RUTHFULLY YOURS

Although media commentators overlooked it, the Obama administration did it again. They blindsided Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the eve of his trip to Washington.

The last time it happened was in May 2011 when US President Barack Obama set out his policy toward Israel and the Palestinians as Netanyahu was in flight, en route to Washington to meet with him.

In that speech Obama announced his support for an essentially full Israeli withdrawal to the entirely indefensible 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Obama adopted this position despite the fact that Netanyahu and the Israeli public rejected it and viewed it as a threat to Israel’s survival.

This time the Obama administration didn’t blindside Israel on the eve of Netanyahu’s visit with another hostile pronouncement in relation to the Palestinians. This time they did so in relation to Iran.

In an address on Saturday night before the National Iranian-American Council, Phillip Gordon, the White House’s coordinator for the Middle East, said that if US-Iranian talks on Iran’s nuclear weapons program lead to an agreement, they can pave the way for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. In his words, “A nuclear agreement could begin a multi-generational process that could lead to a new relationship between our countries.”

Gordon’s statement was a blunt departure from the White House’s previous position that the only gain Iran would make by obeying binding UN Security Council resolutions that prohibit the Islamic theocracy from enriching uranium would be the abrogation of economic sanctions that were adopted to force Iran to end its illicit nuclear activities.

In accordance with US law, diplomatic relations with Iran are contingent on Iran’s cessation of support for terrorist organizations and other unlawful activities.

In his remarks to NIAC – a group that the vast majority of Iranian-Americans view as the unofficial lobby of the Iranian regime – Gordon said that due to the importance of the nuclear issue, to make progress in nuclear talks, the US is willing to ignore Iran’s support for terrorism and other crimes.

The real danger here is not the boycott but the fact that these are the folks that teach college students about Mideast History. They are all members of MESA (Middle East Studies Association) and the glitch is that you can’t teach unless you belong to MESA and you can’t be a member unless you adhere to the Said/Khalidi anti Israel line. This is a gross academic fraud…..rsk

In excess of 500 Middle East studies scholars and librarians signed a petition boycotting Israeli academic institutions and submitted it for publication to the Jadaliyya website.

“We, the undersigned scholars and librarians working on the Middle East, hold that silence about the latest humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s new military assault on the Gaza Strip – the third and most devastating in six years – constitutes complicity,” read the letter.

“World governments and mainstream media do not hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. We, however, as a community of scholars engaged with the Middle East, have a moral responsibility to do so,” it said.

“The ongoing Israeli massacres in Gaza have been ghastly reminders of the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in the occupation and oppression of Palestinians. Tel Aviv University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bar- Ilan University, Haifa University, Technion, and Ben-Gurion University have publicly declared their unconditional support for the Israeli military.”

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is posted as a logo along with the letter, which is signed by scholars from some of America’s most prestigious academies.

The scholars come from some of the following world universities: Princeton University, Yale, Harvard, University of Michigan, Duke University, Dartmouth College, University of Cambridge, Georgetown University, Columbia University, American University in Cairo, University of California- Berkeley, University of Tokyo, University of Oxford and the University of Toronto.

The tiny, gas-rich emirate has pumped tens of millions of dollars through obscure funding networks to hard-line Syrian rebels and extremist Salafists, building a foreign policy that punches above its weight. After years of acquiescing — even taking advantage of its ally’s meddling — Washington may finally be punching back.

ABU DHABI and DOHA — Behind a glittering mall near Doha’s city center sits the quiet restaurant where Hossam used to run his Syrian rebel brigade. At the battalion’s peak in 2012 and 2013, he had 13,000 men under his control near the eastern city of Deir Ezzor. “Part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), they are loyal to me,” he said over sweet tea and sugary pastries this spring. “I had a good team to fight.”

Hossam, a middle-aged Syrian expat, owns several restaurants throughout Doha, Qatar, catering mostly to the country’s upper crust. The food is excellent, and at night the tables are packed with well-dressed Qataris, Westerners, and Arabs. Some of his revenue still goes toward supporting brigades and civilians with humanitarian goods — blankets, food, even cigarettes.

He insists that he has stopped sending money to the battle, for now. His brigade’s funds came, at least in part, from Qatar, he says, under the discretion of then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Khalid bin Mohammed Al Attiyah. But the injection of cash was ad hoc: Dozens of other brigades like his received initial start-up funding, and only some continued to receive Qatari support as the months wore on. When the funds ran out in mid-2013, his fighters sought support elsewhere. “Money plays a big role in the FSA, and on that front, we didn’t have,” he explained.

Hossam is a peripheral figure in a vast Qatari network of Islamist-leaning proxies that spans former Syrian generals, Taliban insurgents, Somali Islamists, and Sudanese rebels. He left home in 1996 after more than a decade under pressure from the Syrian regime for his sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of his friends were killed in a massacre of the group in Hama province in 1982 by then President Hafez al-Assad. He finally found refuge here in Qatar and built his business and contacts slowly. Mostly, he laid low; Doha used to be quite welcoming to the young President Bashar al-Assad and his elegant wife, who were often spotted in the high-end fashion boutiques before the revolt broke out in 2011.

A Cameroon Dissident’s Love Affair with America — on The Glazov Gang
by Jamie Glazov
Author Ako Eyong shares his appreciation of living in the United States and how he treasures its gift of freedom.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/a-cameroon-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang/

PLEASE READ: Jewish Conservative Closes Gap in NY First Congressional District By Karin McQuillan
http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/jewish_conservative_closes_gap_in_ny_first_congressional_district.html
Lee Zeldin (R/C) Challenger
http://www.zeldinforcongress.com/issues

IMMIGRATION We are a nation of immigrants. Each and every one of us has a story of how our families came to America. But over the last two decades, the federal government’s lack of enforcement of our immigration laws has produced a crisis for this nation. We must secure America’s borders and enforce our current laws on the books. Every nation’s back bone is its rule of law. And once the borders are secured, Congress must deal with the challenges created by millions of these individuals living among us. If nothing is done to adequately address this problem, the 11 million will grow to 15 or 20 million in just a few short years. These challenges must be addressed.
I do not support amnesty. This is a crisis. It will not be solved easily, but I believe that we can find a workable solution.
DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY Protecting us at home and abroad has been a lifelong commitment. My diverse experience as both a member of the military and as a policy maker serving on the New York State Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security, gives me a unique perspective on the issue of national security. America is the beacon of freedom because America’s military is strong. Our foreign policy and military decisions have profound consequences for our national security, for the security of our allies, and for the global economy. We must support our allies like Israel, while holding our enemies accountable for any harm they inflict on our interests.
At home, I am alarmed by the Obama Administration’s dramatic expansion and misuse of the Patriot Act. While the legislation was enacted at a time of heightened security with some good intentions, the manner in which the Patriot Act is now being misused causes me deep concern. As a former Military Intelligence officer, I understand the value of information. However, in a world where technology is ever-evolving, government must not abandon its due process to protect the privacy of U.S. Citizens. As your Congressman, I will fight for more protections against intrusions by the NSA, IRS, TSA and other federal agencies.
HEALTHCARE Repealing and Replacing Obamacare Our small businesses are turning thousands and thousands of full-time jobs into part-time jobs to avoid having to offer healthcare coverage they simply can’t afford. Let’s face it, Obamacare is deeply flawed… for families, for small businesses, for anyone who wants convenient access to quality, affordable healthcare. Whether we defund it, delay it or repeal it, we must prevent this rushed and terribly executed piece of legislation from harming the best healthcare system in the world-and forcing families and small businesses to suffer the damage it’s surely going to inflict.
I have never supported Obamacare. Never will. Please click this link to learn more about the dishonest attack ads against us on this topic. Already people are losing their jobs as hospitals cut expenses in order to prepare for ObamaCare’s huge stacks of rules and regulations. Our small businesses are turning thousands and thousands of full-time jobs into part-time jobs to avoid having to offer healthcare coverage they simply can’t afford. And once the law is in full effect, doctors will be buried in paperwork and patients will risk losing the doctors they’ve trusted to take care of them for years. We need to get this right. We must work toward increasing access, without compromising quality of care or efficiency. We can do better.
ENERGY We must reduce our reliance on oil, plain and simple. And recent advances in technology have brought the dream of energy independence within America’s reach. These recent advances in technology have made our domestic energy supplies available once again – supplies that were recently thought to be near depletion. Unfortunately much of our energy supplies are off limits because they are on federal lands. The federal government owns nearly one-third of United States territory. And sadly, much of this land is not being developed for energy resources due to federal restrictions. I support privatizing some of that property, and transferring the management of some federal lands to the States, to allow for energy resource development. At the same time, the United States must become a leader in the global energy marketplace by encouraging continued private sector innovation and development. The increasing cost of energy is straining our families and our businesses. Gas prices and home heating oil costs are just two of the areas where we are reminded every day that our federal policies are hurting our families and our businesses.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/hidden-terror-in-europe?f=must_reads

Europe is in trouble.

Even as America and its European allies begin their war campaign against ISIS and its self-proclaimed Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, European Muslims are increasingly showing their support for Islamic terror groups and their jihad. With the number of Muslims heading to Syria to join ISIS and Al Nusra (the Syrian branch of Al Qaida) on the rise, those who remain behind in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands are now working to raise funds to support their families, and to defend other European Muslims accused of plotting terrorist attacks at home.

In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, “Europe is increasingly becoming a recruiting ground for jihadists heading [to Syria and Iraq] to join terrorist groups like Islamic State.” So far, the number of Europeans who have already joined the jihad in Syria is estimated to be between 2,500-3,000, with the largest number per capita coming from Belgium and from France.

But others, according to a recent article in Dutch national daily Trouw, are working for the jihad in different ways, largely through fundraising efforts. In the Netherlands, for instance, many in the Muslim community are now raising collections to assist the spouses and children of jihadists with cash, food, and other necessities. According to the jihadists, reports Perdiep Ramesar, who penned the article in Trouw, “the families need assistance because their welfare payments have been stopped, their assets frozen, and legal costs are too high.”

Funding jihad, or taking care of jihadists’ families is not really new. There’s a hadith calling for it:

It has been narrated on the authority of Zaid b. Kbalid al-Juhani that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Anybody who equips a warrior (going to fight) in the way of Allah (is like one who actually) fights. And anybody who looks well after his family in his absence (is also like one who actually) fights.

It was invoked in the United States 23 years ago during the Palestinian Intifada. Fawaz Damra, a Cleveland imam since deported, was raising money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, routing the money through a charity called the Islamic Committee for Palestine. Giving money, he told his audience, was as good as taking to the battlefield.

Moore is a municipality that lies between Norman, where a dear friend of mine lives, and Oklahoma City, which I know reasonably well. I can’t claim to know Moore other than to drive through, but I do remember the water tower emblazoned with “Moore – Home of Toby Keith”. Can’t get more American than that, can you?

Colleen Hufford was born in 1960. Life is full of grim twists and cruel vicissitudes, but in mid-20th century America it would not have occurred to anyone that one needed to worry about going to work and being beheaded by a colleague. Yet that’s what happened to Ms Hufford on Thursday: She turned up for her job at at the Vaughan Foods food processing plant in Moore, and Alton Alexander Nolen decapitated her.

Why would he do that? Well, as the initial reports were at pains to assure us, it’s nothing to do with terrorism. That’s true, in the sense that Mr Nolen is not a card-carrying member of an officially credentialed state-recognized terrorism-provider such as ISIS or al-Qaeda. It’s true in the sense that he’s not on any official US Department of Homeland Security terror watch list, because, under the geniuses running American national security, that honor is reserved for my fellow Hillsdale cruiser Steve Hayes. And, of course, it’s also true in the sense that Mr Nolen is a recent convert to Islam and, as David Cameron and Barack Obama and many others are ever more eager to emphasize, terrorism is nothing to do with Islam. Mr Nolen had the Muslim greeting “As-salamu Alaikum” – “Peace be upon you” – tattooed upon his abdomen. And he’d tried, without success, to persuade his co-workers at Vaughan Foods to convert to Islam. So he wasn’t just mildly Islamic in the nothing-to-do-with-terrorism sense, he was super-Islamic in the really-totally-no-terrorism-to-see-here sense.

So Colleen Hufford’s death was, as Jim Hoft put it, just “a random workplace beheading”. Indeed, many commenters at KOCO-TV seem more outraged by the mentioning of Mr Nolen’s religion than by the beheading:

Truth is, Islam has nothing to do with it. And Christians are far from innocent.

What does his religion have to do with this tragedy???

What does his religious faith have to do with this story?

Why would you even through in anything about terrorism in this story? The writer of this story is a true DUMBASS!

With your taxes, the government funds research to debunk its own agency’s assertion that BPA is safe.

Based on reading trend articles and the little stickers affixed to Nalgene water bottles, one might readily conclude that BPA, the common acronym for bisphenol A, is the contemporary danger to public health that lead was half a century ago. BPA is a chemical used in the manufacture of many hard plastics and epoxy resins. When used in food packaging and containers, it helps to prevent spoilage, increases shelf life, and makes containers reusable. The popular but unfounded concern that we’ve started hearing in recent years is that it can somehow seep into our food and beverages and cause birth defects and other negative health consequences.

Based on the latest research — from the U.S. government, no less — these concerns are entirely baseless. The FDA is unequivocal in answering the question of the safety of BPA. Its website gives a single-word answer to the question of whether BPA is safe for humans: Yes. The FDA is not alone in its position. Its regulatory counterparts around the world, including in Canada, Japan, Germany, and the European Union, agree that BPA is safe.

So why the fears? Sadly, it appears that our tax dollars are largely to blame. As Mattie Duppler of the Cost of Government Center notes, data from the National Institutes of Health show that since 2000, nearly $170 million in grants has been doled out to fund research on BPA. Some of this money has been funneled through the NIH to anti-BPA causes.

The recent surge in anti-BPA sentiment becomes even more apparent when we examine where that $170 million went. From fiscal year 2000 to FY 2009, the government spent $51 million on BPA research, but that rate more than quadrupled in the following five years, when agencies spent $120 million. Incredibly, the increase in spending comes on the heels of a 2009 report from the National Toxicology Program, which found, in no uncertain terms that “there is no direct evidence that exposure of people to bisphenol A adversely affects reproduction or development.”

We’ve heard a great deal lately about the “wrong side of history.” It is one of the president’s favorite ways to describe whatever side he isn’t on, and it’s been a phrase on the lips of progressives for quite a while. Among the myriad problems with the notion of a “wrong side of history,” as many critics (including me) have long argued, is that in the domestic sphere it is a call for one’s opponents to surrender to the inevitability of defeat, and in the international sphere it is deployed rhetorically to avoid deploying anything real.

So, for example, on the home front, liberals insist that opponents of same-sex marriage should give up now because they are sure to lose eventually. And on the international stage, when Barack Obama castigates Vladimir Putin for being on the wrong side of history, what he’s really saying is, “Don’t worry, we don’t need to do anything, History and her long moral arc will do the heavy lifting for us.” No wonder the British historian Robert Conquest complained that the phrase has a “Marxist twang.”

One irony is that although a slogan that glorifies history, it is a statement about the future, not the past. That’s because history is full of episodes that would, with a moment’s retrospection, illuminate the vacuity of the phrase. No one on the Trail of Tears took much comfort in the idea that the white man was on the wrong side of history.

Still, there’s an implicit assumption that things have been going in the right direction for a very long time and that there’s no reason to believe they will have a serious course correction in the future. It’s always comforting to believe that the unfolding evolution of the universe is your co-pilot. Unfortunately, not only was Yogi Berra right when he said that predictions are hard, “especially about the future”; it turns out that predictions about the past are hard, too. For any prediction of how the future will unfold is really an implied statement about how you think the past will — and should — be understood. All arguments about politics, in the grandest sense of the word, are arguments about what constitutes a “usable past,” in Van Wyck Brooks’s famous phrase.

We are all familiar with the idea that what we do today has consequences tomorrow. There is no shortage of high-school-yearbook-ready quotations on this subject. But the present can change the past as much as it changes the future. And while I don’t quite mean this in a literal way, I don’t mean it entirely figuratively either.

The Obama administration is desperate for an agreement with Iran, but Congress must say no.
With the Iran nuclear talks now in their endgame and the prospect of a very different political environment in Washington next year if Republicans capture the Senate, Obama officials are in overdrive to achieve their dream of a legacy agreement with Tehran so that President Obama can claim he halted the threat from the Iranian nuclear program. Their goal is to get a final agreement before the nuclear talks are scheduled to end November 24.

While the Obama administration has long been desperate to get such an agreement, two recent ill-advised American concessions and a string of misleading statements and proposals demonstrate how far the White House is willing to go and why it is vital that Congress denounce on a bipartisan basis the nuclear talks and a possible final agreement .

Two weeks ago, the United States floated a proposal to let Iran keep all of its 19,000 centrifuge machines, which Tehran is using to enrich uranium to reactor grade as long as all but 1,500 are “disconnected” and cease enriching uranium. This proposal alarmed many experts because Iran could quickly begin enriching uranium to weapons grade by reconnecting all of its centrifuges.

As generous as this offer was, it apparently did not go far enough for Tehran. The Associated Press reported on September 25 that U.S. diplomats have proposed letting Iran operate up to 4,500 centrifuges if its stockpile of enriched uranium gas is converted to uranium “powder.” This proposal rests on the assumption that such an arrangement would give the international community plenty of time to react to an Iranian “dash” toward constructing a nuclear weapon because it would take over a year for Iran to re-convert low-enriched powder into uranium gas for further enrichment to weapons-grade uranium.

The assumption behind this proposal is false. Both Amos Yadlin, former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate, and Mark Hibbs, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment and nuclear proliferation expert, agree that it would take Iran only about two weeks.

A final agreement also appears unlikely to do anything to reduce the nuclear-proliferation threat posed by Iran’s large stockpile of low-enriched uranium. I noted in NRO last November how a 2013 American Enterprise Institute study found that Iran has produced enough reactor-grade uranium since 2009 “to fuel a small arsenal of nuclear weapons after conversion to weapons grade.” The Langley Intelligence Group Network agreed with this assessment and estimated that, from its 20 percent-enriched-uranium stockpile, Iran could make enough nuclear fuel for one bomb and could make another seven from its reactor-grade uranium if further enriched to weapons grade.