RUTHFULLY YOURS

Typically, Obama does nothing or opposite things so he can publicly not take any blame or he can take credit no matter what happens. Last night’s State of the Union message was no different. It was a message of pandering and vote buying.

Congress was full of crap, too.

Two things stand out for me.

Congress voted to exempt members from insider trading laws that the rest of us have to obey. Just ask Martha Stewart how jail was. Congressmen, on the other hand, become millionaires because of this.

Last night, our Dear Leader said he wanted Congress to change the law. These Congressmen, who had been getting rich, cheered Obama’s announcement that they would have to obey the insider trading laws like the rest of us. Hypocrisy!

Because the Republicans have been complaining about all the new regulations that Obama Czars have issued and that he plans to issue when Congress doesn’t do what he wants, Obama said he was going to delete regulations and that will save $10 billion over 5 years, or $2 billion a year.

That will save each citizen about $7 a year! Enjoy your windfall.

The new gas mileage requirements for cars will up the cost of cars around $10,000 a unit.

He is going to open almost all offshore and federal land for oil exploration. Could that be a response to “Drill Here, Drill Now”?

Everyone will get a few dollars here and a few dollars there if they just vote for him.

Jan

Jan Mel Poller

EDITORIAL: A state of class warfare Washington Times Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Whenever President Obama is in the same room as his teleprompter, expect to hear the class warrior emerge. Mr. Obama’s words Tuesday were no exception. Read more… Read more at: http://times247.com/ SEALs rescue American from Somalian pirates The Telegraph Wednesday, January 25, 2012 News […]

The State of the Election Address http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/24/the-state-of-the-election-address/?singlepage=true America faces large problems: A soaring national debt, chronic unemployment that may become systemic, government services at the breaking point, a regulatory state that is verging on predatory, a Middle East falling increasingly into the hands of America’s enemies as America’s international peacekeeping becomes ever more unaffordable, and […]

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/the-tide-of-war/ ‘The Tide of War’ Posted By Claudia Rosett On January 25, 2012 @ 1:36 am In Uncategorized | No Comments “The tide of war is receding,” or so President Obama keeps saying. He said it on June 22, 2011, talking about Afghanistan. He said it on Sept. 21, 2011, in his address to the […]

The Scourge of Jewish Self-Division Posted By David Solway

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/25/the-scourge-of-jewish-self-division/print/

I have often written, sometimes bemused, sometimes incensed, about what is surely the strangest fact of Jewish life, namely, its self-division. Since time immemorial, the Jewish people have been at war with themselves, both in the Holy Land and the Diaspora, allowing themselves to succumb to one of history’s most mordant ironies. In turning against themselves, they have effectively collaborated with those who would suppress, conquer or extinguish the Jewish community.

The template was already established in the Book of Genesis, where we read how one brother slew another in jealousy and resentment and a group of conspiratorial brothers sold their sibling into slavery. From that point on, the biblical archive presents a saga of recrimination, envy, hatred and fratricidal strife that in different degrees has imperiled the very survival of the Jewish “nation.” The pattern was consolidated in the story of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the three rebels who “rose up” before Moses and challenged his authority. As the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen these people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people” (Exodus 32:9).

Brother against brother, prophet against people, king and priest, and even nation against nation form an indelible part of the Jewish chronicle. The history of the Two Kingdoms provides a continuingly relevant object lesson. After the death of King Solomon, the Israelite communality broke apart into the two warring monarchies of Israel and Judah. The shedding of kinship blood critically weakened the two kingdoms, leading to the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians and the reduction of Judah first by the Chaldeans, then by the Egyptians, and finally by the Babylonians. The Jewish epic may be described as: divide and be conquered. Indeed, surah 59:14 of the Koran tells us something very true about Jews: “There is much hostility between them: their hearts are divided…” It seems that the wise counsel of Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah has no resonance for the backsliders: “All of Israel and those who are joined to it are to each other like brothers. If brother shows no compassion to brother, who will show compassion to him?”

The fault line in the Jewish sensibility is tectonic in its dimensions and destructive in its effect. Perhaps the single most resonant case study in self-division involves the institutional founder of the Christian faith. The story of St. Paul is too well known to require much in the way of comment, yet it is richly instructive. A rabid persecutor of the followers of Jesus, Saul of Tarsus experienced a blinding conversion to the new faith and was shortly thereafter called by the name of Paul (Acts 13:9). He then became the Apostle of Christianity, considering his Jewish identity a mere rehearsal for a larger identity and at times expressing strong disapproval of Jews who held to their traditional beliefs and identity. (His quarrel with the Desposyni, the “servants of the Lord,” led by James the brother of Jesus who wished to preserve the purity and exclusivity of the original faith, is a matter of historical record.)

But the details of the Apostle’s former activities and subsequent religious convictions are specific to the time. Jews today do not persecute Christians. Indeed, they are the ones who are relentlessly persecuted—by Muslims, by secular antisemites and unhinged fanatics from both sides of the political spectrum (though massively from the Left), and by several Christian denominations associated with The World Council of Churches, replacement and liberation theologians, and the Quaker-Presbyterian axis promoting its BDS campaigns. More to the point, and the most indigestible perversion of all, countless Jews harry and denounce their own congeners. The tendency to a kind of binary kinesis seems inherent in the Jew, whether it is himself he loathes or his own people he reproaches and undermines. It is the psychic split itself, not its local content, that transcends the ages. In this respect, the Saul/ Paul fracture represents a longstanding Jewish archetype.

Republican Debaters Miss the Boat on Cuba Posted By Humberto Fontova URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/25/republican-debaters-miss-the-boat-on-cuba/ How easily Romney or Santorum could have enjoyed their “Gingrich in South Carolina Moment!” How easily Gingrich could have basked in another! Debate moderator Brian Williams lobbed it over home plate and not even Gingrich bothered to swing. But the vital […]

The ‘Protocols’ — Alive and Well World Over Posted By Giulio Meotti

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/25/the-protocols-alive-and-well-world-over/

Salman Rushdie, the author of “The Satanic Verses”, was quietly deleted from India’s Jaipur Literature Festival after the protests of the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary – one of Islam’s most powerful bodies.

Rushdie went into hiding after the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian Shia leader, issued a fatwa calling for his death.

Rushdie’s saga is now, in many parts of the Islamic world, associated with a “Zionist plot” and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a short book concocted by the czarist police and presented as minutes of a secret meeting where Jews plotted world domination.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/25/the-three-reasons-mitt-is-more-electable-than-newt/

The Three Reasons Mitt Is More Electable Than Newt Posted By Ryan Mauro

The following article presents one interpretation of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. For a counter-view written by Ben Shapiro, in favor of Newt Gingrich’s electability, click here.

If you can’t get elected, you can’t govern. That’s why electability is a top concern of Republican primary voters, compelling even some of those who would prefer a Gingrich presidency to support Mitt Romney. Each candidate has his flaws and advantages against President Obama, but there are three big reasons why Romney is generally seen as the more electable one. The polls show that Romney is a much stronger candidate, Gingrich has significantly more baggage and Gingrich’s difficulties in leadership could jeopardize his campaign.

The polls have Romney performing better against Obama than Gingrich in every important state. First, look at some of the most Republican-friendly states won by Obama in 2008. Romney wins Missouri but Gingrich loses by 4. In Virginia, Obama loses to Romney by 2 but beats Gingrich by 5. In Florida, Obama leads Romney only 0.2% on average (the latest poll has him up by 2) but defeats Gingrich by 5.5. In North Carolina, Obama leads Romney by 1 and Gingrich by 6. In Ohio, Romney is behind by 5.5, while Gingrich is way behind by 13.5 percentage points.

Now look at some of the more difficult swing states, at least one of which will probably have to be won by the Republican nominee. Romney wins New Hampshire by 6.5 points while Gingrich loses by 10. In Pennsylvania, Obama defeats Romney by 2.3 and Gingrich by 9.5. In Iowa, Romney loses by 2.6 and Gingrich by 10. In Michigan, Obama wins by 2.7 against Romney and 5 against Gingrich. In Nevada, Obama beats Romney by 6.5 and Gingrich by 12. In Colorado, Romney loses by 2 and Gingrich loses by 8.

If the election were held today between Obama and Romney, the president would win with 301 electoral votes. If Obama ran against Gingrich, he’d be re-elected with 357 electoral votes. Based on the polls today, it is undeniable that Romney is much more electable.

The baggage Gingrich carries could further drive down his poll numbers. Romney has been campaigning ever since he first declared his presidential run in early January 2007. His flip-flops and other flaws have been talked about endlessly. On the other hand with Gingrich, there is a lot that the Democratic Party can remind voters of.

The media will undoubtedly report on his infidelity and messy marital history throughout the campaign. The ethics investigation of him when he was speaker of the House, the Republican revolt against him resulting in his resignation, the inflammatory rhetoric, the narcissistic remarks, the alleged lobbying on behalf of Freddie Mac, etc…..READ IT ALL
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/25/the-three-reasons-newt-is-more-electable-than-mitt/

For well over a year now, we’ve been hearing that Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee for the Republican Party. I’ve personally heard it from Republican fundraisers, Republican Party staffers, and high-ranking conservative commentators. Not only was Romney inevitable, they’d say, he deserved inevitability, because he was clearly the most electable candidate.

With Newt Gingrich blowing Romney’s inevitability meme out of the water in South Carolina and Florida, the question is no longer whether Mitt is inevitable – he’s not—but whether he deserves to be the nominee based on electability.

I believe Mitt is, in fact, virtually unelectable. By contrast, I believe that Newt Gingrich has a serious shot at beating President Obama. Here’s why.

(1) Narrative. Presidential elections are decided on narrative and who gets to define it. In 2004, conservatives succeeded in defining the race as a strong and stable wartime president against a flip-flopping Vietnam-era radical who lied about his war record. In 2008, Obama and the media defined the narrative, which quickly became “The Chosen One.”

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11293/pub_detail.asp
Just Imagine if the Iron Lady had got the Big Call Wrong
Industrial unrest – here involving miners – was crippling Britain when Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979.

Thatcherism must be understood in the context of the calamity that came before.

I sense that the share price of Margaret Thatcher anecdotes is peaking, so I’m offloading some stock. Ten years ago, the great woman came to lunch with a group of Telegraph writers. Determined not to ask a sententious question about public policy, I instead blurted out: ‘Is there anything worth watching on television at the moment, Lady Thatcher?’

She fixed her fierce blue eyes on me, trying to remember who I was. (On a previous occasion, I had managed to thump her on the elbow while making an expansive point, and she has been wary in my presence ever since.) Then she softened. ‘We enjoy the Sunday evening programmes, dear, especially those stirring Methodist hymns. But we find that even they are becoming a little wishy-washy these days’.

It is often said that Margaret Thatcher had no small talk, but this is another way of saying that she took even the paltriest things very seriously. Applied to television, her earnestness was bathetic. Applied to the rescue of a great country, it was absolutely necessary.

Just as Churchill, a rotten peace-time politician, brought the qualities that were needed to a war, so Margaret Thatcher’s achievement cannot be divorced from the context of her times. During the 1970s, it felt as if Britain was finished. It is already hard to recall the sheer awfulness of that era: the strikes, the power-cuts, the three-day week, the prices and incomes policies, the double-digit inflation. As a 1978 headline in the Wall Street Journal put it: ‘So long, Great Britain, it was nice knowing you’.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11300/pub_detail.asp
U.S. Universities Have Permanent Relationship With Qatar Faculty For Islamic Studies
In the latest development concerning the relationship between U.S. universities and the Qatar Faculty of Islamic Studies (QFIS), the QFIS website reveals that six U.S. universities have established a permanent relationship with QFIS. According to a QFIS web page:

Established in 2007, Qatar Faculty of Islamic Studies (QFIS) is an international center for Islamic thinking and dialogue. Its aim is to enhance research into Islamic culture and promote the diversity and tolerance of the Islamic Fiqh, or understanding. Learning takes place in an open, intellectual environment and produces a structure of study that will enable future generations of scholars to become experts in Islamic culture and ideology. These graduates will be well-equipped to tackle the challenges facing Muslim communities across the world. QFIS offers programs in: Master of Science in Islamic Finance, Master of Arts in Public Policy in Islam, Master of Arts in Islamic Studies with a specialization in Contemporary Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) and Religion and Contemporary Thought, Master of Science in Urban Design and Architecture in Muslim Societies, Master of Arts in Contemporary Muslim Societies .Postgraduate Diplomas in: Islamic Finance. General Islamic Studies. Public Policy in Islam. Research is a critical component, with six specialized centers providing opportunities for postgraduate students, residents, and visiting scholars to investigate research topics in their field of interest.