RUTHFULLY YOURS

I am sitting with Geert Wilders, leader of the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, and the news has just flashed that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Canadian convert to Islam who terrorized Ottawa on Wednesday, had previously had his passport lifted by the Canadian government as an officially designated “high-risk traveller.”

That means that before Zehaf-Bibeau put a bullet through the heart of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, a young reservist standing guard with an unloaded rifle at the Canadian war memorial, and before Zehaf-Bibeau rushed into parliament where, thankfully, he was gunned down by security before he could murder again, Canadian authorities had already identified him as someone likely to join the jihad in the Middle East. In fact, so likely was Zehaf-Bibeau to join a jihadist group such as ISIS that Canada did what many Western governments are now doing in the name of counter-terrorism: they took Zehaf-Bibeau’s passport away.

“That’s the same as the other one!” Wilders notes energetically, referring to Martin Couture-Rouleau, also an Islamic convert and “high-risk traveller,” who drove his car into two Canadian soldiers in Quebec earlier in the week, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Couture-Rouleau, who was shot dead at the scene of his crime, had had his passport taken from him in July when he was arrested at the airport before he could travel to Turkey.

In other words, but for good Canadian police work, it looks as if both of these Islam-inspired murderers would have left Canada and disappeared into the bloody maw of the Islamic State. Phew — that was close?

No, that was insane. Such a policy, which the Dutch government also follows, frustrates Geert Wilders to no end.

September 19th was an anniversary you did not read or hear about in the nation’s news media. It marked six years—2008—since the first permit application for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was submitted to the federal government. Can you imagine how many jobs its construction would have created during a period of recovery from the 2008 financial crisis? President Obama is universally credited with delaying it.

Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, pointed out that World War II, the construction of the Hoover Dam, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition all took place in less time. In a September Forbes article, he noted that “Earlier this year a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 65 percent of Americans support building the pipeline, while only 22 percent oppose it. In Washington three-to-one margins are usually referred to as mandates.”

In contrast, in March 2013 the then-Interior Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, boasted “In just over four years, we have advanced 17 wind, solar, and geothermal projects on our public lands.” It is not these projects that Americans depend upon for energy. The opposite is a stark explanation why coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy remain the heart blood of the economy.
AA – Keytone in Perspective

Infographic courtesy of UTA Consultants. For a larger view click on the image.

The Daily Caller reported in July that the “U.S. Bureau of Land Management is currently sitting on a backlog of 3,500 applications that need approval to move forward on drilling for oil and natural gas on federal land,” just part of Obama’s war on U.S. energy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fossil fuels met 82% of U.S. energy demand in 2013.

Petroleum, primarily used for transportation, supplied 36% of the energy demand in 2013. Natural gas represented 27%. Coal represented 20% and generated almost 40% of all electricity. In the six years since Obama took office that is a loss of 10%!

“May you live in interesting times,” an expression (a curse) that may be traced back to post-World War II England, but is apt today, when times have become all too interesting – chaotic and troubling. We must be reminded of the July 7, 2005 bombings of a bus and three tube trains that killed 52. More recently, May 2013, when a Muslim beheaded a soldier on the streets of London; and September, 2014, when a Muslim sodomized a dog and stabbed two women, beheading one of them; and October, 2014, when Scotland Yard captured four Muslims who admitted their mission to terrorize and decapitate ordinary people on city streets, and another four who were plotting to kill police officers or soldiers on London streets – a total of 218 arrests in the past 12 months alone. Britain identified a “complex web” of 60 Muslim Brotherhood organizations now operating from London, Istanbul, and Doha, Qatar.

In Turkey, in August, Islamists shelled, beheaded, crucified and shot 700 members of the Shaitat tribe because they dared to rise up in their own defense. Over the past week, a recent convert to Islam ran down two Canadian soldiers in a Quebec province, and was shot while preparing to stab a woman police officer. A Canadian soldier was shot and killed by another convert at the National War Memorial in Ottawa; the suspect was killed. A Muslim terrorist ran his car into a crowd in a Jerusalem railroad station, wounding six adults and killing a 3-month-old baby. This was followed by rock-throwing session on a kindergarten and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s praise of the killer’s heroics. Two hospital guards at a Philippines hospital were murdered by a Muslim group. A suicide bomber killed another person in Libya, and six young people were executed and then hung, by ISIS, in Iraq.

America surely needs repeated reminding of 9/11, for which Islamist apologists persistently dismiss with a flick of the wrist. Major Hassan’s Allahu Akbar was cast aside with a flimsy “workplace violence” designation, and the stabbing and beheading of an employee at a meat-packing plant in Oklahoma was lost in the media amid all the other excitement of the times, including crimes called “scandals.” But earlier today, a hatchet-wielding, self-inspired terrorist purposely targeted four New York police officers, perhaps in keeping with the new Islamic directive discovered by Scotland Yard.

A Chinese student of Bible and the Ancient Near East studies at The Hebrew University (HU) of Jerusalem recently represented the school and Israel on China’s highest-rated game show, HU said on Sunday.

Lechao Tang, 24, of Wenzhou, China was invited by China’s national TV channel to participate in a Chinese version of an Israeli hit quiz show, “La’uf Al Hamiliyon” (Trying for a Million), in a meet against students from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and other leading universities.

The particular episode of the highly-rated trivia program, which offers contestants the opportunity to win prizes, was the second highest ranking TV show of the day, and the sixth highest ranked of the week — the program’s best recent achievement, according to HU.

“I’m glad to be a link between the Hebrew University and my home country of China,” Lechao said.

The language of deception

Perhaps the glory of the English language is that it so expressive. Its remarkable heterogeneous origins have given it an almost limitless vocabulary. And American English, particularly, has used that tool with an enormous flexibility to make it the international means of communication. One is able with a minimum of linguistic dexterity to capture every meaning, or almost every nuance. That’s why it is so depressing to note that of late there is a growing tendency to do the opposite, that is, to camouflage real meanings with obfuscation.

It has become the fashion – and interestingly enough the tendency swells as one moves up the educational ladder – to mask real meanings with words or phrases that tell less than one could easily relate. At the moment my favorite bete noir in this regard is the phrase “to reach out to” which has become omnipresent.

What the hell does that mean? There are dozens of words which describe in precision relationships and communication among individuals, and which would lend authenticity and further meaning to any such statement. If you have to obfuscate, how about “contact”? Long ago [but in my time] we turned “contact” from a simple noun into a verb, much to the horror of strict grammarians. But it still, generally, has retained the meaning of a spoken communication.

But “to reach out to” now substitutes for a wide variety of unknowable meanings: written communication, a face to face exchange, a telephone conversation, an exchange of e-mails or “snailmail”, a connection through an emissary or other intermediary. Or you name it! In any case, I doubt that most of the time it means extending an arm or a leg to touch another person.

Why? If you want to say that information has been exchanged about a particular subject, why not use one of many verbs which tell us how it was done and thereby give us more information?

I am afraid that this horrible example is only one of hundreds of such bromides commonly used these days.

A win-win solution requires changing perspectives and context. Gazans could have access to an air and sea port in nearby El Arish, under full Egyptian control.

The Gaza Strip, an artificial construct without any historical, demographic, or cultural integrity or meaning, was, is and will continue to be inherently unstable. Created by Egypt in 1949 to serve as an area for refugees and UNRWA-sponsored “camps” (towns), it became a base for terrorists; except for the time when it was under Israeli control, its violent character and purpose never changed. Therefore, attempts to convince or force Hamas to change and rehabilitate will fail as long as policy makers continue to view the area as a distinct, coherent political and geographical entity.

The Israeli government’s unwillingness to re-occupy the Gaza Strip and eliminate Hamas has brought us to a dead end. Israel cannot allow Hamas to build sea and air ports which would be used to import weapons. Hamas refuses to agree to Israeli restrictions, which it sees as a form of occupation, and it will certainly never disarm. Monitors and international organizations cannot control what goes on in the Gaza Strip – tunnels for smuggling and attacking Israel will no doubt continue to be built. Both sides, therefore, are preparing for the next confrontation.

A win-win solution requires changing perspectives and context. Gazans could have access to an air and sea port in nearby El Arish, under full Egyptian control.

Egypt has an interest in preventing Hamas from renewing its military capacity, since Hamas has armed militants in the Sinai and has threatened Egyptian interests and control. Egypt would also gain economically from imports and exports through El Arish. No Egyptian territory or authority would be diminished.

Gazans would be able to travel easily to El Arish for business and commerce.

BOYCOTT THIS YOU USELESS IDIOTS!!!
THANKS TO MY ISRAELI E-PAL MICHAEL ORDMAN I GET GREAT NEWS FROM AMAZING ISRAEL….

www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com

One billion products sold last year contained microchips from Israel’s CEVA.

20,000 doctors use G-Med. (Thanks to Israel21c) Israel’s G-Med, the world’s first and only global social-professional network exclusively for physicians, allows doctors anywhere to consult with colleagues, and manage multinational research projects. Launched in 2013, G-Med now has 20,000 users in over 50 countries.
http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/first-global-social-network-for-doctors/

Diagnosing liver disease. A multi-center trial is to commence of the innovative diagnosis device developed by Israel’s Exalenz Bioscience to detect liver disease. The device is already used to examine a patient’s breath in order to detect bacteria in the stomach that causes ulcers.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-exalenz-bioscience-starts-liver-trial-1000979820

A treatment for bone infections. Israeli biotech PolyPid is raising funds for trials of its BonyPid process and device that can release medication over a long period of time. Currently, infections of dental implants and fractures may need treating by repeated surgery. BonyPid needs inserting only once.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-polypid-releases-prospectus-for-nasdaq-offering-1000979098
http://www.polypid.com/plex-platform/

READ MORE AT:http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=76919&action=edit

“Dishonest science is more than a spat between academics. It is a matter of critical national importance. It is time for the public to start demanding action and political leaders to see that it happens. A formal mechanism for the critical evaluation of science, with sanctions for malpractice, is long overdue and sorely needed.”

Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most experienced marine biologists, with a particular interest in coral-reef and marine-fishery ecosystems

They have built careers, lined pockets and plundered the public purse on the strength of prophecies that have failed conspicuously to match real world trends. Worse, they have suborned and debased science. It’s time those who insist consensus trumps evidence were made to answer for their damage
Alarmists have often ridiculed suggestions of scientific misconduct in climate science as wild conspiracy theories while simultaneously accusing their critics of being in the pay of fossil fuel interests. In the absence of evidence for their own defence they have relied heavily upon claims of support by an overwhelming consensus of climate “experts”, with a fabled majority of 97% frequently cited. This is a curious defence for a scientific hypothesis, as it is the antithesis of science’s very essence, which is the primacy of empirical evidence over any claim to authority. Simply put, any appeal to authority in a scientific debate amounts to a tacit admission of weak evidence.

Even apart from matters of science, accusations of conspiracy and the claim of consensus seem a poor tactic, as the ethical associations of the latter are, if anything, even poorer than the former. Conspiracists at least retain some capacity to recognise what they are doing is improper and try to hide what they are up to. Then, too, conspiracies are generally optional — individuals may join or abstain at their own discretion. By contrast, a claim of expert consensus presents itself as the sole option for right-thinking people to embrace. Any dissent is thus implied to be not just mistaken but willfully immoral. The Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, slavery and the socially entrenched abuse of women in some societies arise from consensus, not conspiracy. Indeed, it is no stretch to say that all mass atrocities stem from the same root. The abandonment of standards and ethics, even of fundamental humanity, in pursuit of some imagined higher purpose is not achieved by a conspiracy. It is arrived at by declaring a consensus.

The norm in science is disagreement and debate, with evidence being the final arbiter. A claim of consensus is only made when supporting evidence is weak. Its primary function is to stifle opposing argument by implying that only fools and knaves could possibly disagree. The claim of a scientific consensus is an oxymoron. A consensus seeks to suppress evidence-based open debate, which should be the very foundation of science. It is a claim to authority which seeks to dismiss conflicting evidence and denigrate all questioning. The matter is treated as closed to discussion, as in that familiar warmist mantra, “the science is settled.”

Amid all the assurances of Islam’s gentle soul, young men continue to wage war on the societies that have never questioned their right to draw inspiration from the Koran. Unless that sacred text’s invocations to violence are repudiated openly and often, there is not the slightest hope of peace
No sooner had we seen Western Sydney teenager Abu Khaled (aka Abdullah Elmir) fronting up on YouTube and promising to fly the black flag over Buckingham Palace, among other places, than out came the soothing brigade on the ABC. Two fresh-faced women under hijabs conveyed the shock and concern of their community and suggested that more money should be provided to imams (from taxpayers, I assume) to teach young Muslim men that it was not OK to cut off people’s heads if you don’t like their religion. Well, the lady in question didn’t exactly say that, but what else could it be?

Do ‘moderate Muslims’ ever wonder what the heck is going on? Do they ever attempt to join the dots? Another head rolls in the name of Islam and the Koran and the Prophet, and another and another and another. There is nothing to see here — nothing to do with us! — nothing to do with the Religion of Peace. Hmm!

Put aside the carnage going on in the Muslim world — in Sudan; in Somalia; in Yemen; in Libya; in Syria; in Iraq — two attacks have occurred this week in Canada and one in New York. In the first a man mowed down two soldiers in his car, killing one. In the second, a man shot and killed a soldier on duty at a war memorial before rampaging through parliament. In the third, a man used a hatchet to attack a group of policemen. Two policemen were injured, one critically, before their assailant was shot dead.

All of these so-called lone wolf attackers appear to have been influenced by Islamic jihad. One or all of the perpetrators may have been mentally deranged, to use the designation favoured by the liberal media. “Mentally deranged man on killing rampage” is a lot more PC than “Muslim man on killing rampage”.

Apparently Major Hasan’s murder of thirteen US soldiers on an army base in 2009 is still called “workplace violence”. Surely that should be ‘workplace violence by a mentally deranged serviceman influenced by a religious affiliation we are reluctant to dwell upon.’

I don’t care whether people who go around cutting other people’s heads off are diagnosed as deranged. I know they are deranged. I consider all of the ISIS crew to be deranged.

We are told that one in four of us will suffer some kind of mental illness in our lifetimes. I don’t know what percentage of such people (notice I am excluding myself) will become deranged. What I do know, from experience, is that however deranged they may become, they are unlikely to go around cutting off people’s heads. The ‘deranged’ thing alone doesn’t do it for me.

I hate to disagree with my friend and e-pal Daniel Greenfield….but it was not only the left which supported the “Arab Spring”…..so did some esteemed conservatives and neo-cons such as William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer who virtually swooned with delusions of Arab democracy…..Otherwise I have no cavil with this superb column…..rsk

The left’s worst crime in the Middle East has been its support for the region’s Arab-Muslim majority at the expense of its minorities. It has supported the majority’s terrorism, atrocities, ethnic cleansing and repression of the region’s minorities. Very rarely has it raised a voice in their support, and when it has done so, it was in muted tones completely different from their vigorous defenses of the nationalism of the Arab Muslim majority.
The left backed the Arab Spring which rewarded the ambitions of Arabist and Islamist activists at the expense of Coptic, African and other minorities. Its great regional obsession is statehood for the Arab Muslims of Israel, (better known by their local Palestinian brand), but has little to say about the Kurds in Turkey or the Azeri in Iran. The million Jewish refugees and the vanishing Christians of the region never come up in conversation. They certainly don’t get their own lefty protest rallies.

The Africans of Sudan could have used an entire UN organization dedicated to their welfare, which the Arab Muslims who had failed to wipe out the region’s Jewish minority are the beneficiaries of. But they had to make do with third tier aid.

Unlike the Arab nationalists and Islamists of Libya, the French, English and American air force did not come to their rescue. It came to the rescue of the Libyans who showed their gratitude in the time honored way of the Arab majority by massacring the African minority and then killing some Americans. But what’s a little genocide between friends?

The left embraced Pan-Arabism, a race based nationalism, in line with the Soviet Union’s expansionist foreign policy. Pan-Arabism’s socialism made it easy for the left to ignore its overt racism along with the admiration of many of its leading lights for Nazi Germany. The same left which refused to see the Gulags and the ethnic cleansing under the red flag, turned an equally blind eye to the contradiction of condemning Zionism for its ethnic basis, while supporting Pan-Arabism, which was ethnically based.