, a dictatorship that played no role in the D-Day operation. And since Putin is now conducting an incremental invasion of Ukraine, a different memorial would be more suitable. As it happens, this one is long overdue and remains shrouded in ignorance.

Seventy-five years ago, on August 23, 1939, the USSR and Nazi Germany became allies through the Stalin-Hitler Pact. Joachim von Ribbentrop signed for Hitler and Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov signed on behalf of Stalin. Molotov said that Hitlerism was “a matter of taste,” and that it was “not only senseless, but criminal” to wage war on Hitler “camouflaged as a fight for democracy.” Though often described as a “non-aggression pact,” the reverse was true.

The month after the Pact, Stalin and Hitler both invaded Poland, starting World War II. The Pact also gave Stalin control of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which he retained after the war, along with other conquests such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and what became the German Democrat Republic, the regime that made emigration an exciting experience.

While the pact was in effect, Soviet and Nazi intelligence agencies worked together and American Communists did everything in their power to keep the United States from coming to Britain’s aid. During the Pact, the Soviets murdered 22,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest. That came at the direct order of Stalin, as Russia now acknowledges. Less well known is the reality that Stalin also handed over German Jewish Communists to Hitler’s Gestapo. At the Nuremberg trials after the war, Joachim von Ribbentrop was convicted for signing the Pact while Molotov, who signed for Stalin, sat in the accuser’s chair. So Stalin and his gang got away with it.

A Nazi-Soviet Pact memorial would be a great opportunity for Putin to express his admiration for Stalin. Maybe he could provide some enlightenment on what happened to the Jews Stalin handed over to Hitler. And as a former KGB man, maybe he could bring out more details of Soviet-Nazi intelligence cooperation during the Pact. This could be a shining moment for Putin, but the memorial would also do others some good.

American educators, for example, could familiarize themselves with these events and gauge the depths of their ignorance and denial. Some might even decide to make the Stalin-Hitler Pact into a college course. That would tell students something they don’t know. American politicians would also benefit.

It’s a good bet that most of them, regardless of party, know little if anything about the Stalin-Hitler Pact. A 75th anniversary memorial would help educate them, and would be particularly relevant for Barack Obama, President of the United States. He could use the memorial to expand on one of his mentors.

That would be Frank Marshall Davis, an orthodox Stalinist of exceptional ferocity, with an absolutely sulfuric hatred of the United States. Davis joined the Communist Party USA after the Pact was signed, at the same time others were leaving the ranks, never to return. The Pact memorial would be an opportunity for Obama to provide a full profile of the man his handlers disguised simply as “Frank” in Dreams From My Father. If Frank Marshall Davis ever believed, said, or did anything with which Obama disagreed, a Stalin-Hitler Pact memorial would be the ideal time to set the record straight. After all, the Obama administration is the most transparent in history, with not a smidgeon of corruption. And of course, it would be another photo op he could use to raise funds. He could even bring along his travelling studio audience.

Former First Lady and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could also benefit. One of her mentors is Robert Treuhaft, a Stalinist lawyer who joined the Communist Party USA after the Stalin-Hitler Pact and served faithfully in the USSR’s alibi armory. Hillary Clinton, who interned for Treuhaft, could use a Pact memorial to clarify Treuhaft’s career, and explain why he left the Communist Party in 1958, as he claimed. And she could go on record if she ever disagreed with anything her Stalinist mentor believed, said or did.

That could prove enlightening, but as with Benghazi she might just say “what does it matter?” Actually, it matters quite a bit, especially for someone who wants to be president, and the one who already is.

Daniel Tregerman, a four-year-old boy, was killed by a terrorist rocket from Gaza launched from near a UNRWA school.

“Daniel was disciplined and was always quick to get to shelter. Once the alarm sounded, he always knew what to do and where to go. Always.”

“When everyone would come to the shelter, Daniel would say, ‘Now we are all safe.’”
Hamas Rocket Fired Near UNRWA School Kills 4-Year-Old Boy

15 SECONDS

An Israeli father was moderately injured by shrapnel Thursday morning, moments after he helped a group of young children — including his son, whose birthday it was — to scramble to safety when a rocket slammed into the Eshkol region community kindergarten

Jan Berman, 35, and his wife Leora had brought their three-year-old son to the kindergarten for his birthday celebration that morning, when a siren sounded, warning of an incoming projectile from Gaza.

The Eshkol region is so close to the Palestinian enclave that the rocket warning system allows just 15 seconds to run for cover.

With many children still gathered outside the kindergarten, Berman and the kindergarten teacher dashed to herd them inside the building that was reinforced against rocket attacks. As the last of the kids made it into the building, a rocket struck. Although Berman was inside, shrapnel blasted through a window, injuring him in the arm.

“As the Last of the Kids Made it Into the Building, a Rocket Struck”

“13 Year Old Boy” Killed by Israel Turns Out to be Adult PLO Terrorist

It’s hard to engage in interfaith dialogue when your head has been cut off.

In times of evil, prophets who see it in what Ronald Knox called a “clear light” are not necessarily heeded, though they are desperately needed. Such a man was Hilaire Belloc, as Monsignor Knox described him at Belloc’s funeral Mass in 1953. “By derivation,” Knox explained, a prophet “is one who speaks out.”

Belloc, the first truly revisionist historian, made it his life’s work to speak out. He warned of the rise of Islam throughout the early years of the 20th century and then between the two world wars, when such prophecy seemed absurd. In 2006 another great prophet, Pope Benedict XVI — James Schall, S.J., calls him “the clearest and most incisive mind in the public order in the world today” — spoke at Regensburg and addressed in a clear light, the light of reason and reasonableness, the problem of Islam.

Reading Belloc’s many references to the rise of Islam, one is struck by his amazement at what he calls its “permanence and endurance.” He pointed (as did Pope Benedict later) to the force of the creed of Muhammad: “The most powerful denial of the Incarnation, the denial which came armed and victorious, was gathering in the desert and coming upon us without our dreaming of the danger: Islam.” As the Western world struggles to comprehend the upheaval in the Middle East, and secular liberal democracies not only fail to understand the power of the threat but talk of “dialogue” with a “religion of peace,” Belloc’s clear light can help us understand the newfound strength of this hostile force after 1,400 years.

Islam’s success, in Belloc’s view, derives precisely from its being fundamentally a Christian heresy. As a denial of the Incarnation, it is the one heresy that has endured and flourished. In more-philosophical terms, Pope Benedict has made essentially the same observation. “Mohammed’s burning appeal was an appeal to simplicity and the relaxation of the intelligence,” Belloc remarked in 1929.

“There is something starkly simple about Islam, its constant effort since its beginning to submit the whole world to Allah,” Father Schall wrote, summing up Benedict’s message at Regensburg “We tend to think this is fanatical or outlandish. But to many Muslim minds, it is perfectly logical and indeed a basis of action. What the Pope was concerned about was the basis of this claim.”

Why has a federal civil-rights murder investigation arisen out of the tumult in a St. Louis exurb? There is only one plausible reason: Eric Holder is guilty of racial profiling.

To be clear, we are not talking here about whether there was justification for the shooting of a young black man, 18-year-old Michael Brown, by a young white police officer, 28-year-old Darren Wilson. Was the shooting a legitimate exercise in self-defense by an officer under attack? Was it an overreaction for which Officer Wilson should suffer serious civil and criminal consequences? Such questions can only be answered by a thorough and fair investigation, the kind of due process owed to both the victim and the subject of the investigation — the kind that, as National Review’s editors point out, will be tough to mete out with political thumbs pressing on the scales.

Whatever the outcome, though, murder — including homicide caused by a policeman’s application of excessive force — is generally not a federal crime. It is a concern of state law. Only a few categories of murder are within the jurisdiction of federal investigators. In the main, they are far afield from Ferguson: the assassination of a U.S. government official, for instance, or a killing incidental to offenses that have interstate or international repercussions — racketeering, drug-trafficking, and terrorism.

Federal civil-rights laws may be invoked, but only in exceedingly rare circumstances: murders carried out because of the victim’s race, ethnicity or religion (see Section 249 of the federal penal code); or murders carried out by police (or other persons acting “under color of law”) with the specific intent to deprive a person of some federal right or privilege — usually, but not necessarily, motivated by some animus toward race or analogous personal characteristics (see Section 242).

To constitute a civil-rights crime, it is not nearly enough for a violent act to have the “racial overtones” assorted agitators and commentators choosing to frame the case in racial terms contend it does. To justify a federal investigation, the Justice Department must have a rational basis to believe it could prove these invidious and evil purposes beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires compelling evidence, not a farfetched social-justice narrative.

Remember the similarly tragic Trayvon Martin shooting, when Mr. Holder colluded with the notorious Al Sharpton in raising the specter of a federal civil-rights prosecution, pressuring state officials in Florida to file a specious murder indictment. After a jury swiftly acquitted George Zimmerman, Holder was forced to retreat. As he had to have known all along, the evidence of intent to deprive Mr. Martin of his civil rights was non-existent — even weaker than the state’s flimsy murder case.

Well, here he goes again.

Says any talk about immigration reform is “pointless because Washington has no credibility” on the issue.

WASHINGTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry called for greater U.S. involvement in Iraq and delivered a blistering critique of the Obama administration’s immigration policies and its efforts to secure the southern border.

Perry appeared at the Heritage Foundation on Thursday to deliver a speech on immigration reform and immigration security.

His first public appearance in Washington since being indicted on two felony counts, the Texas Republican dedicated the first part of his talk to the issue.

“There are some interesting things going on in my home state,” Perry told the standing-room- only crowd at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium. “There are a few public officials in Travis County who have taken issue with an exercise of my constitutional veto authority. These are fundamental principles that are very important, namely a governor’s power to veto legislation and funding and the right of freedom of speech. I am very confident in my case and I can assure that I will fight this attack on our system of government and with my fellow citizens, both Republicans and Democrats, I will defend our constitution and stand up for the rule of law.”

Perry pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges that he abused the power of his office when he vetoed funding to a state anti-corruption agency overseen by Rosemary Lehmberg.

Perry had asked Lehmberg to resign after she was arrested last summer for driving while intoxicated, threatening to veto the agency’s $7.5 million appropriation. After Lehmberg refused to step down, the governor made good on his threat.

The first charge – abuse of official capacity – was for vetoing the funding. The second – coercion of a public servant – was for demanding Lehmberg resign.

Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, touched upon the same theme of social order in his remarks about immigration and border security.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3425/islam-extremism

William DiPuccio holds a Ph.D. in religious studies and has authored numerous articles and essays on both religion and science. He has also worked and taught in both fields. You can find his blog, Science Et Cetera, at http://scienceetcetera.blogspot.com/

Islamists seem to be driven not only to establish the hegemony of Islam by supplanting secular governments and legal systems, but also by enforcing religious purity according to their own standards. Muslims in America – most of whom were undoubtedly fleeing abuse, not trying to bring it with them – should of course be treated with the same respect and deference extended to people of other religions But our civility should not blind us to the potential for extremism – a concern shared by 60% of Muslim Americans – or to the religious connections between Islam and terrorism.

An excursion into the blogosphere reveals the polarization which attends Islamic issues. Comment areas are populated with readers who seem to think that Islam is a monolithic belief system. This myth, maintained by both “Islamophiles” and “Islamophobes,” has overshadowed any nuanced discussion of Islam.

Islam is a diverse religion. Many Muslims who have immigrated to America and Europe have adopted Western ideals of free speech and religious toleration. Those in the United States have done particularly well in assimilating these values.[1] In a democracy, in which the individual is regarded as the basic unit of society, a person is judged not by his ethnic or religious associations, but by his ideas and behavior.

Although nearly half (42%) of the American public, as well as the U.S. government, believe that Islam is no more likely to encourage violence than any other religion,[2] the radical tendencies which exist in Islam are unambiguously present and they continue to fuel terrorism and supremacist ideologies, such as Islamism, on a scale not seen in other modern religions. This fact, though politically incorrect, has not escaped the notice of Muslims here in the U.S. According to a 2011 Pew survey, 60% of Muslim Americans are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in the U.S., and 21% feel that there is significant support for extremism in the Muslim community.[3]

Americans and government officials who deny that there is a religious link between Islam and terrorism face a disconnect between their idealism, which seeks the good in all things, and the hard edge of historical reality. Western liberal optimism places its faith in reason and the essential goodness of mankind. According to this worldview, Islam is a religion of peace, and, given favorable political and economic opportunities, even terrorists can be persuaded to live in harmony with the rest of the world.

In February of 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama spoke to a campaign rally crowd in Wisconsin and declared that “words matter.” In shaping the image that was the centerpiece of the “idea of Obama,” he ginned-up an air of intellectualism using the tactic of manipulating through emotion, a potent tool in the Progressive war chest. “Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said. “I have a dream. Just words. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just words…just speeches.” Indeed, Mr. Obama is absolutely correct, a rare point where I agree with him. The problem is this. If we hold him to his own words, then the statements of his closest ally, Attorney General Eric Holder, must be taken literally. This is where I find myself very concerned.

The events in Ferguson, Missouri, are serious on many levels. We have the death of a young man. We have the brutal beating of a police officer at the hand of this dead young man. We have a community that exists on the head of a racial powder keg, begging for a spark to light the fuse. And we have perhaps the most politically motivated – and many would say, and rightfully so, divisive – United States Attorney’s General in the history of our nation in Eric Holder, injecting himself into this delicate situation; usurping the authority of local, county and state law enforcement and making some statements where words certainly do matter.

In an op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mr. Holder attempted to present a balanced approach, calling for calm and temperance on both sides of the issue. But hidden in his words – and let’s remember, this administration insists that “words matter” – was a declaration that literally reserved the final opinion on the matter to the Department of Justice and, in fact, the Attorney’s General himself:

“This is my pledge to the people of Ferguson: Our investigation into this matter will be full, it will be fair, and it will be independent. And beyond the investigation itself, we will work with the police, civil rights leaders, and members of the public to ensure that this tragedy can give rise to new understanding — and robust action — aimed at bridging persistent gaps between law enforcement officials and the communities we serve. Long after the events of Aug. 9 have receded from the headlines, the Justice Department will continue to stand with this community.” (Emphasis mine)

If someone makes a pledge to someone, or to a group, it is – usually – a declaration of intention: “I pledge to be there,” “I pledge not to let you down,” “I pledge to adhere to the law,” “I pledge to do my best.” In Mr. Holder’s crafted statement he declares that the investigation into the events in Ferguson, Missouri “will be,” as if to say “it will be what we determine it to be.” Wouldn’t a more appropriately crafted statement be worded to say, “This is my pledge to the people of Ferguson: I will do everything in my power to make sure that the investigation into this matter is done to the fullest extent and I will insist, at every turn, that it be done in a fair and just manner for everyone involved…”

“I am Attorney General…but also a black man,” proclaimed Eric Holder upon arriving in Ferguson, Missouri to meet with the gentle-giant’s (Rush’s term) family to dispense blind justice over grape sodas. Then we have Gov. Nixon appointing Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, a black man from Ferguson with no prior authority to focus on local matters, to head up law enforcement’s efforts dealing with rioting. I believe these events let’s all of us profilers out of the closet.

I am an Eagle Lake resident, a white man and I can now proclaim, a proud profiler. Some back story. In the 1970s I was an Eli Lilly sales representative, spending my final two years at a teaching / research hospital. Among the staff were a good number of Indian-American physicians that were particularly pleasant, collegial and unfailingly polite. For the past twenty-five years I have enjoyed a national reputation in my narrow area of expertise that has given me the rare experience of being solicited for advice by clients throughout the US. Other than intellectual content within national journals for which I write, and rather frequent interviews, I don’t do any marketing or make efforts to attract clients. In other words, my clients all self-select themselves to use my services that benefit and protect their families (e.g., educational funding, estate planning, etc.).

Though I can’t be absolutely certain because I deal with clients via phone and various written conveyances, not in person, I believe the only non-white clients that have solicited me are Indian-Americans, and in high numbers, and my experiences from the 1970s continue.

As a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is hammered out, much talk is heard about aid packages for Gaza, as though none previously existed. The refrain is heard that Gazans are living in a teeming, open-air prison. Repeated endlessly by those under obligation to know the facts, the myth has it that Gaza is, according to:

Robert Fisk, veteran Middle East correspondent: “the most overpopulated few square miles in the whole world.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-bombing-ashkelon-is-the-most-tragic-irony-1216228.html

Christopher Gunness, spokesman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency: “one of the most densely populated parts of this planet.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98778093

Amjad Attlah and Daniel Levy of the New American Foundation: “the world’s most densely populated territory.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98778093

James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute: “one of the most densely populated places on earth.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjP9jqA3nes

Untrue.