Benjamin Netenyahu's Speech to Congress

Benjamin Netenyahu gave these quotes at the end of his speech to the combined houses of Congress.

Deuteronomy 31:6

 חִזְקוּ וְאִמְצוּ, אַל-תִּירְאוּ וְאַל-תַּעַרְצוּ מִפְּנֵיהֶם:

"Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them"

The full video of the speech can be found at
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wRf1cdw4IAY?autoplay=1

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress Tuesday about the emerging nuclear deal with Iran.

Here is the full transcript:

Thank you  Thank you…

… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.   I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.  I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.

My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.  I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.  I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.  Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.  We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.  Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.  I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.  In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.  Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.  In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.  And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.  And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways.  Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.  Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.

My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.  We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.  The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology.  He tweets that Israel must be annihilated.  You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy.  He said, "If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world."  But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem.  The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II.  So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations.  But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.  That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark.  America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.  Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier.

That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.  Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.  So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.  Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!  Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.  Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.  Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.  So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.  The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.  Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.  According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.  And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.  True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors.

But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.  Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.  Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010.  Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.  Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.  Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.”

Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.  Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.  Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.  And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb. 

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?  Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?  This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own.  So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse.  A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.  Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.  Thank you.  If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.  If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.  My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.
Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.  And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.  My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal.

Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.  Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.  The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.  A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.  A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…
… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.  The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.  Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”  And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.  Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.  We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.  But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.  I know that you stand with Israel.

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW - SEE ABOVE.), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You’re wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

71 Years Ago Today

Greetings:

71 years ago today, it will be 0000Z (UK Time, or GMT) in about 10 minutes at the time of this writing.  The greatest armada that the world has ever seen is just steaming out of all of the ports in England.  The ones on the western side started early, probably about an hour ago.  The ones on the eastern side are just casting off their ropes.  The invasion fleet was drawn from eight different navies composed of 6,939 vessels that included:

• 1,213 warships
• 4,126 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft), and 
• 736 ancillary craft and 
• 864 merchant vessels.^[17]

On board the ships are about 130,000 men with rifles, pistols, sub-machine guns, machine guns, tanks, jeeps, bazookas, Bangalore Torpedoes, ammo and nobody has a bullet-proof vest.  Most have on a Mae West, a life jacket of sorts that will not, contrary to what they have been told, keep them afloat with all of the stuff that they are carrying.  But, they trust in the CO and faithfully put on their Mae West hoping that they don't have to use it.  By the end of 11 June 1944, (D + 5), 326,547 troops, the Allies had brought over 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies.  By 30 June 1944, (D+24) over 850,000 men, 148,000 vehicles, and 570,000 tons of supplies had been ferried over from England.  By July 4th (the anniversary of American Independence) well over one million men had been landed at Normandy. 


Meanwhile, on the other side of the English Channel, most of the German officers and generals are taking a bit of time off.  Genral Irwin Rommel, the man in charge of the Normandy defense, has gone home to see his wife and Der Fuehrer Adolph Hitler.  You see, most of the German weather boats have been sunk or captured but, for some reason, they are absolutely sure that in this foul weather that nobody can mount an invasion.

But the Allies have better reporting.  They have a forecast that there will be a small break in the weather on the 6th of June.  So, betting on a spotty-at-best forecast, General Dwight David Eisenhower orders the invasion.  Having all of the troops already on the ships and planes, having followup troops already staging and on the way, it would have been impossible to call it off.  Looking back, early May would have been the absolute best time to have invaded.  The Allies were just fortunate that they got a small, one-day break in the weather.  And, above all, it was the best kept secret of WW II.  Nobody in England had a clue WHEN the invasion would happen, but it will happen in a few hours.

I think about this every year.  You see, my Dad (MSgt Carl P. Owen of the First Special Service Forces - precursors to the Green Berets) and my Uncle Bill (TSgt William L. Leach) were both in WW II.  At this point in time, Dad was battling his way up through Italy having started at the Anzio beachhead.  My Uncle Bill was in the 82nd Airborne and he had already geared up and was in the plane by this time.  Nervous as Hell and, like all of the other men (despite what Holly would have you believe) NONE of them would admit to being scared.  That kind of namby-pamby BS happens only in the "modern" army or in Hollywood.  Back then, you did not show fear.  Fear is contagious and NOBODY showed that he was scared as hell.  And all of them, except for the "crazies", were scared.  Personally, I think that Uncle Bill was one of the "crazies."  I know that Dad was.  :-)

In about six hours, midnight my time, the Allies will open up with 15" and 16" battle ship guns.  The shell was almost as big as a Volkswagen bug.   When it went over the boats going ashore, the men in the boats said that the small landing craft would literally lift up out of the water because of the tremendous vacuum created by a shell that big going going that fast just overhead.  (OK, maybe so, maybe not - but it really was a huge shell!)  But the German bunkers were built really, really stout.  Very few were destroyed by the shelling.  However, when that 14", 15" or 16" shell hit those bunkers it deafened those inside.  No sound deafening had been provided.

The American forces landed at Omaha and Utah beaches - the most heavily defended coast line.  The foul weather had prevented the Allies from pounding those defenses as much as was needed and most were still intact.  And the Allies paid dearly for it.  Rommel had done an excellent job of ensuring that not a single foot of the beach could not be raked with 9mm and 10mm machine gun fire as well as 20mm and 40mm rapid-fire cannons.  The British and Canadians landed at Sword, Gold and Juno beaches.  These were not quite as heavily defended.  Most of the gun emplacements did not even have the guns mounted yet.  However, they paid later when they ran into the interior German armies.

Intermixed with these assaults (usually with the English landing parties) are the Canadians, Australians, Free French, Belgian, Czechoslovakians, Netherlands, Danish, Greek, New Zelanders, Norwegian and Polish.  No mention of the Swedes, Spanish, Turkish, Mexican nor any other South American nation has ever been made.  Probably there were some, but not enough to have been mentioned.

To quote from Wikipedia:

---------
The Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history, with nearly 5,000 landing and assault craft, 289 escort vessels, and 277 minesweepers participating.^[183] Nearly 160,000 troops crossed the English Channel on D-Day,^[29] with 875,000 men disembarking by the end of June.^[184] Allied casualties on the first day were at least 10,000, with 4,414 confirmed dead.^[185] The Germans lost 1,000 men.^[186] The Allied invasion plans had called for the capture of Carentan, St. Lô, Caen, and Bayeux on the first day, with all the beaches (other than Utah) linked with a front line 10 to 16 kilometres (6 to 10 mi) from the beaches; none of these objectives were achieved.^[32] The five bridgeheads were not connected until 12 June, by which time the Allies held a front around 97 kilometres (60 mi) long and 24 kilometres (15 mi) deep.^[187] Caen, a major objective, was still in German hands at the end of D-Day and would not be completely captured until 21 July.^[188] The Germans had ordered French civilians, other than those deemed essential to the war effort, to leave potential combat zones in Normandy.^[189] Civilian casualties on D-Day and D+1 are estimated at 3,000 people.^[190]

Victory in Normandy stemmed from several factors. German preparations along the Atlantic Wall were only partially finished; shortly before D-Day Rommel reported that construction was only 18 per cent complete in some areas as resources were diverted elsewhere.^[191] The deceptions undertaken in Operation Fortitude were successful, leaving the Germans obligated to defend a huge stretch of coastline.^[192] The Allies achieved and maintained air superiority, which meant that the Germans were unable to make observations of the preparations underway in Britain and were unable to interfere with bomber attacks.^[193] Transportation infrastructure in France was severely disrupted by Allied bombers and the French Resistance, making it difficult for the Germans to bring up reinforcements and supplies.^[194] Some of the opening bombardment was off-target or not concentrated enough to have any impact,^[149] but the specialised armour worked well except on Omaha, providing close artillery support for the troops as they disembarked onto the beaches.^[195] Indecisiveness and an overly complicated command structure on the part of the German high command was also a factor in the Allied success.^[196]
---------

There are several really good links that tell about this day.  Some are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings
http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/Normandy/asltforce.html
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/d-day

Two GREAT movies about D-Day are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longest_Day_%28film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan

And then there is D-Day, the movie
http://en.dday-normandy1944.com/D-Day-1944-the-film/home-2.html


Check out some of the other references at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings#Further_reading

But, remember of these men who went ashore close to 10,000 men died on that day and close to 1 million Allied military men died by the end of the June - died so that we could live in peace.  If you see a soldier, marine, coast guard sailor, navy sailor or airman, THANK THEM for being there then and here today.  Buy their breakfast, lunch or supper if you see them in a restaurant. 

See you in December:

Shalom
Ya'akov

Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche

Greetings:

For those who regularly visit my almost hidden-from-view postings, I thought that we might revisit Bernstein's now-famous (infamous) take-off from "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" book.  

REAL PROGRAMMERS DON'T EAT QUICHE

Real programmers don't eat quiche. They like Twinkies, Coke, and palate-scorching Szechwan food.

Real programmers don't write application programs. They program right down to the base-metal. Application programming is for dullards who can't do systems programming.

Real programmers don't write specs. Users should be grateful for whatever they get; they are lucky to get programs at all.

Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be even harder to understand and modify.

Real programmers don't document. Documentation is for simpletons who can't read listing or the object code from the dump.

Real programmers don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the illiterate's form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how much good it did them.

Real programmers don't read manuals. Reliance on a reference is the hallmark of the novice and the coward.

Real programmers don't write in RPG. RPG is for the gum-chewing dimwits who maintain ancient payroll programs.

Real programmers don't write in COBOL. COBOL is for COmmon Business Oriented Laymen who can run neither a business nor a real program.

Real programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks. They get excited over the finite state analysis and nuclear reactor simulation.

Real programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for insecure anal retentives who can't choose between COBOL and FORTRAN.

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers program in BASIC after reaching puberty.

Real programmers don't write in APL unless the whole program can be written on one line.

Real programmers don't write in LISP. Only sissy programs contain more parentheses than actual code.

Real programmers don't write in PASCAL, ADA, BLISS, or any of those other sissy computer science languages. Strong typing is a crutch for people with weak memories.

Real programmers' programs never work right the first time. But if you throw them on the machine they can be patched into working order in a few 30 hour debugging sessions.

Real programmers don't work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 A.M., it is because they were up all night. 

Real programmers don't play tennis or any other sport which requires a change of clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and real programmers wear climbing boots to work in case a mountain should spring up in the middle of the machine room.

Real programmers disdain structured programming. Structured programming is for compulsive neurotics who were prematurely toilet trained. They wear neckties and carefully line up sharp pencils on an otherwise clear desk.

Real programmers don't like the team programming concept. Unless, of course, they are the chief programmer.

Real programmers never write memos on paper. They send memos via mail.

Real programmers have no use for managers. Managers are a necessary evil. They exist only to deal with personnel bozos, bean counters, senior planners and other mental midgets.

Real programmers scorn floating point arithmetic. The decimal point was invented for pansy bedwetters who are unable to think big.

Real programmers don't believe in schedules. Planners make schedules. Managers firm up schedules. Frightened coders strive to meet schedules. Real programmers ignore schedules.


Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine sells it, they eat it. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche. 

I added the emphasis but thanks to http://www.bernstein-plus-sons.com/RPDEQ.html for the "real deal" quote.  Loved it.

Ya'akov

Apple Streatches the Truth - Just a bit...

Greetings:

OK, new OS X has been out for a while now so I thinks to my self think I that I shall upgrade my MacBookPro to the latest and greatest.  But I did stop to read the comments.  Apple said that the comments were running about 4.2 or something out of 5.0 possible.  Cool, thinks I to m'self.  So I went to read of the glowing comments.  Here is how 17 of them lined up.

	Comments on upgrades to Apple Yosimite					Total
Score	1	2	3	4	5
Number of Ratings	13			1	3	17
Number * Score	13	0	0	4	15	32
Average Score						1.882352941
	2 hours to install			So far so good	Amazing
	Chrome does not work				Great job
	Missing applications				Runs great on my PC  ???
	Three hous to downloand and will not install
	Error in installing
	Slow
	Won't download for Mac Mini
	WiFi disconnects evry 4-5 min
	Cannot get it to download
	Won't download
	Bad design.  And I can't UN-Install
	Won't download
	Won't download

The comments under the score of 1 are how 13 of the comments lined up.  Not very flattering.  I think the one where the person said that they had missing applications was the most disturbing.  The others were that it took so long to install.  Now, admittedly, that person or persons might have had a really slow internet connection.  At any rate, what I saw (and only 17 most recent comments were viewable) was that Apple only scored about a 1.89 / 5.00.  That is a D+ or C-, depending on the curve.  (I figure that anything below a 1.0 is an F and anything between 1.00 and 1.99 is a D so that would be D+, right?)

What I did see was that those three persons with a good experience were all 5s and one 4.  No 2s.  No 3s.  Only one 4.  And only three 5s.  Well, anyway, just to prove that I do not have lot of common sense, I updated my iPhone to 8.1.1 - So far, so goo.  It took over two hours to download and install.  I am running at 15Mb from my IP so that might have something to do with it but everything else download rather quickly - even very large 250MB files take only a few minutes to download.  Maybe it is the iPhone itself that is so blinking slow...

Shalom,
James

Benchmarks 2015

Greetings:

Yes, we will be doing benchmarks for 2015 with a presentation (maybe) at either Decision Camp 2014 and/or at Business Rules and Decisions Forum 2015.  In either case, I would like to have a panel discussion  of some kind after the one-hour (or less) presentation, much like we did back in BRF 2006.  Back then, it was a two-hour afternoon presentation that year when Dr. Forgy (PST OPSJ), Dr. Friedman-Hill (Sandia Labs Jess), Mark Proctor (Red Hat Rules and Drools), Daniel Selman (ILOG JRules now IBM ODM) and Pedram Abrari (Corticon) were all on the panel.  My part should be far briefer since all I want to do is to introduce the concept of BRMS/RuleBase benchmarks, show what we have done over the years, where we are today, and then moderate the panel discussion.

Maybe this year we could expand to 10 representatives comprised of the above plus Gary Riley (NASA CLIPS), Dr. Jacob Feldman (Open Rules), D/M/M X (Visual Rules), Carlos Seranno-Morales (Sparkling Logic SMARTS), D/M/M X (FICO Blaze Advisor).  The more participants the more confusion but I will do my best to moderate and not let someone "hog" the microphone nor to interrupt others until they are finished without being heavy-handed.

I will probably send out invitations to all of them and ask that they be represented.  Likely, only those blatantly opposed to benchmarks of any kind or those champions of the past years will be there so it should be a lively discussion. 

Another thing that I have done in the past was to allow only those "interpreted" version of the rulebase to run.  This year the vendor will be allowed to use the compiled Java version as well as "interpreted" version of the rulebase.  I will try and run both versions if available and will report on the difference in two different tables, one compiled and the other interpreted.  The interpreted versions will probably be a bit smaller since most modern rulebases do not run an interpreted version, only the compiled Java or Compiled-C/C++ versions.

Me?  I really like the idea of "Standardized" Benchmark(s) where everyone can compete with whatever rules they like so long as it solves the problem.  I am not a fan of micro-benchmarks since they do not measure the overall performance of the engine.  The old OPS-type benchmarks were, seemingly, deliberately designed wrong just to task the engine by loading and unloading the Agenda Table with as much junk as possible.  Probably I will still run the Waltz-50, WaltzDB-16 and WaltzDB-200 and add the Cliques and Vector Cover benchmarks.  Both of the latter are NP-Hard benchmarks and are, for all practical purposes, impossible to cheat.  And the vendors will have a free hand with the last two.

The first three are standard and will be dependent only on the Conflict Resolution Process (CRP), as so adroitly pointed out by Gary Riley at http://rileyonlife.blogspot.com/2014/05/river-benchmark.html .  As Gary pointed out there, the speed of the benchmark is highly dependent on the CRP but it also dependent on the number and type of CPUs used, the Hard Drive type and speed, the amount of RAM used and the command line used in either Java or CLIPS to give the process the "correct" amount of RAM and Swap space.  The original code for all of the OPS benchmarks are at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/ftp/ops5-benchmark-suite/ if you want to start at ground zero.

Oh, one other thing:  Later (probably in June or July) I will publish what I have so far on the benchmarks and try to get some suggestions on improving them, discarding them or adding other benchmarks that are more "real world" (as some have suggested.)  If you want the full nitty-gritty please request such in the comments section and I will send you one.   I do not plan on publishing them until the conference.

Shalom,
James

Not Really Appropriate - Part One

Greetings:

By "Not Really Appropriate" I mean that this is not the appropriate blog for this subject.  But, since I have WAY more readers on this blog than the "Nothing Technical" blog, and since I feel the need to get information out, I am using my technical blog.  There!

A long time ago, my step-son developed Phlebitis, an inflammation of the leg vessels.   Eddie was both a high-line worker (HV lines that run across the country) and later a truck driver, and this was extremely painful, but he endured it for many years - after all, he was a Country Boy and everyone knows that Country Boys are tough.  Eventually, he had to quit both jobs because of the pain and seek treatment.

Since he did not have health insurance, and, at the time, I had a bit of extra cash, I tried to pay for his treatments.  I even found a clinic in Southampton, UK, where they specialize in this one problem.  But he was fiercely independent and he went to a "Charity" hospital in Monroe, Louisiana, where he could get treatment and not have to pay for it.  It was there where a "quack" doctor from India ripped out the clogged veins.  He agreed to the procedure because the pain was excruciating and the doctor had assured him that this was the only solution.  Unfortunately, that was not a good idea.  It was a TERRIBLE idea.

He still had the pain and now his left leg would swell up to twice the size of the right leg.  It was normal size when he woke up in the morning but from the time that he got up and walked to the kitchen for coffee it had swollen and pain started for the day.  "The Pain" was constant and there was little relief, not even from the machine that they provided that "squeezed" the blood from heel to knee.  He had to wear size 3X running pants and his left leg filled up entire leg part in the left side.  It was a miserable life.  They (the quack doctors in Louisiana) gave him Hydrocodone 5, three times a day, for the pain but never did "fix" the legs.  But the Hydrocodone 5 didn't cut it.  That stuff is just a bit stronger than asprin.  He asked for more or something stronger but they said that they did not want to get him addicted to the pain killers.  (I take Hydrocodone 10 for migraines and it is not addictive!)  So, in his own youthful wisdom, he supplemented it with Jack Daniels three times a day.  Not what you would call  a "drunk" or even a "drinker" but not good when mixed with pain killers and cirrhosis.  

For many months he lived hand-to-mouth and with assistance from myself and his mother.  Finally, the State of Louisiana declared him to be disabled and he began to receive about $650 per month.  This barely covered his rent, gas for an old pickup, and food.  No movies.  No going out to supper.  No dates.  None of that.  Whenever I had a good month, which was frequent during some years,  I gave him what I could in cash. I tried and his mother tried to get him to move to Fort Worth where he would live with and the rent and food was free, Texas has MUCH better doctors, etc.    But, he had many friends out where he lived in Farmerville, LA, an he really loved living on the lake.

Eventually, as his health began to deteriorate, his mother bought a mobile home and moved near where he lived so that she could help take care of him when he needed it.  After about living there for three years, Eddie finally had to move in with his mother so that she could take care of him.  His weight over the years due to water-retention went slowly from  225 to 250 to 300 to 350 and, near the end, something over 400 pounds.   At the end, he could not walk without a walker to help him get around.  I won't bore you with the details, but eventually he had to be hospitalized for his problems again.  And, again, his mother cared for him even in the hospital because the hospitals there were pretty much third-world quality.

The State of Louisiana did send a technician around once a week to check his vitals and, on one visit, the technician told his mother that if Eddie did not get to the hospital right away he would die.  After many rounds of antibiotics  and bed rest, he made it back.  But the doctor told his mother that he probably would not live out the year due to the cirrhosis problem.  Sure enough, about three months later the paramedics had to take him to the hospital again where he lived only until the next morning.  By this time his kidneys had shut down completely and he was not in his right mind.  He never regained consciousness while at the hospital; which was a blessing for both him and his mom.

What was the solution?  First, not hiring quacks at public hospitals.  Secondly, had they given him enough pain killers (Norco-10 or equivalent) he might have developed a dependency on it but he would not have had to turn to Jack Daniels for help.  Think about this for a moment:  I am dependent on Metformin 1000mg twice daily for my diabetes - am I addicted to Metformin?  I sincerely believe that had they counseled him correctly, given him enough pain medication to kill the pain (or severely reduce it) then he might have lived a much longer, much better life.  I still believe that the doctors in Louisiana killed my step-son.

So, what should you take away from this little diatribe?  Don't trust doctors!  Get a second or third opinion if one of them recommends any kind of procedure that involves cutting anything on your body!  This includes backs, knees, necks and any other part of your anatomy.  Secondly, pain killers are here for a reason - to reduce pain.  When my wife had her knee replaced, they kept her on pain killers in the hospital, again in the rehab facility and still some more here at home.  The new theory is that you cannot heal as quickly while you are in pain.  Lower pain means faster healing.  Had those quacks in Louisiana followed that line of thought for Eddie, he might still be alive and very well today.

And, yes, there is a part two of this diatribe which will come later.  But, for now, trust no one!  Especially doctors who do not speak English very well or who look like they should be in high-school.

Ya'akov

It's HERE! Decision Camp 2014 !!

Greetings, Programs:
(MCP in move, "Tron")

OK- Decision Camp 2014 starts tomorrow!
If
     ! DC2014.there()
Then
     U.B^2

OK, that was bad even for me.  :-)  Seriously, if you live ANYWHERE in Silly Valley, you really need to take some time to attend the Decision Camp 2014 being held at Pay Pal in San José, CA.  Even if you do not live in Silly Valley, you might want to attend just because of all of the really great speakers who will be there.  Check out the Agenda on the home page, http://www.Decision-Camp.com and see for yourself.

OK, if you do not want to hunt for them, I will tell you about some of them:

• Doug Beeferman, Sift Science
• Carole Ann Berlioz-Matignon, Co-Founder and CEO of Sparkling Logic
• Matthew M. Burton, M.D., Mayo Clinic
• Erwin De Ley, iSencia Belgium
•  Mariano Nicolas De Maio, PlugTree (and Drools Engineer) 
• Dr. Jacob Feldman,Founder and CTO, Open Rules
• Dr. Charles Forgy, Inventor of Rete, Rete 2, Rete III, Rete NT and now Co-Founder and Chief Scientist with Sparkling Logic
• Dr. Marcia Gottgtroy, Inland Revenue New Zealand
•  Alex Karman, Revolutionary Machines
• Colleen McClintock, Co-Founder and Product Manager at Sparkling Logic
• Erik Marutian
• James Owen, Founder and CEO of KnowledgeBased Systems Corporation
• Mark Proctor, Co-Founder of Drools, Red Hat Platform Architect- aka Drools and Red Hat Rules
• Chris Purdum, PayPal
• Howard Rogers, RapidGen Software
• Kenny Shi,Engineering Manager for UBER Technologies
•  Carlos Seranno-Morales, Co-Founder and Chief Architect at Sparkling Logic
• James Taylor, Founder, Decision Management Systems
• Tobias Vigmostad, Decisive AS

There, now you do not have to go look them up.  BUT, if you want to know more about them (other than they are the industry leaders in Decisioning and RuleBased (aka, BRMS) Systems, then visit the web page above and take a look.

See you in San Jose?

Shalom,
James

BAD iOS 8

Greetings:

I received this from Chelanie Israel this morning.  If you are running a recent iPhone and want to upgrade to iOS 8 - OR - if you updated to iOS8 already, PLEASE read the following message (onlhy slightly edited for content and space).

===================================
iOS UPATE:  The update (8.02) to the bad code was released Thursday night (9/25/14) about 10 pm. I have tested the new update and we are ready to update iOS devices (iPads and iPhones) from 8.0 to 8.02 or you can move from 7 to 8.02 safely. Please do so as quickly as you can.

FYI: The original code that was effected was 8.01. It was released Thursday morning (9/25/14) at 6:00 am CST and pulled from the Apple servers at 9:00 am CST.

On the same note there is a vulnerability that was found early yesterday and confirmed all

• Linux
• BSD
• MacOS
• iOS if Jailbroken
• Android with bash services turned on
• Windows machines running IISS (server software).

If you haven’t upgraded to iOS 8.02, please do so as this will protect your iPads and iPhones (which are not suppose to be effected, but this is something that is being suggested by Apple), if you have a jailbroken phone, you will need to restore your iPhone to factory settings until they can fix the cydia breakpoint.

All versions of MacOS are vulnerable at this point. I have a call with Apple this morning (9/26/14) to find out if they will have a software update today.  So far, nothing.  I will be updating both of my servers this evening.

All versions of Mac OS Computers have the Shellshock vulnerability. However, some are more susceptible than others. To be completely safe you will need to update your bash (part of your command line from the BSD which is part of your operating system) from 3.2.51 to 3.2.53. This is done via one of two ways:

1. You can manually update the machine through the terminal
2. You can use the software update to do the update when it is available.  It looks as though this will be sometime within the next week.

Most personal machines are not vulnerable to Shellshock as someone would have to crack the firewall or router to which you are connected, to access your machine.  If you are only accessing the internet via your home or office network, then you have reasonable safety.  If you have a double firewall, again you have reasonable safety, but your machine is still vulnerable to Shellshock.

You can also make sure that Sharing, Remote Login and Remote Management are turned off. Although this helps, this does not fix the vulnerability to Shellshock.

The reason you may want to update manually is because your machine either sits on the web for people to access (i.e. servers) or you travel and use public WiFi (i.e. hotels, McDonald's, Starbucks, etc) often. If you are using a private MiFi device, that is not a public WiFi.

What is Shellshock? It is a vulnerability or hole in the code that allows someone to take over your computer without you giving them permission. It is definitely something that needs to be protected from.

______________________________________
Chelanie Israel aka Miss Mac

email:    chelanie@missmac.ch • missmac@mac.com
web:    http://www.designbymissmac.com
blog:    http://www.dearmissmac.com
twitter:     MissMacsMuses
                c: 214.718.1967  • f: 469.327.0843

======================================
Later on Chelanie sent this out:

From a terminal window:

$ mkdir bash-fix
$ cd bash-fix
$ curl https://opensource.apple.com/tarballs/bash/bash-92.tar.gz | tar zxf -
$ cd bash-92/bash-3.2
$ curl https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-3.2-patches/bash32-052 | patch -p0   
$ # Note: The bash23-053 patch does not apply cleanly on OSX because
$ # of a missing y.tab.c file. This can be ignored or the alblue
$ # one used instead. Upstream commits the y.tab.c file so doesn't
$ # have that problem.
$ # Not-yet-released-patch - replace alblue.bandlem.com line with:
$ # curl https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/bash/bash-3.2-patches/bash32-053 | patch -p0 
$ curl http://alblue.bandlem.com/bash32-053.patch | patch -p0
$ cd ..
$ sudo xcodebuild
$ sudo cp /bin/bash /bin/bash.old
$ sudo cp /bin/sh /bin/sh.old
$ build/Release/bash --version # GNU bash, version 3.2.53(1)-release
$ build/Release/sh --version   # GNU bash, version 3.2.53(1)-release
$ sudo cp build/Release/bash /bin
$ sudo cp build/Release/sh /bin

To verify it worked:

$ bash --version

Source: http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/146849/how-do-i-recompile-bash-to-avoid-shellshock-the-remote-exploit-cve-2014-6271-an


======================================

Here is a link to an InfoWorld article on Shellshock:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2687975/security/four-no-bull-facts-to-know-about-the-shellshock-bash-bug.html

 I hope this helps some of you.  If not, contact Apple Support - if you can get through their clogged telephone lines right now.  And, as normal, it is a crisis with the weekend coming up.

Shalom
Ya'akov

Wet Blankets Throughout History

Greetings:

To help develop an open-minded and defiant attitude to other' rejection of your ideas, remember that many creative contributions are initially met with skepticism if not outright hostility.  Keep a list of creative contributions that we now know to be significant but that were once thought to be crazy, stupid, useless, offensive and doomed to failure.  The next time you or someone you know has an idea, give an idea a chance - or at least to not immediately shoot it down - than to be one of those who always say, "That wor't work." or "That is a bad idea" or "That is too risky" and, hence, never do anything great.  Here are some examples to begin your list:

• "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communications.  The device is inherently of no value to us." [Western Union internal memo, 1876]
• "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value.  Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" [David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920's]
• "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." [A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service.  Smith on on to found Federal Express Corp.]
• "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" [H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927]
• "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper."  [Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."]
• "A cookie store is a bad idea.  Besides, the market research reports say American likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you made." [Response to Debbie Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields's Cookies]
• "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." [Decca Recording Company rejecting the Beatles, 1962]
• "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." [Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895]
• "If I had thought about, I wouldn't have doen the experiment.  The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."  [Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesive for 3-M "Post-It" notepads.]
• "So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you thing about funding us?  Or, we'sll give it to you.  We just want to do it.  Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.'  And they said, 'No.'  So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you.  You havent' got through college yet.' "  Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer.
• Professor Goddard does not know the relations between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react.  He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." [1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.]
• "Your want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of uyour muscles?  It can't be done.  It just a fact of life.  You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training." [Resons to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolvable" problem by inventing Nautilus.]
• "Drill for oil?  You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?  You're crazy!" [Drillers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.]

I am not sure of the original author of the above but this went the rounds when I was at FedEx back in 1995-1997.  I think that Fred Smith must have been the instigator but we could never prove it.  :-)  If you have any more "documented" Wet Blankets, please send them to me or post them in the comments section.  Thanks,

Shalom,
James

Where Can I Find a Good Rulebase ?

Greetings:
[Updated 10 July 2014]
[Updated 20 July 2014]

Basically, this is a major part of Chapter Four of our new book that should be coming out the first of next year.  If you work for one of these products or companies and I have made an error, please contact me at jco@kbsc.com rather than making a comment here.  Thanks,

Shareware

-        C/C++, LISP, et. al.  Most of the early AI engines were written in List Processor (LISP) language that, while very descriptive and modular, was, nevertheless, quite slow.  There were also many that were written in languages such as BASIC, Pascal, C/C++ and even in COBOL.  However, very few of those were commercial engines.  LISP was a beautiful language (except for the over use of the parenthesis) and was the darling of most of the academia.  Nevertheless, LISP was so exceedingly slow that there were LISP machines dedicated to doing only one job; running programs in LISP.  Most of the early (and even some of the later incarnations) of the Production Systems rulebase programs were written in LISP.

-        Common LISP Reasoner : The Common Lisp Reasoner extends the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) to incorporate a powerful rule language suitable for all kinds of reasoning tasks, vanilla XML and RDF/XML interfaces, and support for a variety of AI-related applications, such as scheduling, planning and diagnosis.  The main site is http://sourceforge.net/projects/reasoner/?source=pdlp and the download site is http://sourceforge.net/projects/reasoner/files/latest/download?source=pdlp .

-        CLIPS (C-Language Interface to Production Systems): Written mainly by Gary Riley (when he was still at NASA) it was one of the first to have book associated with just one particular RuleBased System:  Girratano and Riley, Introduction to Expert Systems.  The syntax is still OPS-style but it will run almost any Jess rulebase if the classes are re-written into C/C++ syntax.  It also has many, many FORTRAN-like subroutines because that was what NASA wanted at the time.  This can still be obtained free from http://sourceforge.net/projects/clipsrules/?source=directory.  Also available are

o   CLIPS with Lock Support: CLIPS is a forward-chaining rule-based programming language written in C that also provides procedural and object-oriented programming facilities.  CLIPS is probably one of the first implementations of a “modern-langauge” Rulebase outside of OPS environments.  It can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/clipswl/?source=directory  

o   CLIPSwl is a modified project based on CLIPS(C Language Integrated Production System)(https://sourceforge.net/projects/clipsrules/), a public domain open-source software tool for building expert systems. CLIPS(ver. 6.24) is unsafe when access simultaneously occurs at the same environment, because the environment data of CLIPS are not protected for simultaneous access.

We modified the CLIPS (ver. 6.24) to support lock/unlock functions in a flexible way.
CLIPSwl doesn't use complicated logic such as platform-independent mutex,
but newly defines 4 abstract functions (i.e. using function pointers) for allocating, acquiring, releasing and deallocating locks of the environment data.
Users may define their own functions that fit for their system by using their platform-dependent mutex.  My Note:  CLIPS 6.24 is significantly slower than CLIPS 6.3.

CLIPSwl also support the safe string-related functions treating the rules,
and refining the warning parts of the code when compiling with gnu g++ compiler.

o   CLIPS Editor: An editor just for CLIPS: http://sourceforge.net/projects/clipseditor/?source=directory

o   Interface to CLIPS Library: clipsmm is a C++ interface to the CLIPS libray, a C library for developing expert systems. http://sourceforge.net/projects/clipsmm/?source=directory

o   DCLIPS or OO-CLIPS: Implementation of Rete pattern-matching algorithm, with scripting language based on COOL (CLIPS Object Oriented Language): http://sourceforge.net/projects/clips-sharp/?source=directory

(Comments by Gary Riley - 20 July 2014)  It was written mainly by myself and Brian Dantes.
I think Programming Expert Systems in OPS5, http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Expert-Systems-Ops5-Addison-Wesley/dp/0201106477, predated CLIPS as the first book associated with a particular language.
I'm not sure what the "many, many FORTRAN-like subroutines" statement is referring to. Being able to integrate with languages used operationally with NASA, such as C and FORTRAN, was a key goal for CLIPS, but  having FORTRAN-like subroutines, whatever that means, was never a consideration.
 (jco) Many of the sub-routines are FORTRAN-like and seem designed for engineers.  "Seem" being the operative word. 

-        DROOLS (Dynamic Rule Object Oriented Language System - http://drools.jboss.org ) has the distinction of being one of the few (only one of which we are aware) XML-based rulebased systems and uses Java as it’s shell.  Source code is available.  Drools uses a slightly modified version of the Rete algorithm called the Rete-OO algorithm.  This has to do with root-nodes available in XML as part of OO languages.  However, one should also remember that anything to do with XML (at the time of this writing) also has a name space problem.  Meaning that there are many times that the same name can NOT be used, even with proper name space declaration.  In 2013 Mark Proctor (Drools inventor and project lead for JBoss) changed the main algorithm to a more OO approach and he is still dealing with the consequences as of the time of this writing.

-        Intelligent Agents for LISP -∫: Lisa is a production rule system for Common Lisp, whose purpose is to provide a foundation for the development of "intelligent" applications. Lisa employs a modern CLOS implementation of Rete and is based on CLIPS and Jess.

-        Jess (Java Expert System Shell - http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess/ )  is the brainchild of Dr. Ernest Freidman-Hill of Sandia labs. Initially, Dr. Friedman-Hill did some work on optimization of the Rete algorithm and it was quite fast for its time.  However, it has not improved much over the years and, as a result, seems to be lagging behind ReteNT, OPSJ, Blaze Advisor, ODM and Drools in terms of speed.  Source code is available but there is a charge for commercial use of the product with certain export limits for used outside the USA.  Dr. Freidman-Hill maintains an email list of Jess users and is quite quick in his response time on answers to questions; sometimes within seconds, but usually within a few hours and within 24 hours the very most.

o   There is a fuzzy logic addendum for Jess that can be obtained for a nominal charge from Bob Orchard, http://www.iit.nrc.ca/IR_public/fuzzy/fuzzyJToolkit2.html .  Please contact Bob.Orchard@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca for more details on Jess Fuzzy logic.  .

-        JEOPS: Jave Extended OPS: JEOPS is a Java based forward chaining RULE ENGINE.
This Rule Engine is used to power up the business process by rules in Java Application Servers, client applications, and Servlets.  The main page is http://sourceforge.net/projects/jeops/?source=pdl and the download link is http://sourceforge.net/projects/jeops/files/latest/download?source=recommended .

-        JLisa – Intelligent Agenst for LISP: JLisa, "Java Lisp-based Intelligent Software Agents", is based on Lisa, http://lisa.sourceforge.net/, a production rule system similar to Jess. It runs in java through ABL, armed-bear Lisp.  It can be found at and the download link is http://sourceforge.net/projects/jlisa/files/latest/download?source=recommended .

-        JRule Engine : The project consists of a library based on Java Specification Request 94, release 1.1, i.e. is a java rule engine. Please refer to "Java Rule Engine API - JSR-94" document (file jsr94_spec.pdf) included in JSR-94 distribution. The main page (from IBM – NOT JRules nor ODM) is at http://sourceforge.net/projects/jruleengine/?source=pdlp and is still downloadable at http://sourceforge.net/projects/jruleengine/files/latest/download?source=files .

-        JxBRE - Light-weight Java based Business Rules Engine (BRE) that uses XML as a way to control process flow for an application in an external entity. Soon to comply to JSR 94.  The home site is http://sourceforge.net/projects/jxbre/ and the download site is http://sourceforge.net/projects/jxbre/files/latest/download .

-        NxBRE is a lightweight Business Rule Engine (aka Rule Based Engine) for the .NET platform, composed of a forward-chaining inference engine and an XML-driven flow control engine. It supports RuleML 0.9 Naf Datalog and Visio 2003 modeling.  Their home page is at http://sourceforge.net/projects/nxbre/?source=recommended but I could not find anything that said anything about the Rete Algorithm.

Commercial

-        Aion is one of the elders statesmen of the industry.  It is most designed for mainframe applications.  Wikipedia describes it as such but thier website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleverpath_AION_Business_Rules_Expert , tells a different story.  They have many rulebase tools and even a Java interface as well as a C/C++ interface.  Further, Aion seems to be an IBM company in disguise.  Colossus, a computer program, developed by Computer Sciences Corporation, is the insurance industry’s leading expert system for assisting adjusters in the evaluation of bodily injury claims (aka "pain and suffering"). Colossus helps adjusters reduce variance in payouts on similar bodily injury claims through objective use of industry standard rules.  Kirk Wilson and Michael Parish are award winning Aion developers who have done much to advance the use of the tool within various industries.

-        Fair Isaac Corporation “Blaze Advisor” was originally founded as Neuron Data in about 1984 with their flagship product, Nexpert, a true full-opportunistic, backward-chaining rulebased system written in C.  Later, the product moved to the OO world with C++.  With the advent of Java in 1986-87, ND developed their version of a forward-chaining system called Advisor.  The original version, like Nexpert, did not use Rete but a home-grown version of an optimizer.  Version 2, introduced as a beta product in mid-1988 and as the full-blown version in February of 1989, did use the an updated version of the Rete algorithm.  By this time, the company was already moving to become public and had replaced the original founders with IBM-type corporate figure heads. 

o   When the company went public in April of 2000, they changed the name to Blaze Software to try to move away from the Artificial Intelligence stigma and toward a more business-like approach, though how in the world a corporate name like “Blaze” was supposed to do this one can hardly imagine.  At any rate, the company was bought by Brokat, a web consulting company in Germany for $585 million straight stock swap.  All this before the six-month lock-out period expired for the original stockholders.   With the stock market already in a downward spiral, Brokat never had a chance and they eventually sold the Blaze Advisor rulebase system, along with the personnel and software, to HNC.  HNC then sold it off to Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) where it is at this time. 

o   Commercially, the Blaze Advisor is the Cadillac of all the rulebased systems; meaning that it has all of the comforts of home but at an extremely high price.  Before the acquisition of Rules Power, which gave FICO the Rete 2, aka Rete III, algorithm, it has the worst benchmarks on Solaris systems .  However, BlazeAdvisor performed with the best of the systems (except for OPSJ) on Windows NT, Win2K, Windows XP  and Windows 7/8.  Today, it ranks #3, right behind OPSJ-ReteNT (#10 and Sparkling Logic SMARTS (#2). 

-        ILOG JRules, now IBM ODM:  ILOG originally started in Paris, France (like Neuron Data) in 1987 and opened and office in Mountain View, CA, shortly thereafter.  The company was bought by IBM in 2009 and the product name was changed to IBM ODM (Optimized Decision Manager.)  The main link is http://www-01.ibm.com/software/info/ilog/ .  Originally the breadth of the ILOG products were (shown as IBM products for the main description):

·       IBM WebSphere ILOG JRules, a business rule management system (BRMS) that enables both business and IT users to write and maintain the logic applied by applications that automatically implement decisions.

·       IBM ILOG CPLEX, optimization software for mathematical programming

·       IBM ILOG JViews, a visualization development system based on Java and supported with add-ons for Gantt charts, graphs, maps and diagrams

·       IBM ILOG Elixir component sets for Adobe AIR and Adobe Flex platforms

·       IBM ILOG Supply Chain Apps

·       ILOG Solver was considered the market leader in commercial constraint programming software as of 2006.^[1]  

• InRule: [InRule Marketing Blurb] A Microsoft Certified Gold Partner, InRule Technology has been delivering InRule, another .NET Business Rule Management System for the Microsoft platform, since 2002.  InRule Technology helps you turn your rules into measureable IT and business results by making it easy to align the logic of core applications with ever-changing marketplace and customer needs.  InRule Technology is trusted by hundreds of organizations for mission-critical and customer-facing applications.   [There was a major meeting of InRule with the National WIC in Dallas, TX, on 21 September 2013.

-        (PST) OPSJ is the latest invention of Dr. Charles Forgy, the inventor of the Rete Algorithm in about 1989. (Forgy-79)  The Rete algorithm has been credited with making commercialization of rulebased systems possible (Girratano-98) and has since been superceded by the proprietary Rete 2 algorithm.  Dr. Forgy also laid the ground work for Rete systems with CLIPS/R2 (a C/C++ version of CLIPS that uses the Rete 2 algorithm) and with OPS/R2, a LISP-based system that uses Rete 2.  (Yes, Dr. Forgy is also one of the authors of this book.)

o   OPSJ was delivered to the world in 1998 and is, at the time of the writing of this book, at version level 6.  It is still without peer in terms of speed and smallness of footprint, meaning that the runtime engine takes only about 100KB or less.  The speed has to do with the Rete 2 algorithm that optimizes memory space required and number of objects examined.  The size has to do with the absence of any API (at this time) and that OPSJ is a superset of Java rather than just using the Java engine.

o   Since that time, in about 2010, Dr. Forgy introduced Rete-NT.  This version of the Rete Algorithm can be used with almost any forward-chaining rulebase and is 10 times faster than Rete-2 (OPSJ) or Rete-III (Blaze Advisor) when using large datasets and complex rulebase queries such as those for Homeland Security and other massive applications.

-        Pega Systems used to have an independent rulebase system but has since rolled it back into their overall product system.

-        Sparkling Logic SMARTS : These are the new kids on the block.  The company is composed mostly of former FICO VP’s, tool designer and engineers along with a smattering of  former ILOG folks.  SMARTS is actually really cool with the way the basic rules, predictive analytics, decision tables, decision trees and decision graphs all work seamlessly.  They have a thing called a “Red Pen” and “Blue Pen” – the former being the rulebase and the other being the predictive analytics part of the tool.  I would that everyone would do this so that I did not have to bring one down in order to bring up the other.  Besides all of that, SMARTS uses the Rete-NT algorithm, the latest andgreatest from Dr. Charles Forgy, and ranks in performance on very large rulesets/datasets right behind OPSJ-Rete-NT.