RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_rights_of_indigenous_people_and_the_rest_of_us.html

In early 2011, President Obama announced that the United States would sign the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Now the U.N. wants us to give Mt. Rushmore to the Indians. James Anaya, U.N. special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, spent twelve days in the U.S. meeting with representatives of Native Americans. Returning to Geneva, he urged the government to turn over control of lands considered sacred to the tribes, including the Mt. Rushmore site.

It was bound to happen.

With typical overstatement, the president said as he announced U.S. participation in the Declaration, “The aspiration it affirms, including respect for the institutions and rich cultures of native peoples, are ones we must always seek to fulfill.”

Always? Americans happily adapt and adopt parts of other people’s cultures (Chinese food unlike anything served in Beijing, pizza Italians wouldn’t recognize, St. Patrick’s Day and Cinco de Mayo parties) and respect other parts (forms of dress, holy days and fasting for Ramadan). But there are aspects of “native” cultures that simply do not warrant respect: honor killings, female genital mutilation, slavery, stripping trees for cooking fuel, clubbing baby seals, and governance by the sword come to mind.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_stealth_legitimacy_of_j_street.html

Did you know that J Street — which is a political lobbying organization (please, let’s acknowledge it already) — is launching a new national election-year initiative? The people at J Street have plans to train the organization’s supporters to lobby for the candidates they support and to ensure the defeat of candidates supported by “right-wing Republican” Jews in this year’s presidential election. Perhaps that doesn’t surprise you, but what if you learned that some of those political training sessions were taking place in your local synagogues (Chicago and San Francisco), or Jewish community centers (Nashville and Minneapolis), or even your local Federation building (Philadelphia)?

A recent e-mail from Carinne Luck, J Street’s vice president for campaigns, announced the launch of a new J Street initiative, “Future of Pro-Israel.” Luck describes this purely political election-year initiative as J Street’s effort to set a new course in “national and communal politics.” Luck labels it a direct response to donations by two Jewish millionaires to two political organizations of Republican candidates for U.S. president. J Street makes no effort to conceal where donations to counter Republican support are supposed to go, but let’s spell it out: if you oppose people supporting Republican candidates, including the man who is the presumptive Republican nominee, where does one suppose your financial support is going to go? Here’s a hint: it’s going to an eight-letter word starting with D, and it isn’t Dinosaur.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3055/mexican-jihad

“Our porous southern border is a nightmare waiting to happen.”

As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it might do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da’wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, to simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.

According to a 2010 report, “Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border,” which appeared in the NY Daily News:

Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana, right across the border from Texas and closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.

Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, “with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen.” This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah’s strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants’ country of origin.

http://sarahhonig.com/2012/05/11/another-tack-dishonest-and-disgusting/

Back in 1942, George Orwell pointed out matter-of-factly that “so-called peace propaganda is just as dishonest and intellectually disgusting as war propaganda. Like war propaganda it concentrates on putting forward a ‘case,’ obscuring the opponent’s point of view and avoiding awkward questions. The line normally followed is ‘those who fight Fascism become Fascist themselves.’”

Just substitute “terrorist” for the “Fascist” or “Nazi” in Orwell’s text.

We have no way of telling whether said text was perused by Zeev Degani, current principal of Gymnasia Herzliya (the Herzliya Hebrew Gymnasium, or in its Hebrew moniker, HaGymnasia HaIvrit Herzliya). If he didn’t read this particular Orwell essay in the Partisan Review, Degani should.

Peace-propagandists, Orwell noted therein, “evade quite obvious objections” with “propaganda-tricks” which include “pooh-poohing the actual record of Fascism,” while “systematically exaggerating” alleged “Fascizing processes” within Allied ranks.

Orwell was intrigued by the “psychological processes by which pacifists who started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism.”

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/teaching-muslim-children-jihad-and-jew-hatred-in-toronto-%e2%80%a6-correctly/ A complaint filed by Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has prompted an investigation of the East End Madrassah, an Islamic school which operates out of a public high school in Toronto, the David and Mary Thomson Collegiate Institute. As reported by the National Post [1], East End Madrassah’s level 8 […]

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/19717-The-Renewed-American-Revolution-The-9th-Amendment.html
The Renewed American Revolution: The 9th Amendment

With the enlargement of federal powers and intrusions into individual’s lives, the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution, part of our Bill Of Rights, may well gain more judicial attention. The 9th Amendment should be elevated to central prominence, as it was intended, in applying judgment of all federal legislation, regulations and actions. Our revolution is based in restriction of central powers and must again be reignited to, no exaggeration, save our liberties.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th Amendment is the least cited or relied upon in Supreme Court cases. The lack of agreement among constitutional scholars as to the specific meaning of the 9th Amendment is largely the reason. This lack of agreement also exceeds the general lack of agreement – usually along liberal and conservative lines – as to many other sections of the Constitution. Focus on transgressions of the first eight Amendments, more specific as to particular rights, and cases specifically concerned with how broad should be an enumerated (listed) power, was usually enough until now.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46588

In 1960, as a young wife living with my husband on his Ivy League campus, I had a front-row seat when the Feminist Movement made its debut. I was doing nothing, according to Obama mouthpiece Hilary Rosen, because, after all, caring for our infant son, taking care of our home, and supporting the efforts of my equally hard-working husband Steve, was—ala Rosen’s characterization of worthy activity—the very definition of sloth.

After all, if Ann Romney, raising five sons, “never worked a day in her life,” as Ms. Rosen recently told a panel of slavering Obama acolytes on CNN, then my friends and I were certainly sleep-walking through our days.

Rosen’s remark was as repulsive to me as it was to most people. But it wasn’t surprising, any more than, say, watching a rhinoceros at the Bronx Zoo roll around in the mud, or a predatory scorpion spew lethal toxins into its prey. That is simply what those species do, just as the leftist species to which Rosen clearly belongs routinely engage in mean-spirited insults—particularly toward attractive, accomplished, and happily married Republican women. They truly can’t help themselves. Like Pavlov’s dogs, the Rosen species has a visceral, Tourette’s-like response that is usually delivered with a patronizing smirk, the better to conceal the near-hysteria they feel at the threat the Ann Romneys of the world represent to their very being.

But where did this species come from? Rosen is only the latest in a long line of angry lefties who, for the most part, have contaminated the public discourse. You have to go back 50 years to fully grasp the genesis of Rosen’s fuming, intolerant, envious brand of leftism.

1960, significantly, was the year that the Food and Drug Administration approved the birth-control pill developed by Harvard’s Dr. John Rock. For the first time in human history, women had just about foolproof control over reproduction. In America, this was celebrated by the women who would come to be known as feminists as the opportunity to be as promiscuous as the men they resented but secretly envied.

Watch video: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-turned-filmmaker-david-mamet-from-brain-dead-liberal-to-conservative/
GBTV What Turned Filmmaker David Mamet From ‘Brain Dead Liberal’ to Conservative?

Appearing on The Glenn Beck Program Wednesday evening, award-winning author, producer and director David Mamet discussed his latest book, “The Secret Knowledge” with guest host Andrew Wilkow. The work chronicles Mamet‘s transition from liberal to conservative and explains the reasons for the famed writer’s awakening.

Mamet solidified his place in American film and theater with such works as Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict, Wag the Dog, and The Untouchables and had frequently included typical liberal themes throughout his screenplays — that is until he made the conversion.

In a now-infamous op-ed for The Village Voice in 2008, “Why I am no Longer a Brain Dead Liberal,’” Mamet revealed that essentially, he had been living a lie for most of his life, as the liberal beliefs he held fast to in his mind were not actually reflected in his day-to-day words and deeds. He wrote that after being prompted by his rabbi to engage in dialogue with those who sit on the opposite side of the ideological aisle, he recognized that he held two opposite views of America: One of a state “where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).” After this revelation, Mamet realized that the time had come to acknowledge he was in fact part of the latter version of America.

After reading the works of economists Thomas Sowell, who he called “our greatest contemporary philosopher,” and Milton Friedman among others, Mamet found that he “agreed with them.”

http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/polanski-dreyfuss.php
WHO WILL PLAY THEODOR HERZL WHOSE DETERMINATION TO REVIVE ISRAEL WAS FUELED BY HIS PRESENCE AT THE DREYFUSS TRIAL?….RSK

One of the most tragic injustices in modern Jewish history is about to become a major motion picture, to be directed by acclaimed and controversial director Roman Polanski.

Alfred Dreyfus, a late 19th century French military officer, was a model of assimilation for the French Jewish community until he was framed for treason and sent to Devil’s Island.
For over a decade, the Dreyfus family and a growing body of supporters expoused the officer’s innocence and fought for his release. The most famous of them was Emile Zola, whose legendary polemic “J’Accuse” became a landmark in the battle against European antisemitism.

After 12 years of campaigning, Dreyfus’s innocence was finally proven and he was released. But the case had already split France down the middle, becoming a flashpoint for the battle between the political left and right, reactionaries and revolutionaries, liberals and conservatives, militarists and their opponents; and, most of all, between antisemites and those who fought for equal rights and tolerance.

At the same time, the Dreyfus case sparked the modern Zionist movement. Theodore Herzl was a young Viennese journalist who covered the Dreyfus case, and the ferocious antisemitism he witnessed in a country that was ostensibly a model of modernity and tolerance led him to write the seminal text of political Zionism, Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”).

Polanski, a secular Jew, may be the perfect director for such a story, as he has been a victim of an antisemitism perhaps even more virulent than that faced by Dreyfus. During World War II, he survived the Krakow Ghetto by living as a street child, scavenging food and shelter while dodging the German soldiers who used him for target practice. His mother was murdered in Auschwitz.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304451104577387870788041912.html

The U.S. leads the world in medical technology. A punitive new excise levy jeopardizes jobs and innovation.

Much of the political conversation in Washington these days concerns innovation, job creation and competitiveness. But talk is cheap, and elected officials must enact policies that enhance economic activity and job creation. The medical device industry is an example of Washington doing exactly the opposite.

Medical device manufacturing is one of the nation’s most dynamic and vibrant industries. The United States is the global leader in medical technology innovation, and it is one of the few major industries with a net trade surplus. This industry is responsible for more than 400,000 American jobs—and is indirectly responsible for almost two million more that supply and support this highly skilled workforce. Most important, its products are essential elements of modern medical care. They include everything from CT scanners and pacemakers to blood pressure cuffs and robots used by surgeons.

Yet instead of protecting this paragon of American ingenuity and innovation, the Obama administration and Congress have viewed the industry as a cash cow from which they could milk profits to help pay for the president’s health law. So they added to the Affordable Care Act a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices that will take effect at the beginning of 2013.