RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2652/double-standards-under-british-law

Is it appropriate for a judge to suspend a sentence of a convicted, violent criminal – so that he can walk free instead of serving time – if the criminal is “religious”?

In early 2010 Cherie Blair Q.C., wife of Prime Minister Tony Blair, suspended the sentence of Shamso Miah, who had assaulted and injured a man.

According to the police, on the day of the incident Miah, a Muslim, had left a mosque, and gone to a local bank, where he became embroiled in a disagreement with another man, Mohammed Furcan, whom he then punched in the face. Furcan chased Miah outside and demanded to know why he had been assaulted, at which point Miah punched him to the ground, breaking his jaw. Miah claimed that he had acted in self-defense, but security cameras at the bank showed this to be a lie.

“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years,” Blair told Miah at sentencing, “based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before.”

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2657/muslims-intimidate-europe

A mob of some 20 Islamists stormed a debate in Amsterdam that was featuring two Muslim liberals, the Canadian writer and Muslim feminist Irshad Manji and the Dutch-Moroccan Green Left MP Tofik Dibi.

Muslim extremists belonging to the group Sharia4Belgium, which seeks to establish Islamic Sharia law across Europe, yelled “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is Greater”) and threatened to break Manji’s neck. Waving an Islamist jihadist flag, they then demanded that Manji and Dibi be executed for apostasy.

The December 8 debate on how liberal Muslims can prevent Islam from being hijacked by Muslim extremists was held at the De Baile venue in downtown Amsterdam, and was sponsored by the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy. The event resumed after police arrested several of the Islamists.

The incident highlights the increasing frequency with which Muslims are using intimidation tactics — including harassment and even murder — in an effort to silence free speech in Europe and to impose Islam on the continent.

David Singer, the Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst, has written a characteristically crackerjack article entitled ‘Palestine – “End The Occupation” and “Right the Wrongs”’ that seems to have first appeared here (Hat tip: reader Shirlee).

I think that, like all of his articles, it deserves as wide an audience as possible.

Writes David Singer:

‘I don’t think there has ever been any Arab propaganda slogan as powerful and successful as “End The Occupation”.

These three little words have managed to turn Israel’s miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War and its triumphal return to parts of the biblical and ancestral land of its forefathers – as something to be reviled and reversed. Those mouthing the slogan have not sought to have the “occupation” ended in favour of Jordan – the previous Arab occupant during the period 1948-1967. Rather they are insisting it all be given – albeit with mutually agreed land swaps – to another group – the “Palestinians” – who did not exist

• in 1937 – when the Peel Commission issued its Report

• in 1947 – when the United Nations recommended the partition of western Palestine into an Arab State anda Jewish State.

•Between 1948-1964 – when no claim was made by any such group to territory that any Arab claimant could have gained by the stroke of an Arab League pen – after such territory had been ethnically cleansed of every single Jew who had been living there prior to 1948

The “Palestinians” only first saw the light of day in 1964 when the PLO Charter was promulgated and Article 1 declared:

‘Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.’

Article 5 went on to declare:

‘The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether inside Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.’

No recognition was given to the fact that groups other than Arabs had lived in Palestine from time immemorial – long before the Arabs had ever conquered and occupied the area.

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/
“The Difference Between Arab Culture & Israeli Culture Is The Difference Between Barbarism & Civilisation”: Brigitte Gabriel Praises Israel & Warns Of Islamic Radicalism (video)
In this spell-binding speech, the well-known Lebanese-born American writer Brigitte Gabriel, addressing a Jewish audience in California some months ago, gives a graphic account of the destruction of her idyllic childhood and her beloved Lebanon by Islamic radicalism, and warmly praises Israel and Israelis – citing the “love and compassion” that she saw there, not only towards her and her mother as Christians, but towards Muslim Palestinians.

She stresses that, in the world today, most Muslims are not radical jihadists. Nevertheless, she cautions, the radical minority comprise perhaps 15 to 25% (some 300 million people). The USA has been infiltrated by Al Quaeda, Islamic Jihad, and (especially) Hamas. Listen as she reels off the name of the cities in which Hamas cells (disguised) operate! She warns of the indoctrination by Saudi Arabian influences of most of the mosques in America. She calls the universities “Occuped Territories” because they are being infiltrated by anti-Israel Saudi-funded centres and professors.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11021/pub_detail.asp Will we ever know the extent to which President Obama’s most recent submission to the pressured demands of Islamists has endangered American national security? When the Obama administration yielded to the outcries of Muslim-American citizens and Islamic organizations recently with the removal of FBI training manuals containing certain anti-terror material deemed “offensive,” the President […]

Bill Ayers | Bernadine Dohrn | Weatherman | The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/11/dinner-with-terrorists-2500/

For the low, low price of $2,500, you can have dinner cooked for you by Weather Underground agitators and terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

Bidders at 32Auctions.com are invited to, “Enjoy an unforgettable and scintillating dinner for a party of six cooked by veteran activists and educators Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Fascinating conversation over a meal,” the website promises, “is the agenda for this special evening.”

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, both Ayers and Dohrn were leaders of the violent, communist organization Weather Underground — a splinter group from the radical Students for a Democratic Society, known as SDS. The Weather Underground conducted a terrorist bombing campaign with the goal of ending the United States’ war against Communist Vietnam. Targets included the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and at least one police station. The two married while on the run from the FBI in the early ’70s.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11018/pub_detail.asp
With all the hair-raising news coming out of the Middle East, from Iran’s nuclear advances to the Islamist landslide in Egypt’s first round of elections, it’s time for some holiday cheer. Yes, the short-term outlook is bleak, but there is reason to be optimistic about the future of the region.

In the Tunisian and Moroccan elections, the headlines blared that the Islamist parties got the most votes. It was true, but the headlines didn’t tell the whole story. The Islamist Ennahda Party won 41% of the vote in Tunisia, but that means that 60% voted against it. The non-Islamist vote was split. In Morocco, the Islamists won with 107 seats, but there are 395 seats in parliament. The non-Islamists had actually won a huge majority of the vote.

The results in Egypt are terrifying, as the Islamists got about 65% of the vote in the first round of elections, with the Salafist puritans getting about one-quarter. A few things must be pointed out. Ultimate authority rests with the ruling military council that has vowed to prevent “another Khomeini” from arising. The secularists had a steep organizational disadvantage, but their disadvantages will lessen over time. About 60% of Egyptians favor preserving the peace treaty with Israel as long as a Palestinian state is established. About 57% and 44% disapprove of Hezbollah and Hamas respectively. In the presidential race, the secular nationalist Amr Moussa, is the clear frontrunner.

History & The Eye of Newt By Frank Salvato http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11019/pub_detail.asp Former US House Speaker and GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich was instantly assailed by a plethora of people for statements critical of the modern-day understanding of the Palestinian history. From Palestinian Authority leaders, to mainstream media political analysts and even those who share the GOP […]

Palestine is a Geographical Area, Not a Nationality

See: www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf

In an interview with Republican Presidential Primary front-runner and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a former Professor and Historian, he explains his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict and states that the Palestinians are “an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs.”

It is time to tell the truth that is based on facts:

Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a deserted waste land that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey.

‘Palestinianism’ in and of itself lacks any substance of its own. Arab society on the West Bank and Gaza suffer from a deep social cleavage created by a host of rivalries based on divergent geographic, historical, sociological and familial allegiances.

What glues Palestinians together is a carefully nurtured hatred of Israel and the rejection of Jewish nationhood.

See: www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf

Source: The Jewish Channel www.tjctv.com

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14096/S-African-activist-slams-UNs-Green-Climate-Fund-Government-to-govt-aid-is-a-reward-for-being-better-than-anyone-else-at-causing-poverty–It-enriches-the-people-who-cause-poverty

S. African activist slams UN’s ‘Green Climate Fund’: ‘Government to govt aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty’ — ‘It enriches the people who cause poverty’

‘The UN is saying to poor countries: ‘Those of you who adopt more anti-prosperity, anti- jobs, and anti-growth policies — under the pretense of environmentalism — we will enrich you”DURBAN, South Africa – South African development activist Leon Louw declared the UN’s “Green Climate Fund” nothing more than an attempt by wealthy nations to keep the poor nations from developing.

In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot at the Durban UN climate summit, Louw declared foreign aid or “government to government aid” is simply a way for rich countries to reward poor countries who are “best at causing poverty.” Louw is the Executive Director of South Africa’s Free Market Institute which is considered the “3rd ranked most influential think-tank in Africa.”

“What the government of rich countries are saying to poor countries is: ‘Those of you who are best at causing poverty, we will enrich you, we will give you money,’” Louw told Climate Depot while attending the UN climate summit.

“Government to government aid is a reward for being better than anyone else at causing poverty. Countries that get more government to government aide have lower economic growth rates. Countries with less aid, have higher growth rates. If you subsidize failure you get failure and foreign aid does exactly that. It rewards people for being unsuccessful,” Louw stated.

The Associated Press described the UN climate fund as a method to “distribute tens of billions of dollars a year to poor countries to help them adapt to changing climate conditions and to move toward low-carbon economic growth.”

But Louw, says the UN climate fund will wreak havoc on the developing world’s poor. Louw explained: “The money goes to government and governments spend it on of course on themselves, meaning various government projects, creating bigger departments — bigger bureaucracies, it’s called big bureaucratic capture. They build empires, they build conference centers, and they buy political support. They go and distribute the money to communities where they want support and votes.”