RUTHFULLY YOURS

The very fact that Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, brought the left leaning foe of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, none other than Tzippi Livni, into his coalition as Justice Minister and now chief negotiator in the “peace” talks with the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, is in itself a tacit admission that he and some members of his government entertain the thought of giving away yet more parts of the ancestral and biblical Jewish homeland.

Even more astounding is that Ms. Livni, of all people, is now responsible for negotiating “peace” with the cunning and corrupt PLO’s Saeb Erakat. Indeed, the negotiations have always had one purpose and one purpose alone – to tear away yet more of the Jewish heartland in return for a delusional peace.

That is treachery most base; treachery to the living Torah (the first five books of the Bible); treachery to Jewish history; treachery to Zion; and last but not least treachery to the eternal Holy Covenant made between God and the Jewish people. Liberals, leftists and secular folks may not like being told this, but it is a truth that cannot shrivel away.

When did it become an accepted truism that a so-called peace between Israel and the predominately Muslim Arabs, those who call themselves Palestinians, requires that Israel give to them it’s very biblical birthright for a mess of potage? Have the Oslo Accords, the Wye Agreement, the Roadmap, ad nauseum, all now superseded the eternal possession of the Jewish people to their God given homeland? It would seem so, and that is a monstrous tragedy so enormous as to spit in the face of the Almighty and make the very angels in heaven weep.

As one Christian supporter of Israel named Rick from Houston wrote in a comment column regarding Livni: “Who IS this person who dares try to divide the land that the Almighty bequeathed to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob? She wants to give your land to the descendants of Ishmael. She is inviting the wrath of the Lord to come upon the entire nation.”

So it has come to this: We say otherwise, but finally the one thing we fear is fear itself.

Some 36,000 runners competed in Monday’s Boston Marathon and about a million spectators watched and cheered from the sidewalks and the good news is that nobody got hurt.
Last year three people were killed and more than 200 were injured when two radicalized Muslims set off bombs approaching the finish line.

The bad news is that the good people of Boston and the good people all across the United States now expect the worst.

That’s the new normal.

Every time a bomb does NOT go off we declare victory. We pat ourselves on the back for being Boston Strong.

True. Boston and the million-plus that showed up proved themselves to be valiant and resilient. Among those that ran within the 26.2-mile route were men and women who were stopped from finishing last year due to the impact of the successive blasts, and some returned in wheelchairs.
That took guts, but guts are what we expect from America.

We also expect terrorists to be there waiting for us wherever we work and play. We prefer not to name them Islamic terrorists lest we offend Islamic terrorists.

We put up a brave face to pretend that everything is okay, that nothing can keep us from going about our business, and yet we must double-lock our doors to keep ourselves safe from intruders. We can’t board planes without being searched and we can’t enter buildings without passing a checkpoint – but some blame Israel for erecting barriers against the same violent trespassers.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) will never be elected president and that is a very good thing for our country for a great many reasons.

Paul is a libertarian first, a Republican second, and a conservative only when his libertarianism accidentally intersects with conservative values. And that’s not very often.

Republicans, especially conservatives, have fought for civil rights for more than fifty years. Democrats were the principal opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Today, Paul has refused to say he’d have voted for it if he were in Congress at the time. And it gets worse. For example, in an April 2010 videotaped interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, he tried to get around that precise question. Within his rambling answer he said, “I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners…I abhor racism…I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant but at the same time I do believe in private ownership.” (The pauses are in the original.)

That was consistent with a 2002 letter he wrote to the Bowling Green Daily News, in which he said:

A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, “public” housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should [discrimination] be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

Center for Immigration Studies
1629 K St. NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
phone: (202) 466-8185
fax: (202) 466-8076
help@cis.org

WASHINGTON, DC (April 22, 2014) — Public safety is threatened by a justice system and enforcement agencies that tolerate, if not encourage, court evasion by those in the country illegally. A new Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder finds that many of the illegal immigrants allowed to remain free pending trial never appear in court. In fact, many flee when released from detention. A case now working its way to the U.S. Supreme Court will focus attention on these flight risks and on a measure, approved by Arizona voters, that mandates accused felons in the U.S. illegally be held in detention until their trials are finished.

Immigration Court records show that from 1996 through 2012, 76 percent of the 1.1 million persons free pending trial were ordered removed for evading court. Few have ever been re-arrested. Court evasion is the chief reason for the presence of more than 870,000 aliens who have been ordered removed, but still remain in the United States. In contrast, during the same period, 96 percent of removal orders against aliens kept in detention pending trial were actually carried out.

The extent of the problem has been rarely examined from a policy standpoint. Courts have hidden the extraordinarily high failure-to-appear rates by aliens free pending trial by combining their numbers with aliens held in detention pending trial. Combining these two figures has presented a misleading image in the court’s reports to Congress. As a result, neither Congress nor the American public were aware that in the five years following 9/11, 50.4 percent of all aliens free pending trial never came to court.

Christians are generally considered the “haves,” the establishment, the status quo, the perpetrator rather than the victim. But that is not a valid portrait. In varying degrees of intensity and by myriad peoples, Christians have been singled out for killing for 2000 years. Since 9/11, attacks on Christians have intensified (mostly by Islamic extremists). The politically correct environment in which we live has meant that many of these attacks receive minimal publicity. While attacks on Muslims are categorized as “hate” crimes, when Christians are attacked it is the victim who is often seen as the instigator. However, Pope Benedict XVI, who resigned in 2013, recently claimed that Christians are the most persecuted group in the contemporary world. The murder of Christians has only increased since his warning.

While it can be argued that Christianity has been a force for good, there have been instances, though, when harm has been done in the name of Christ. Early examples were the Crusades (1095 – 1291), where, with promises of Plenary Indulgences from Pope Urban II, knights and kings from across Europe traveled to the Middle East to restore Christian access to holy places in and around Jerusalem. (By the 11th Century Islam had been embedded in much of the Middle East for 400 years.) It was more likely that the knights and kings who led those armies were motivated more by the prospect of gold and jewels, than by the possibility of doing time in Purgatory. The latter was reserved for the hapless minions who were forced to accompany them. Greed has always been more primeval than religiosity. In any case, Crusaders were not particularly Christian to those who opposed them. Rape and pillage were all in a day’s work.

Another early and blatant example of Christian persecution was the Spanish Inquisition. Like the Crusades, the targets were Muslims; though Jews were victimized as well. In 1478, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile established the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition to replace the Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. More than seven hundred years earlier, in 711, Moors had invaded the Iberian Peninsula, conquering and ruling over most of what is today Spain and Portugal. While they were stopped from invading the rest of Europe by Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, who at the Battle of Tours in 732 pushed the Moors back across the Pyrenees , Muslim rule in Spain only ended with the fall of Granada in 1492. The Inquisition was established to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam to Christianity. The brutality of the Inquisition could be seen in the fact that after 1492 if one did not convert one was forced into exile. Thousands were put to death. It was only in 1834 that Isabella II abolished the tribunals, though by then they had not been used for several years.

Libya is the new jihadist front on the Mediterranean — and just a few hours away from the centers of Europe.

Several security sources have confirmed that Belmokhtar is still alive and has moved, along with his troops, from Mali to a new base in the Libyan desert.

The leading jihadist commander Mokhtar Belmokhtar — also known as Khalid Abu Al-Abbas, and by his nickname “Al-A’war” (“the one-eyed”) — is hiding in Libya. From there, according to security sources quoted in media reports, he is planning to mastermind terrorist attacks against Westerners and their interests across Africa’s Sahel region.

Belmokhtar, born in Algeria in 1972, and an Algerian citizen, was a key member of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM]. After an internal power struggle, he decided in December 2012 to form a new group, known as the Signatories in Blood.

Jihadi commander Mokhtar Belmokhtar.

On January 16, 2013, armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, he led an attack against a Western-owned gas processing facility of In Amenas, Algeria. In the four-day siege of the complex, 39 hostages — including U.S. citizens Frederick Buttacio, Victor Lynn Lovelady, and Gordon Lee Rowan — were killed. After the assault, the U.S. State Department put a $5 million bounty on Belmokhtar.

As a former Algerian soldier with experience from training camps in Afghanistan, and as a member of the Armed Islamic Group [GIA] in Algeria, he rose quickly to the high rank of “emir” (commander). Later, he was one of the co-founders of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), which evolved into AQIM.

One year after the bombs went off at the Boston marathon, Brandeis authorities were so intent on avoiding the issues those bombs had raised, that they would rather point the finger at a critic of the radical ideology than do anything to criticize the ideology.

Is not the Palestinian leadership a viable negotiating partner with whom peace is just about to be achieved? How do you protest if the protesters are Muslims? Who are the victims and who are the victimizers? After all, “victims” cannot victimize, can they?

When we see a global bigotry and hatred such as this, we should identify it as such and demand, in the name of all that is decent, that it stop.

The great Western disease of today — there could be quite a competition for that one — is probably denial. Denial now runs right through the Western way of looking at the world. It is just unfortunate for us that it does not run through the rest of the world in the same way.

Take three recent examples, one in America, one in Britain and one absolutely everywhere.

One year ago, two young male immigrants to America — to whom America had given absolutely everything — repaid the favor by planting bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Their victims included an eight year old boy. This atrocity was carried out because the young men had absorbed the grievance culture and violent radicalism of a form of Islam, a strain of thinking that has not gone wholly undocumented in recent years.

Yet from the moment the bombs went off, most of the media tried as hard as possible to avoid the subject. After the whiny early stages (“Let’s Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber Is a White American,” as Salon so beautifully put it) there followed the obfuscation. Had the bomber of the Boston Marathon been someone who, say, had once attended a Tea Party rally, every columnist, and wider society, would be asking how such an atrocious ideology could come up from its wake. Intense scrutiny and introspection would be the order of the day.

Why the American spirit of innovation is in trouble, and what culture has to do with it.
Some years ago, I conducted an ambitious research project to document and explain patterns of human accomplishment across time and cultures. My research took me from 800 BCE, when Homo sapiens’ first great surviving works of thought appeared, to 1950, my cut-off date for assessing lasting influence. I assembled world-wide inventories of achievements in physics, biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and technology, plus separate inventories of Western, Chinese, and Indian philosophy; Western, Chinese, and Japanese art; Western, Arabic, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese literature; and Western music. These inventories were analyzed using quantitative techniques alongside standard qualitative historical analysis. The result was Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences (2003).

My study confirmed important patterns. Foremost among them is that human achievement has clustered at particular times and places, including Periclean Athens, Renaissance Florence, Sung China, and Western Europe of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. But why? What was special about those times and places? In the book’s final chapters, I laid out my best understanding of the environment within which great accomplishment occurs.

In what follows, I want to conduct an inquiry into the ways in which the environment of achievement in early 21st-century America corresponds or fails to correspond to the patterns of the past. As against pivotal moments in the story of human accomplishment, does today’s America, for instance, look more like Britain blooming at the end of the 18th century or like France fading at the end of the 19th century? If the latter, are there idiosyncratic features of the American situation that can override what seem to be longer-run tendencies?

To guide the discussion, I’ll provide a running synopsis, in language drawn from Human Accomplishment, of the core conditions that prevailed during the glorious periods of past achievement. I’ll focus in particular on science and technology, since these are the fields that preoccupy our contemporary debates over the present course and future prospects of American innovation.

The Jerusalem question: Will a U.S. court case trigger WWIII? If the U.S. decides to list ‘Israel’ as the country of birth of an American born in Jerusalem, the consequences are potentially huge.

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to give another hearing to one of the most explosive cases before it in years – the so-called Jerusalem question – certainly sets the stage for some high court drama in the Middle East. It concerns whether Secretary of State John Kerry will have to bow to Congress and state in Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky’s U.S. passport that he was born in Israel.

The law that requires Kerry to do this – for Zivotofsky, or any other American born in Jerusalem who wants Israel listed as his place of birth – was passed in 2002 by an almost unanimous House and a unanimous Senate. The Jerusalem requirement was part of a larger bill funding the State Department. It was signed by one of America’s most pro-Israel presidents, George W. Bush. But Bush issued a signing statement saying the requirement to issue consular documents listing Jerusalem as part of Israel infringed on his executive powers.

He may have promised to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, but he defaulted on that. He also refused to yield to Congress on the passport question. President Barack Obama took the same position, as did secretaries of state Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton and now Kerry. Clinton and Kerry balked, even though they’d been in the Senate that passed the law unanimously. They all tried to dodge it by saying that the question of Jerusalem was the president’s to decide and, in any event, was a political matter beyond the ken of the courts.

All the liberal commentators and the anti-Israel left were certain Master Zivotofsky was going to lose. And he was losing, until it reached the Supreme Court the first time. Then, in March 2012, the Supreme Court stunned the foreign policy bar by casting aside Secretary of State Clinton’s pettifogging. It did so by a vote of 8-1, in a stern opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who told the lower court in no uncertain terms that it would have to step up and decide the matter.

Roberts made clear that the courts weren’t being asked to decide whether Jerusalem was part of Israel. That is a political question. They were being asked to decide whether Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, to decide the political question. “This is what courts do,” Roberts wrote. “The political question doctrine poses no bar to judicial review of this case.” So, the matter went back to the second most powerful bench: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

THIS IS A BIGGIE IN THE NOVEMBER CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS….AND A HOT BUTTON ISSUE AMONG INCUMBENTS AND CHALLENGERS IN ALMOST EVERY STATE….AND THE DEMS ARE GETTING FRIED ON IT BECAUSE ONLY ABOUT 20 VOTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIPELINE WITHOUT LIMITING AMENDMENTS….RSK

In a transparent political sop aimed at radical environmentalists and their big-buck donors, the Obama administration announced it is indefinitely extending the review period for the Keystone XL pipeline. The delay, announced in a Good Friday news dump, will likely push the final decision on the project past the November mid-term elections.

Republicans, red-state Democrats and a top labor union official hammered the move.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, characterized the delay as “nothing short of a stunning act of political cowardice.” Rep. Lee Terry (R-NB) contended it was “shameful,” further explaining that another spring construction season will be lost as result. They were joined by Democrats such as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK), who contended “there’s no excuse for another delay,” and Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) who was “frankly appalled at the continued foot-dragging by this administration on the Keystone project.”

Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers International Union of America (LIUNA) was equally appalled, calling the decision “politics at its worst,” further noting that it represents “another low blow to the working men and women of our country for whom the Keystone XL Pipeline is a lifeline to good jobs and energy security.”

The Obama administration was in the midst of a 90-day review period, during which federal agencies were examining an environmental study provided by the State Department when the delay was announced. That would be the latest study. The State Department has been studying the potential impact of the pipeline for the last six years.