RUTHFULLY YOURS

I got a lot of flack for deriding Henry Kissinger’s Wall Street Journal Editorial “A path out of Middle East Collapse”which I called “prattle.” I greatly admire James Lewis who writes for the American Thinker , and enjoy his columns and wisdom , but today he defends Kissinger so I took a second look.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/henry_kissinger_is_nuclear_catastrophe_inevitable.html

He calls Henry Kissinger “the wisest foreign policy analyst in the land” and gives these examples: Parenthesis mine

Kissinger’s most crucial point: “If nuclear weapons become established (in the Middle East), a catastrophic outcome is nearly inevitable.” (wow! who would have thunk)

And then enumerates other “high points” of Kissingerian profundity:

1. “With Russia in Syria, a geopolitical structure that has lasted four decades is in shambles.” (no kidding)
2. Four Arab states have ceased to function: Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. All are at risk of being taken over by ISIS, which aims to become a global caliphate governed under shariah law. ( You think?)
3. The U.S. and the West need a coherent strategy. We don’t have one now. (Really?)
4. Treating Iran as a normal power is wishful thinking. It could happen over time. But today, Iran “is taking on an Armageddon dimension.”
Israel is in the maelstrom, but so is the rest of the world, which is why Russia is making an unprecedented military intervention in Syria. Putin is protecting Russia first of all. (Hmmm….sounds ominous)
5. “So long as ISIS survives and remains in control of a geographically defined territory, it will compound Middle East tensions… The destruction of ISIS is more urgent than the overthrow of Bashar Assad.” (How original)
6. “The US has already acquiesced in a Russian military role.” (Gasp!!!)

My case that it is mostly prattle rests….rsk

The Palestinians seek three things:

Creation of an independent state without recognizing a legitimate and permanent State of Israel in any territory.
Sovereign control of East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
The right of entry for all remaining 1948/9 Arab refugees from Britain’s Mandatory Palestine, and for their descendants, to any place within pre-1967 Israel in which they, or their antecedents had lived.

Israel seeks three different things:

Recognition of the legitimacy and permanence of Israel within finalized “secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” This is the security promise of UN Resolution 242 to which Israel is entitled.
The capital of Israel in Jerusalem and Israeli protection for Jewish patrimony in Eastern Jerusalem.
“End of conflict; end of claims.” After an agreement, the Palestinians will not be able to press additional claims against Israel for territory or other “rights.”

For the Obama administration now to pursue a Palestinian state…would likely be seen by both sides as nothing more than a shiny new distraction for the benefit of the U.S. negotiators’ vanity, nothing more.

“Certainly we do not need a disproportionate response to Herr Hitler that initiates a cycle of violence on both sides. We need to tamp down the rhetoric.”
I have nothing to offer you, except blood, sweat, and arugula.

Winston Churchill, well before he became prime minister in May 1940, was busy all through 1939 prompting the British government to prepare for war — and then, as first lord of the Admiralty, helping to direct it once it broke out. But what if Churchill had been Barack Obama? What would Britain’s foremost opponent of appeasement have been like?

The Munich Agreement

Obama-Churchill might have said something like the following in regards to the 1938 Munich Agreement.

“We live in a complex world and at a challenging time. And none of these challenges lend themselves to quick or easy solutions, but all of them require British leadership. If we stay patient and determined, then we will, in fact, meet these challenges. The Munich Agreement is a comprehensive government agreement. It is the first that actually constrains Nazi Germany from further aggression, and one whose provisions are transparent and enforceable. It is a sober and judicious way to preclude war and to bring Germany back into the family of nations and to become a credible regional power, while allowing the German people to express their legitimate aspirations.”

Editor’s Note: The following article is adapted from one that ran in the September 21, 2015, issue of National Review.

German opposition to Hitler, though it never enjoyed mass support, drew on three main sources: the Communists and Social Democrats, the army, and the churches. Each of them had occasional successes; none seriously threatened the Third Reich. The Left, though brave, was penetrated by the Gestapo and not very effectual. Senior army officers were largely hostile to Hitler, discussing politics freely in private, protecting their own anti-Nazi dissidents, and hatching several plots to remove or assassinate him. But their caution, political unrealism, and aversion to “revolution” ensured that most of their plots fizzled out. Only Claus von Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt came near to success. The relative independence of the churches until very late in the war enabled them to resist the regime on specific issues — notably, its euthanasia of disabled and mentally ill people — but they failed to mount any kind of general resistance to Hitlerism. Indeed, they were shamefully divided among themselves, both within and between denominations, in their overall attitude to Nazism. Some churchmen bravely defied it; some supported it enthusiastically; some equivocated.

My Battle against Hitler: Faith, Truth, and Defiance in the Shadow of the Third Reich helps to explain why the churches, in particular the Catholic Church, failed so lamentably. It consists of the memoirs of Dietrich von Hildebrand, a German theologian and philosopher who mounted a consistent campaign of resistance to Nazism from academic posts in Munich and Vienna, together with a selection of his articles for the anti-Nazi Austrian journal Der Christliche Ständestaat (“The Christian Corporate State”), which he edited between 1934 and 1938. Faithfully translated and edited by the father-son team of John Henry Crosby and John F. Crosby, it gives us one dedicated Christian’s privileged insight into how Nazism both corrupted and overcame Catholic intellectual resistance in Central Europe.

Yesterday, President Obama signed off on sanctions relief for Iran. The relief will take effect when the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies Iran has cut its enriched-uranium stocks, restructured its heavy-water facility at Arak, and dismantled its centrifuges. In a statement, the president promised that the U.S. will be ‘‘closely monitoring’’ Iranian compliance ‘‘to ensure Iran fully fulfills each and every one of its commitments.’’

But this is fiction. Recent facts on the ground — and in the air — already prove President Obama is allowing Iran to bend the deal into mush. First off, consider Iran’s ballistic-missile test on October 10. According to the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., the test breached international law and the missile was “inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.” But White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed Iran’s breach was ‘‘altogether separate’’ from its responsibilities under the nuclear deal. While the Obama administration says it will take Iran to task at the U.N., we can expect any action will, in true U.N. form, be deafeningly pathetic.

Disabling certain areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation can reduce a person’s belief in God and negativity toward immigrants, claims a new study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.Researchers found that TMS reduced subjects’ belief in God, angels and heaven.

The research is the result of a collaboration between researchers from the University of York in the UK and investigators from the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a procedure currently used to treat depression. It works by using magnetic energy to stimulate nerve cells in areas of the brain involved in mood control.

In this latest study, however, Dr. Keise Izuma, of the Department of Psychology at the University of York, and colleagues set out to test TMS on another brain region: the posterior medial frontal cortex, involved in detecting and solving problems.

Let the nuclear arms race begin…
obama nukes

In May 2015 President Barack Obama defended the nuclear deal with Iran as the only possibility to avert a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

In June Saudi Arabia inked a deal with France to build two nuclear reactors.
Saudi Arabia holds the second largest oil reserves in the world.

This week the United Arab Emirates signed a deal with Russia to supply the country with enriched uranium needed for the UAE’s nuclear power plant.

This comes one month after Democrats approved Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

http://www.zionism101.org/

The purpose of this site is to teach about the history of Zionism.

Zionism is the political movement that began in the late 1800s and resulted in the creation of the modern State of Israel.

For nearly 2,000 years, since the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., the Jews had prayed for the re-establishment of a Jewish state.

The Jews made many attempts to reassert their sovereignty in the Land of Israel. All of them failed. Zionism succeeded.

Discover the people who made it happen, the battles they fought, the setbacks that nearly defeated them. Come to understand the power of the Zionist idea and how it moved millions.

In Deuteronomy, the people of Israel are told that their enemies will come from one direction but will flee in seven. Nowadays, something like the opposite seems to be true, with Israel’s enemies coming at her from many directions. One of these is from within. These internal enemies are the subject of Jews Against Themselves, a collection of 18 essays written over a span of 30 years by the scholar Edward Alexander. Alexander describes “the new forms taken by Jewish apostasy in an age when Jewish existence is threatened more starkly and immediately than at any time since the Nazi war against the Jews.” He notes that there are always readers astonished to learn that Israel-bashing Jews exist. But precisely these home-grown haters are the ones who “play a disproportionate role in blackening Israel’s image.”

Like Jewish apostates of medieval times, these “modern Jewish apostates,” carry out with greater zeal than non-Jews the persecution of their brethren. But there are differences between the medieval and modern apostate. In medieval times, Jews fled from their religion. Today, they trumpet their Jewishness. Here Alexander quotes Cynthia Ozick: “So it is as self-declared Jews, as loyal and honorable Jews, as Jews in the line of the prophets … that we nowadays hear arguments against the survival, or the necessity, or the legitimacy of the state of Israel.”