Displaying the most recent of 89731 posts written by

Ruth King

How jihadists link Paris and Jerusalem By Dan Diker

Western response to jihad in Jerusalem suffers from a moral reflex that contextualizes radical Islamic terror against Israelis while ignoring jihadis’ self-declared motivations. Radical Islamic terrorism in Paris and Jerusalem has reignited the debate in the West over terrorist motivation.

Western leaders and observers continue to condemn Islamic State’s Paris massacres unconditionally.

However, Western response to jihad in Jerusalem suffers from a moral reflex that contextualizes radical Islamic terror against Israelis while ignoring jihadis’ self-declared motivations. Western leaders, policy makers and media pundits should listen carefully to radical Islamic jihadists’ declared motivations to murder, whether in Paris, Brussels, Bamako (Mali) or Jerusalem. Jihadists share the same end: the elimination of non-Muslim sovereign states and the establishment of a Islamic caliphate anywhere Islam has ever ruled and eventually over the entire world.

The IAEA report reveals Iran did pursue nuclear weapons and there were nuclear weapons testing at an Iranian military facility. So lift those sanctions! By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Despite Iran’s repeated claims to the contrary, a report just issued by the nuclear watchdog agency concluded that Iran had pursued a nuclear weapons program.

The Obama administration welcomed the report issued Wednesday, Dec. 2, by the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying it would likely pave the way for the removal of economic sanctions on Tehran as early as January. The report is titled “Final Assessment of Past and Present Outstanding Issues Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme.”

What did the Administration find reassuring in the report? That the IAEA was unable to find evidence that Tehran’s efforts to pursue a nuclear bomb extended beyond 2009. What is the administration prepared to ignore? That Iran has been lying all along when its leaders said its nation had never pursued creating nuclear weapons.

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, lead suspects in the San Bernadino Massacre with 14 dead, 17 wounded

Fox News reported the name of perhaps the lead suspect, “Syed Farook” that is in play as the lead suspect involved in the massacre at a Holiday party at a San Bernadino, California, Development Disabled facility late Wednesday morning, December 2, 2015. Farook and Tashfeen Malik were in the bullet riddled black SUV killed by Police, they were equipped in black tactical gear, body armor, AK -47 assault weapons with 30 round clips and hand guns. A third possible suspect was seen running away, unclear whether it might a bystander not involved with the attack.

The Los Angeles Times in late breaking news reported:

Syed Farook, an inspector for the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, had traveled to Saudi Arabia, married, had a child, and appeared to be “living the American dream,” co-workers said today. They were stunned after law enforcement sources identified a man named Syed Farook as a suspect in the mass shooting at the department’s holiday party.

MY SAY: #ANTI-SEMITISM DOES NOT MATTER AT PRINCETON

What sheer hypocrisy at Princeton. Woodrow Wilson bad…but boycott and divest from Israel is just dandy. And the Center for African American Studies says nothing about the Jihads in Africa against innocent civilians…..rsk

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/04/cornel_west_urges_princeton_university_to_divest_f.html

PRINCETON — Princeton University has a moral obligation to divest from Israel and its systematic injustices, activist Cornel West told an audience on campus Wednesday, comparing the current divestment movement on campus to the anti-apartheid movement in the 1970s.

“The Israeli occupation of my Palestinian brothers and sisters is a crime against humanity,” West said. “They are killing hundreds daily — but where are the voices?”

West, professor emeritus in the Center for African American Studies at Princeton, spoke alongside a panel of other divestment activists including Max Blumenthal, Larry Hamm, Molly Greene and Robert Tignor.

The Princeton Divests Student Coalition, made up of Princeton students and faculty who seek to bring divestment referendum before undergraduate students, organized the event in McCosh Hall.

“There will be no security for our Jewish and brothers and sisters — who have a right to security after 2,000 years of vicious hatred — as there can be no security predicated on violence,” West said.

Michael Tanner :Sanders, Clinton, and Spending Hillary’s plans are nowhere near Bernie’s — but they’re enough to wreck the economy.

When Bernie Sanders proposed $18 trillion in increased federal spending over the next ten years, most observers chuckled and asked what else one could expect from the self-described socialist. But what then is one to make of Hillary Clinton? She hasn’t — yet — risen to Sanders-level spending, but she’s certainly heading in that direction.

This week, for example, she unveiled a “jobs” plan that includes the usual motley collection of infrastructure projects, “green energy,” subsidies, manufacturing incentives, government research and development, and so on. In total these proposals would cost at least $350 billion over a decade.

Clinton’s jobs program comes on top of a $75 billion proposal for increased spending on clean energy that she announced earlier. She also wants more government support for child care, a proposal that some estimate could cost $200 billion or more over ten years. That would be on top of her proposal to give states grants to encourage them to implement paid family leave, which would cost at least $10 billion, and her $10 billion proposal for subsidizing home care for the elderly.

Does Woodrow Wilson Belong At Princeton? by Richard A. Epstein

http://www.hoover.org/research/does-woodrow-wilson-belong-princeton

Back in 2008, the Princeton Alumni Weekly published the results of a panel deliberation ranking the university’s most influential alumni. At the top of the list was James Madison (class of 1771) and close behind him, in third place, was Woodrow Wilson (class of 1879), who was Princeton’s president from 1902 to 1910. He left the university to enter politics first as governor of New Jersey between 1911 and 1913 and then as President of the United States from 1913 to 1921. By all accounts, his presidency at Princeton transformed the school from a college for playboys into the serious academic institution that it has become today. He openly urged African Americans to apply and also hired the first Jewish and Roman Catholic faculty members.

It is a sign of the times that there is an active movement at Princeton, led by the students of the Black Justice League, to remove his name from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and from the Wilson House at Princeton. The main charge against Wilson was that he was a racist for overseeing, as President of the United States, the systematic removal of black employees from the federal civil service long after it had been desegregated. He was also a sympathizer of the Klu Klux Klan. His resegregation policy provoked a huge backlash from the NAACP, which had previously endorsed his 1912 presidential campaign given his promises to be “President of the whole nation” and to supply black citizens an “absolute fair dealing.”

Obama Fights to Save Planet That Hasn’t Warmed in Nearly 19 Years By Deroy Murdock

Until world leaders can explain their way past two specific graphs, their gathering in Paris this week to combat so-called global warming might as well launch a War on Leprechauns.

It would be bad enough if President Obama and some 150 other heads of state were pursuing destructive solutions to a legitimate problem. Far worse, they are poised to adopt policies that will slow economic growth, spread poverty, and stymie human progress, all in slavish service to an utterly bogus “problem” of their own imagination. They are like madmen frantically swatting brooms at “bats” that flap their brittle wings solely inside these politicians’ febrile skulls.

Those who push this agenda once hollered about pending doom, thanks to “global warming.” A few years ago, they quietly retired that rhetoric and, instead, began shouting about “climate change.”

Why the jumped-up new slogan? “Global warming” stopped happening, and complaining about it increasingly made them look deranged.

As this graph clearly indicates, scientific observations from weather satellites have reported zero warming in global mean temperatures since February 1997, when readings from recent decades peaked. Simply put, despite the warmists’ high-decibel bluster, there has been no global warming for 18 years and nine months.

A New Breed of American Environmentalists Challenges the Stale Dogma of the Left — Julie Kelly

While world leaders in Paris this month push for sacrifice and austerity to save the planet, one American environmental group is boldly pushing back. A new breed of environmentalists — including many former hard-core greens — is promoting “ecomodernism,” a fresh approach that challenges the dogma of the traditional environmental movement.

Ecomodernists have a more optimistic, capitalistic, and sensible world view than their old-guard counterparts. And if the Paris conference fails to produce results, ecomodernists could represent a new path forward on both environmental and global-growth issues. “Instead of viewing environmental problems as a sign of the coming apocalypse, we instead view them as unintended consequences of development,” says one of the movement’s founders, Michael Shellenberger. “We are not going to solve global warming with all of us trying to live with less.”

Shellenberger is a lifelong liberal activist who once worked for groups such as the Sierra Club and Earthjustice. His environmental cred is stellar: Even as a kid, Shellenberger would cast off paper boats lit with small candles every August to commemorate the Hiroshima bombings. During the anti-nuke 1980s, he was swayed by the documentary The Day After and other films that showed doomsday scenarios about nuclear proliferation. “I was anti-nuclear my whole life.”

Obama’s Special Brand of Climate Doomsaying By Charles C. W. Cooke

In Paris yesterday morning, President Obama suggested rather dramatically that unchecked “climate change” would mean “submerged countries, abandoned cities, and fields that no longer grow.” Almost immediately, social media was set alight by mockery and the rolling of eyes. And with good reason. For decades now, Americans have become accustomed to hearing tales of imminent destruction, and to finding themselves very much alive after that vaunted seventh seal has been opened. Whatever power the environmentalists’ admonitions may once have had over the national psyche, they seem now to be received with a dull disinterest — or, worse, laughter. The Boy Who Cried Wolf was a warning, not an instruction manual. Do our doomsayers know this?

Perhaps they do not. Over the past 15 years or so, the residents of these United States have been subjected to an almost endless stream of hysterical, green-tinged hype. In 2009, we were told by Al Gore that “the entire north-polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” (It wasn’t, and the disaster date has been recalibrated for the middle of the 21 century.) A year earlier, we were told by ABC that, come June 2015, New York City would be underwater, gas would cost over $9 a gallon, and a carton of milk would set consumers back almost thirteen bucks. (Instead, the price of gas has been cut in half, milk has remained as cheap as ever, and New York has managed just fine.) And a year before that, we were told by the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, that “if there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” (It’s a claim that his successor is now repeating over and over again in Paris, with different years serving as the point of no return each time, natch.) Oddly enough, nobody seems to have learned anything from these mistakes. As I write, the sillier among America’s progressive commentariat are trying desperately to blame the rise of ISIS on excessive Western carbon emissions. It won’t end well.

How Rubio Could Foil Cruz’s Plot to Unite Conservatives By Tim Alberta

One summer afternoon in 2013, Marco Rubio arrived at Mike Lee’s Senate office for a strategy session on derailing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Waiting inside were some of the upper chamber’s most conservative members, along with a group of influential activists. It promised to be an awkward pow-wow for the Florida senator, who had spent the 113th Congress authoring and promoting an immigration bill that turned some of his staunchest supporters — including some of those gathered in Lee’s office — into disgruntled opponents. Unperturbed, Rubio flashed a boyish grin and, according to multiple people present, greeted the group with a declaration: “The prodigal son is here.”

He knew he had sinned in their eyes, and that he needed the leaders of the increasingly powerful conservative movement that had championed his insurgent Senate bid to forgive him if he hoped to win their support for an eventual White House run. Yet one person in the room was already working overtime to make sure that wouldn’t happen. Ted Cruz, having copied Rubio’s anti-establishment blueprint to win his own Senate seat in 2012, had since usurped Rubio’s standing as the Tea Party’s favorite senator — in no small part by becoming the most vocal antagonist of the immigration-reform package that had blown up in the Floridian’s face earlier that summer. Both young senators harbored presidential ambitions, and if they ran against each other, Cruz wanted a clear contrast drawn between his brand of uncompromising ideological warfare and Rubio’s more pragmatic conservatism.