RUTHFULLY YOURS

Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.

John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.

In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”

Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data. As I demonstrate in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israel will maintain a strong and growing Jewish majority in a “unitary state” that includes the territory within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria. But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.

In other words, the future leaders of that state – from the PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — are so imbued with genocidal Jew hatred that they insist that all 650,000 Jews living in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must be forcibly ejected from their homes. These Jewish towns, cities and neighborhoods must all be emptied before the Palestinians whose cause Kerry so wildly champions will even agree to set up their Apartheid state.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is a crime of intent, not of outcome. It is the malign intent of the Palestinians –across their political and ideological spectrum — to found a state predicated on anti-Jewish bigotry and ethnic cleansing. In stark contrast, no potential Israeli leader or faction has any intention of basing national policies on racial subjugation in any form.

By ignoring the fact that every Palestinian leader views Jews as a contaminant that must be blotted out from the territory the Palestinians seek to control, (before they will even agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it), while attributing to Jews malicious intent towards the Palestinians that no Israeli Jewish politician with a chance of leading the country harbors, Kerry is adopting a full-throated and comprehensive anti-Semitic position.

It is both untethered from reason and libelous of Jews.

At Tel Aviv University on Monday, Baroness Caroline Cox, a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords, gave a talk sponsored by the Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security and the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, run by Martin Sherman.

A passionate defender of human rights and the rule of law, Cox has spent the bulk of her career fighting forces that threaten to undermine Western democracy in general, and that of her country in particular. The focus of her lecture was the spread of political Islam in the U.K. and Africa, a phenomenon that has taken up much of her parliamentary and humanitarian work.

Though her pro-Israel positions are well-known (she is a co-founder of the One Jerusalem organization and co-president of the Jerusalem Summit), she purposely left the Jewish state out of the discussion. Nevertheless, she made a point of mentioning the symbolic relevance of her topic to the timing of her speech, which happened to fall on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Her message was that jihad is being waged through an Islamist infiltration of the political, cultural, legal and economic systems of non-Muslim countries. It is being accomplished, she said, by pushing to have Shariah law written into, if not replace, the law of the land; by manipulating democracy to destroy it; by investing in educational institutions and making it impossible for anyone to criticize their teachings; and — as in the case of African countries — by preventing anyone who does not convert to Islam from getting a job or receiving government aid, including food for starving children.

The list goes on, and it is as ugly as the honor killings and female genital mutilation practiced by Shariah-abiding citizens and accepted by Western apologists. Even more shocking is the extent to which Britain has willingly resigned itself to this barbarism. Indeed, recounted Cox, the situation is so “schizophrenic” that while bigamy is prohibited in the U.K., polygamy among its Muslim citizens is accepted as a religious-cultural norm.

This, she explained, is not only dangerous for Britain; it is devastating for Muslims seeking the protection of British law. They are abandoned by the system in the name of diversity, and sent to Shariah courts to settle their issues.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/29/john-kerry-real-palestinian-sharia-and-imagined-israeli-apartheid/

Just over three weeks ago (April 8, 2014) speaking at Uppsala University, a remarkably intrepid 26 year old Palestinian woman, Christy Anastas gave a forthright lecture (video here) “update” about the ongoing human rights abuses (predictably) engendered by this Sharia-based system of “law” adopted by Fatah-Hamas, including:

undefined

The forced payment of the Koranic poll-tax (per verse 9:29), or jizya (i.e., from the etymology of the word, per Edward Lane, the great 19th century Arabic-English lexicographer, “the tax paid in lieu of being slain”). Anastas explains, “if you are a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian, you have to pay protection money” (to those she aptly terms, “mafia”)…”My uncle had to pay this protection money.” Her uncle stopped making his jizya payments, whereupon he was accused of being a “traitor,” imprisoned, and then executed, right in front of his own home.

undefined

The grotesque violations of women’s rights (Anastas proclaims, “women don’t have rights there [in Fatah-Hamas controlled areas];” “women are treated as possessions there”), resulting from application of the Sharia, including legally sanctioned polygamy and honor killings.

undefined

The sheer absence of freedom of speech—another hallmark of the Sharia: “Israel doesn’t threaten to kill us (Christians) for sharing our views, Palestinians do!”

Last Friday, during a closed-door meeting with a room of influential world leaders, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry opined that if Israel failed to accept his latest “peace formulation,” the country risked becoming an “apartheid state with second-class citizens.”

This statement was redolent with Kerry’s trademark mental and moral cretinism. For over a decade, the disputed territories in Gaza and Judea-Samaria under Fatah, and/or Hamas control have been under a real, not a theoretical system of Islamic Sharia-based religious apartheid.

After more than thirteen centuries of almost uninterrupted jihad in historical Palestine, it is not surprising that a finalized constitution proposed for a Palestinian Arab state declared all aspects of Palestinian state law to be subservient to the Sharia, in harmony with the popular will (i.e., 79.9 percent of Palestinians want the PA to follow the Sharia—Islamic religious law— including 68.6 percent who wanted the Sharia as the exclusive code of law, according to data published by the Palestinian Center for Research and Cultural Dialogue, March 3, 2005). Moreover, contemporary Palestinian Authority religious intelligentsia openly support restoration of the oppressive system of dhimmitude within a Muslim-dominated Israel as well.

During a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, Palestinian Authority employee Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.

An assessment of such anachronistic, discriminatory views was provided by the Catholic archbishop of the Galilee, Butrus Al- Mu’alem, who, in a June 1999 statement, dismissed the notion of modern dhimmis submitting to Muslims:

It is strange to me that there remains such backwardness in our society; while humans have already reached space, the stars, and the moon . . . there are still those who amuse themselves with fossilized notions.

Eleven years ago (i.e., in 2003, prior to Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006), during a briefing for a visiting United States congressional delegation, then Vatican representative to Israel, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed US lawmakers that the Palestinian Authority’s new approved state constitution, funded by the US Agency for International Development, provided no juridical status for any religion other than Islam in the emerging Palestinian Arab entity. The Papal Nuncio warned, in addition, that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had adopted Sharia as the overarching guiding principle of their legal code, thus mandating the absolute supremacy of Muslims over non-Muslims as a matter of law. (Archbishop Sambi also initiated a study of the new PA textbooks, which the Vatican deemed to be brazenly Antisemitic.)

John Kerry is attempting to walk back his smear of Israel as an “apartheid” state. That the current secretary of state is a clownish figure has been well known for decades. But what should not be lost in the latest gaffe is that it is not a gaffe. In what he foolishly thought was a safe place to let his hair down, Kerry merely gave voice to what the Obama administration thinks. “Apartheid” trips easily off his tongue because it is part of the Islamist narrative that the administration has internalized.

Forget Kerry. This was made explicit in Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech—for anyone who didn’t infer it already from Obama’s friendships with notorious Israel bashers like Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers (see P. David Hornik’s FPM report on Ayers joining his fellow tenured radicals in a 2010 petition accusing Israel of — all together now — apartheid policies). As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, Obama’s speech “combined fictional accounts of Islamic history and doctrine, a woefully ignorant explanation of Israel’s claim to its sovereign territory, and an execrable moral equivalence drawn between Southern slave owners in early America and modern Israelis besieged by Palestinian terror.”

On the latter two points, in what I described as a “sweet-sounding sell-out,” the president claimed:

The recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.

The Muslim Brotherhood leaders invited to the speech over the Mubarak government’s objection must have been giddy. My book explains:

“The basic Arab argument against Israel,” Caroline Glick observes, is that the Jewish nation was established for a single reason: “to soothe the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.”

This is patently false. As Melanie Phillips put it:

The Jews’ aspiration for their homeland does not derive from the Holocaust, nor their overall tragic history. It derives from Judaism itself, which is composed of the inseparable elements of the religion, the people and the land. Their unique claim upon the land rests upon the fact that the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their nation, which it was for hundreds of years—centuries before the Arabs and Muslims came on the scene.

He has insulted Israel? How about the way in which this oaf insulted America?

“On April 22, 1971 Kerry testified to a Senate committee that American soldiers in Vietnam were “war criminals.” He elaborated: “These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit—the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

How did this cur ever become a Senator?

And, more important, how did he ever have the effrontery to run for the Presidency of the nation that he libeled?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/chloe-simone-valdary-on-her-passionate-defense-of-israel-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Chloé Simone Valdary, a Junior at the University of New Orleans and founder of the Allies of Israel Association. She is a conservative and an African-American Zionist.

[LIKE Allies of Israel on Facebook]

Our guest explored the theme of The Jews’ Contribution to the World, examining the roots of the idea that man is born free because he is made in the image of God. [Begins at 16:35 mark]

The discussion was preceded by Chloé’spassionate defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and of Israel, her analysis of the vicious and racist attacks on her by the Left, and much, much more.

Don’t miss it!

The United States has reached a political precipice. The country is facing the greatest Constitutional and existential crisis since the Civil War, a situation which may expose America to assaults on its national security equivalent to Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

In an effort to force a radical transformation of the United States, the rogue Obama Administration, enabled by a complicit Congress and a compliant media, has attempted to undermine the Constitution, usurp the power it reserves for the States and deny the rights it guarantees to the American people.

Executing and enforcing federal law is the fundamental duty of the executive branch of government. When a president substantially alters the intent of the laws passed by Congress or creates the conditions for avoiding compliance with the law, he is violating the Constitution.

The extent of Barack Obama’s executive overreach includes manipulating laws ranging from healthcare to immigration to privacy to technology to social issues to national security matters. A March 8, 2014 Washington Post article lists eighteen major changes in Obamacare made by the Obama Administration since 2013.

Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R-AL) office has detailed more than seventy instances from January 2009 through the end of 2013 in which Obama flouted the law on immigration matters.

According to Sessions: “The evidence reveals that the Administration has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law… Under the guise of setting ‘priorities’, the Administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States is free to illegally live, work and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing a felony or other serious crime.”

Among the too numerous frustrations of the political process is that a lot of smart and talented people spend their time and energy fulminating about things that don’t really matter. That diverts attention from our nation’s real problems. There are few better examples than today’s debate about economic inequality.

America may well have an economic inequality problem, but it’s not a problem that will be solved by denouncing “the 1%” or blaming bankers, Republicans or tax rates that are too low. It’s not a problem that will be solved by senseless rhetoric about the false wage gap between the sexes or calling for large minimum wage increases that would reduce the number of entry-level jobs.

To the extent we have an economic inequality problem, it’s not because a small percenatge of our population—comprised of professional entertainers and athletes, corporate CEOs, internet pioneers, and others—are wealthier than the average American. Young graduates bearing large student loans while facing a weak job market, families facing unemployment or low wages, and single parents struggling to raise children do not find their situations any more difficult because some in our nation are wealthy.

Yet, liberals seem to think otherwise, and here we find a stark illustration of the converse mindsets of liberals and conservatives. Liberals seem to want to reduce economic inequality by bringing the people at the top down, while conservatives want to reduce inequality by bringing the people at the bottom up. The left wants to focus on class warfare while the right wants to focus on economic growth, the proverbial rising tide that raises all boats.

If we want to reduce economic inequality, the only logical solution is to raise the living standards of the middle class and those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. History, economics and sociology show that the optimal way to do this is not through political grandstanding or government diktats but through the pursuit of policies that have grown our economy in the past.

We must reform our almost Rube Goldberg-like tax code to remove its economic inefficiencies. We need a simpler, fairer and flatter tax structure, one that lowers rates across the board and eliminates most of the provisions that, while perhaps well-intentioned, serve as disincentives to economic growth. President Reagan enacted tax rate reductions and simplified the tax code in the 1980s, ushering in a quarter-century of economic growth. Certainly there were the usual economic cycles over that period, but this growth led to millions of new jobs and overcame the tax increases of t

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304279904579518273176775310?mg=reno64-wsj
It’s time to defy health-care mandates issued by bureaucrats not in the healing profession.

In my 23 years as a practicing physician, I’ve learned that the only thing that matters is the doctor-patient relationship. How we interact and treat our patients is the practice of medicine. I acknowledge that there is a problem with the rising cost of health care, but there is also a problem when the individual physician in the trenches does not have a voice in the debate and is being told what to do and how to do it.

As a group, the nearly 880,000 licensed physicians in the U.S. are, for the most part, well-intentioned. We strive to do our best even while we sometimes contend with unrealistic expectations. The demands are great, and many of our families pay a huge price for our not being around. We do the things we do because it is right and our patients expect us to.

So when do we say damn the mandates and requirements from bureaucrats who are not in the healing profession? When do we stand up and say we are not going to take it any more?

Corbis

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services dictates that we must use an electronic health record (EHR) or be penalized with lower reimbursements in the future. There are “meaningful use” criteria whereby the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tells us as physicians what we need to include in the electronic health record or we will not be subsidized the cost of converting to the electronic system and we will be penalized by lower reimbursements. Across the country, doctors waste precious time filling in unnecessary electronic-record fields just to satisfy a regulatory measure. I personally spend two hours a day dictating and documenting electronic health records just so I can be paid and not face a government audit. Is that the best use of time for a highly trained surgical specialist?