RUTHFULLY YOURS

All-American Muslim – Threats, Intimidation and Hate Posted By Daniel Greenfield

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/12/all-american-muslim-%e2%80%93-threats-intimidation-and-hate/

For the first time in weeks All-American Muslim is back in the news, not for anything on the show, but over the commercials. A number of sponsors have stopped advertising on the show, including Lowe’s. Muslim groups and their supporters have taken this development in stride by trying to blackmail the home improvement chain into advertising on the failing TLC series.

Is blackmail the right word? California State Senator Ted Lieu threatened boycotts and more disturbingly “legislative remedies” if Lowe’s doesn’t submit. Lieu, who clearly doesn’t believe in the separation of mosque and state, is shamelessly pandering to his Muslim constituents but his thuggery is fundamentally un-American and dangerous. No advertiser should be compelled to sponsor any television show.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/12/its-not-workplace-violence-its-islam/

This week, the Obama Administration made an announcement regarding the attack on Fort Hood in 2009. In that incident, you’ll recall, gentle Muslim psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan – who had apparently been taking Islamic training from gentle Muslim terrorist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki – picked up a handgun and proceeded to murder 12 soldiers (one pregnant) and one Army civilian employee; another 29 were injured. None of the soldiers were armed. Finally, a civilian police sergeant put Hasan down with five shots, paralyzing the gentle Muslim from the chest down.

Two years later, President Obama’s Defense Department called this incident “workplace violence.” You know, like when you punch a guy at the water cooler for sleeping with your wife. Except you’re a Muslim and there are forty co-workers, none of whom have slept with your wife, and you’re trying to shoot them to death while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/12/newt-challenges-the-myth-of-palestinian-nationalism/ Newt Challenges the Myth of Palestinian Nationalism Posted By Bruce Thornton On December 12, 2011 @ 12:20 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 9 Comments Newt Gingrich touched off a mini-firestorm when he told a Jewish television channel that the Palestinians are an “invented” people “who are in fact Arabs,” and “who were historically part […]

Roger Simon sums this up quite nicely below, but the nabobs are still dithering about Newt. Well here is something that Rael Jean Isaac , editor of OUTPOST found about Churchill…..

We may have to hope Gingrich turns out to be Churchill in power, not a loose cannon. Anyway, here’s a quote from Roberts about Churchill. From Hitler and Churchill, p. 97: “He [Churchill]had an astonishingly fertile mind. ‘Winston had ten ideas every day,’ his Chief of the Imperial General Staff Loard Alanbrooke used to say of him, ‘only one of which was good, and he did not know which it was.” Roosevelt made a very similar remark, saying that the Prime Minister had a hundred ideas a day of which six were good (a much larger number if an even lower percentage).”

Hmmmm….sound a tad familiar?….rsk

Gingrich Tells Truth about ‘Palestine’—MSM Goes in a Dither

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/10/gingrich-tells-truth-about-palestine-msm-goes-in-a-dither/

One of the cardinal rules of politics: you’re not supposed to tell the truth, only polite lies.

One of the pleasures of Newt Gingrich is that he occasionally disobeys this rule. He did so again in an interview with The Jewish Channel that has set the world in a dither, by saying such things as: It’s “delusional to call it a peace process,” claiming that the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority and Hamas alike “represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel.”

Well, duh.

Didn’t Yasser Arafat, the head of Fatah, walk out on the peace talks when he had ninety percent (or more) of what he said he wanted and start Intifada II? Doesn’t their current head Abu Abbas stay as far from the peace table as possible, looking for every excuse not to talk, as if he had some undisclosed allergy? And, most obviously, doesn’t the Hamas Charter call directly for the extermination of Israel?

Unfortunately, except for a handful of Palestinians, most of them don’t want a two-state solution. They want a one-state solution.

That’s the truth that “polite politicians,” unlike Gingrich, don’t want to talk about; but, in actuality, until it’s stated clearly and faced, nothing will change. (Hello, Leon Panetta)

Gingrich is doing a service in that regard, just as he is doing a service in pointing out the historical truth that almost no one referred to Palestinians as a people until after Israel was established. They were just Arabs in the area. Now they get to have a state, assuming that’s what they really want. The jury is still way out on that one.

Examples on the ground from a premier religious freedom attorney.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/sharia-law-already-devouring-uk/?print=1

In 2008, while arguing for the need to formally introduce Sharia law into the law of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed Sharia law was “inevitable” in the UK . He denied it was an “alien” system and called for “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law. He did this in a calculated and provocative manner, while denying a place for its more “extreme punishments.”

It is unlikely that many members of the Muslim community would be satisfied with an Anglican primate determining the limitations of the Quran and Sharia law.

This argument was rapidly followed by the Lord Chief Justice: Lord Phillips helpfully said there was a place for Sharia law, particularly in mediation. He lamented the “widespread misunderstanding” of Sharia law. The newly established Muslim Arbitration Tribunals immediately put a picture of the Lord Chief Justice on their website in appreciation of his endorsement.

In the United Kingdom, the many thousands of Sharia courts can quietly go about their business of implementing “justice” in a form totally “alien” to the Judeo-Christian tradition, denying human rights to many of our citizens — particularly women.

The “constructive accommodation” of Muslim law reached a logical conclusion with the declaration this year of Sharia law controlled zones in a number of areas geographically spread over the country, where the Islamist militants enforce their will. Their posters declare: “No music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs or smoking, no gambling, no alcohol.” A reign of terror has begun, with threats of implicit violence against anyone who “insults” Islam, changes religion, or fails to dress appropriately. I have already been contacted about assisting two individuals subject to Islamist threats.

The police stand passively by, adhering to their diversity training.

If the Labour Party had won the last general election in 2010, I believe they would have introduced Sharia law into the United Kingdom. Things have changed for the better since David Cameron became prime minister — he has criticized “state multiculturalism” as causative of terrorism and radicalism. An inquiry of the Ministry of Justice into the operation of Sharia courts had to be stopped as Muslim leaders refused to cooperate with the government; they wanted to continue to execute Sharia law in secrecy. However, this has only heightened concerns. A Conservative peer has sought to introduce legislation delimiting the operation of Sharia courts as discriminatory against women. The home secretary has at last refused entry visas to “hate preachers” like Zakir Naik. (The last Labour government welcomed Hezbollah terrorists to lecture the police on “political Islam.”)

http://pjmedia.com/blog/united-states-of-europe-one-step-closer-to-reality/?print=1
The make-or-break summit convened in Brussels to avert the collapse of Europe’s single currency set the stage for yet another anti-democratic European power grab.

The leaders of the 27-member European Union met in Brussels on December 8 and 9 under pressure to deliver a decisive solution to Europe’s two-year-old sovereign debt crisis.

But the high-profile summit — which was billed by many as the last chance to save the euro single currency — did little to resolve the immediate crisis at hand, namely the massive debt loads of most European countries and the spiraling costs of borrowing more money to pay off those debts.

Instead, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy (aka “Merkozy”) leveraged the crisis summit to secure a “historic” commitment from all of the 17 countries that use the euro single currency (aka “eurozone countries”) to transfer broad new economic and financial decision-making powers to unelected and unaccountable technocrats in Brussels, the administrative capital of the EU.

The new “fiscal compact [1]” is a major step on the road to creating a single economic government in Europe. By giving Brussels more power to codify and enforce debt limits and impose central oversight of national budgets, the agreement takes the EU on step closer to consolidated and centralized fiscal authority in Europe. Among other features, the agreement also gives the European Court of Justice the right to strike down national laws that conflict with diktats issued by bureaucrats in Brussels, although EU legal experts are still unsure about how this can or will be enforced.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was the only EU leader who refused to go along with what many observers have described as an attempted European coup d’état.

Cameron vetoed the European power grab after Merkozy refused to give Britain — which uses the pound, not the euro — a written promise that the City of London would be exempt from heavy-handed EU rules and regulations that could damage its £46 billion (€54 billion; $72 billion) financial services sector.

In particular, Cameron had demanded that Britain be able to veto any usurpation of regulatory power over financial services from London to Brussels. He was especially keen on avoiding a move towards a Europe-wide financial transaction tax that would see London become a less attractive destination in which to do business.

In this context, Cameron had also insisted on measures that would prevent the eurozone countries from demanding that euro-denominated transactions be conducted in Frankfurt or Paris, something that would reduce the amount of business being done in the City of London.

Cameron’s veto will make life more complicated for Europe’s empire builders. In practical terms, rather than amending the existing Lisbon Treaty, which comprises the constitutional basis for the EU, the other 26 member countries of the EU will now have to forge a completely new “intergovernmental” treaty.

The agreement reached in Brussels on December 9 calls for the new treaty to be drafted within the next three months (by March 2012), even though in the past this process has taken many years. After that, the treaty will need to be ratified by each of the 26 countries. Some of them, such as Ireland, will also require holding public referendums.

Without Britain on board, the other 26 EU countries could also face potentially complicated legal obstacles, especially on how the new treaty will be enforced.

Moreover, Cameron says he will not allow the other 26 EU leaders to use the institutions of the 27-member EU to draft and police regulations for the 17 eurozone countries. Presumably, this would include the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, which Britain, as a member of the EU, helps to pay for through its annual contributions to the EU budget. He says the EU institutions are there to serve the interests of all 27 countries equally and not just a small group.

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-oks-homes-west-bank-settlement-095040157.html

JERUSALEM (AP) — The mayor of a West Bank settlement south of Jerusalem says Israel’s Defense Ministry has approved 40 new houses at a site near his town.

Mayor Oded Revivi said Monday the homes will create a permanent neighborhood northeast of the Efrat settlement, replacing settlers’ trailers currently on the site. He says final approval came last week.

The Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hagit Ofran, who monitors settlements for the Peace Now organization, says the trailers were put up without authorization.

She said their replacement by permanent homes amounts to retroactive approval of an illegal settlers’ outpost.

Settlement construction is criticized internationally for cementing Israel’s hold on land the Palestinians say they want for a future state.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/a_shameful_state_department_initiative.html

Today the Islamized State Department will be meeting with the Islamic supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss strategies and develop action plans in which to impose the restriction of free speech (or blasphemy, as truthful speech about Islam is considered in Islamic law) under the Sharia here in America.

Photos accompanying news reports about the upcoming meeting shows Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at a meeting last summer in Istanbul. Such prominence is given to this totalitarian organization. That photo reminds me of Neville and Adolf.

The respect and deference that the United States is paying to the OIC amounts to surrender in installments. The very idea that the U.S. Secretary of State is meeting with the OIC to discuss “religious tolerance” is like having Himmler meeting with Jews to condemn Jew-hatred. Under Islam. there is a complete and utter absence of “religious tolerance” of non-Muslims living in Muslim countries under the Sharia.

The call for “respect and empathy and tolerance,” coming from the most brutal and oppressive ideology on the face of the earth, reminds me of the “peace and equality” that was promised in Hitler’s campaign posters for the Nationalist Socialist Workers (Nazi) party.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/wash_post_ny_times_shortchange_winners_of_5_nobel_prizes_including_israeli_laureate.html

The Sunday, Dec. 11 editions of the Washington Post and the New York Times carry extensive articles about three women from Liberia and Yemen who accepted this year’s Nobel Peace Prize at a Saturday ceremony in Oslo. The new Nobel laureates, who have been in the forefront of the fight for democratic reforms and women’s rights, fully deserved this prestigious recognition.

Missing, however, from the two papers’ Sunday editions was any recognition of the equally meritorious new Nobel laureates in medicine, chemistry, physics, literature and economics. They picked up their Nobels at a separate awards ceremony also on Saturday in Stockholm, presided over by the king of Sweden.

The Post contented itself with a one-sentence mention at the bottom of its Peace Prize article that the other five Nobels were presented in Stockholm — without identifying any of the winners. The Times didn’t even go that far. It skipped all mention of the separate Nobel awards ceremony in Stockholm.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

In the post-news environment, media no longer exists to report, it exists to disseminate glib talking points that sound good at first, but don’t stand up to examination. Fact checks, one of the latest media gimmicks, have become another vector for disseminating talking points. So have media blogs which began repeating the same ridiculous thing over and over again.

Take the response to Gingrich’s accurate statement that the Palestinian Arabs are an invented people. Aside from all the hysterical “sky is falling” nonsense, is the comparison between the Americans as an invented people and the Palestinian Arabs.

Let’s look at how wrong this is and in how many ways. To begin with the American colonies did not demand their independence based on some spurious ancient history. If they had then Washington would have dressed himself up as an Indian and instead of the United States of America, there would have been the Indian States of Iroquisville.