RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://times247.com/
Bill Clinton stuns Dems by hosting Morsi in NYC
Breitbart.com
Friday, September 21, 2012
News
Bill Clinton stuns Dems by hosting Morsi in NYC
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, the recently elected president of Egypt, will be a featured participant at the eighth annual meeting of Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative in New York next week. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz27CJQs99j
Pols beg Obama: Get your Libya story straight
Frustrated lawmakers are calling on …
Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz27CJFp2fA
Senator: Deport illegals who vote in U.S. elections
The Hill
Friday, September 21, 2012
Blogs
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., proposed a bill on Thursday that would make it a deportable crime for illegal immigrants and noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz27CJppOEu
Cleaver: Blacks who don’t vote ‘not worth the color’
CNS News
Friday, September 21, 2012
News
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver on Thursday said that African-Americans who don’t vote “ought to give us their color back.” Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz27CJyIPdO

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL What went wrong in Benghazi? The same thing that went wrong across the Arab Spring. We made a deal with the devil and the devil took his due.The consulate was supposed to be protected by the Martyrs of the Feb. 17 Revolution Brigade, instead of the US Marines. The […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/328274/duplicitous-administration-andrew-c-mccarthy

If they lie, you can’t trust them. That’s a fairly straightforward rule. It is certainly the one that trial lawyers bank on.

It is not a hard and fast rule. A person may shade the truth for various reasons: vanity, personal allegiances, financial incentives, etc. Usually, once you figure out the relevant motivation, you can sort out on what matters he is probably credible and what he is prone to lie about. Sometimes, though, the story is so unbelievable, so insulting to the intelligence, that a rational juror knows it is best to discount all of the testimony — or, worse, to conclude that the truth is likely the opposite of the witness’s desperate version.

Of course, all the world’s a stage, not a courtroom. I am reminded of this when, as now, I happen to have a book out (Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy) that speaks to events currently roiling the world. I am reminded, that is, that I am no longer a trial lawyer making arguments to a jury. Now I am a writer who makes his arguments to the public and, at book-publication times like these, through the prism of the mainstream media. So it was that, in a few interviews this week, I have been asked about two currently raging symptoms of “Spring Fever,” the Libya attacks and the Blind Sheikh.

Today’s journalists do not resemble jurors. The interviews proceed in a now-familiar pattern. We go through the events of last week’s atrocity in Libya, where U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi. Again and again, Obama-administration officials insisted that the killings were the result of spontaneous rioting over an obscure movie casting Islam’s prophet in an unflattering light — a movie from months ago, a movie virtually no one knew about, much less saw, a production so cockamamie that calling it a “movie” fails the straight-face test.

As the administration well knew, this was a coordinated jihadist attack led by al-Qaeda-affiliated forces, clearly well-trained and equipped with sophisticated weapons. One of the participants was a former Gitmo prisoner, detained there for years because it was patent that, given the chance, he’d go back to the jihad. There appears to have been forewarning about likely trouble on the 9/11 anniversary.

Did anyone really need in-depth intelligence to recognize these dangers? Part of the reason the United States struck up an alliance with Qaddafi’s despicable regime was his intelligence cooperation: Per capita, Libya sent more jihadists to Iraq to fight against American troops than any other country. The only difference between then and now is that, with Obama having toppled Qaddafi in a war the U.S. launched without provocation and on the side of al-Qaeda, the rabidly anti-American Islamists of Benghazi now have access to high-powered weaponry previously unavailable to them. A movie? Before the president ever got to his unseemly Vegas fundraiser, with the nation still mourning its dead, it was pluperfectly obvious that we’d been subjected to a terrorist strike that had nothing to do with a moronic movie.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-372333-clinton-government.html

I see the Obama campaign has redesigned the American flag, and very attractive it is, too. Replacing the 50 stars of a federal republic is the single “O” logo symbolizing the great gaping maw of spendaholic centralization. And where the stripes used to be are a handful of red daubs, eerily mimicking the bloody finger streaks left on the pillars of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as its staff were dragged out by a mob of savages to be tortured and killed. What better symbol could one have of American foreign policy? Who says the slick, hollow, vapid marketing of the Obama campaign doesn’t occasionally intersect with reality?

On the latter point, after a week and a half of peddling an utterly false narrative of what happened in Libya, the United States government is apparently beginning to discern that there are limits to what even Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice can say with a straight face. The official line – that the slaughter of American officials was some sort of improvised movie review that got a little out of hand – is now in the process of modification to something bearing a less patently absurd relationship to what actually happened. That should not make any more forgivable the grotesque damage that the administration has done to the bedrock principle of civilized society: freedom of speech.
The more that U.S. government officials talk about the so-called film “Innocence Of Muslims” (which is actually merely a YouTube trailer) the more they confirm the mob’s belief that works of “art” are the proper responsibility of government. Obama and Clinton are currently starring as the Siskel & Ebert of Pakistani TV, giving two thumbs-down to “Innocence Of Muslims” in hopes that it will dissuade local movie-goers from giving two heads-off to consular officials. “The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” says Hillary Clinton. “We absolutely reject its content, and message.” “We reject the efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” adds Barack Obama. There follows the official State Department seal of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.

Fellow government-funded film critics call “Innocence Of Muslims” “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) and “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney, White House press secretary). Gen. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Senior Pentagon Advisor to Variety, has taken to telephoning personally those few movie fans who claim to enjoy the film. He called up Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who apparently thinks “Innocence Of Muslims” is the perfect date movie, to tell him the official position of the United States military is they’d be grateful if he could ease up on the five-star reviews.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1678/why_are_the_palestinians_so_desperate_to_avoid_peace_talks_

THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY IS THERE ANYONE STILL TOUTING THE TWO STATE DELUSION AND AVOIDING THE FACT THAT ARABS THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST ARE ON A JIHAD?….RSK
Palestinian rejectionism showcased again as their leaders go the extra mile to avoid peace talks with Israel

Perhaps the most famous remark ever attributed to an Israeli official about Palestinian unwillingness to forge a lasting peace was made in 1973 by one time Foreign Minister Abba Eban. The Palestinians, he said, “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity“.

Even then it was a sad statement of the obvious. Having rejected the United Nations partition plan of November 29, 1947, which was accepted by Israel and which would have provided for a two-state solution right at the inception of the Jewish state’s existence, the Palestinians had largely put their faith in frightening the Israelis out of their state through guerilla warfare, outright terrorism and the prospect of invading Arab armies doing the job for them.

With today’s announcement from chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in mind, that last thought about other people doing the job for them is worth reflecting on. Erekat has added more detail to Palestinian plans for recognition of a Palestinian state on 1967 lines at the UN General Assembly later this month.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that he believes the resolution would set “the terms of reference for Palestinian negotiations with Israel“. Erekat was quoted as saying that: “No-one is talking about cancelling the peace process“.

This is, frankly, delusional. For one thing, the Israelis are rightly suspicious of practically anything directed at them from the General Assembly or its affiliated institutions. The idea that they will merrily accept imposed conditions for peace talks from a body that it is heavily populated by people who dream of the country’s destruction is a non-starter.

Similarly, the 1967 lines are indefensible. They were not even borders; merely the armistice lines where soldiers rested up for the night at the cessation of hostilities following the Israeli War of Independence.

Even with the much vaunted land swaps that would accompany any real world scenario for a two-state solution, the notion that the 67 lines, rather than “defensible borders“, should form the basis for a peace agreement is ludicrous.

But let me return to the point referred to above. Why are the Palestinians so intent on getting someone else to set the terms of peace negotiations for them? Israel, after all, is practically begging them to sit down and talk directly, without preconditions. Why are they so desperate to avoid this?

Palestinian rejectionism showcased again as their leaders go the extra mile to avoid peace talks with Israel

Perhaps the most famous remark ever attributed to an Israeli official about Palestinian unwillingness to forge a lasting peace was made in 1973 by one time Foreign Minister Abba Eban. The Palestinians, he said, “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity“.

Even then it was a sad statement of the obvious. Having rejected the United Nations partition plan of November 29, 1947, which was accepted by Israel and which would have provided for a two-state solution right at the inception of the Jewish state’s existence, the Palestinians had largely put their faith in frightening the Israelis out of their state through guerilla warfare, outright terrorism and the prospect of invading Arab armies doing the job for them.

With today’s announcement from chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in mind, that last thought about other people doing the job for them is worth reflecting on. Erekat has added more detail to Palestinian plans for recognition of a Palestinian state on 1967 lines at the UN General Assembly later this month.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that he believes the resolution would set “the terms of reference for Palestinian negotiations with Israel“. Erekat was quoted as saying that: “No-one is talking about cancelling the peace process“.

This is, frankly, delusional. For one thing, the Israelis are rightly suspicious of practically anything directed at them from the General Assembly or its affiliated institutions. The idea that they will merrily accept imposed conditions for peace talks from a body that it is heavily populated by people who dream of the country’s destruction is a non-starter.

Similarly, the 1967 lines are indefensible. They were not even borders; merely the armistice lines where soldiers rested up for the night at the cessation of hostilities following the Israeli War of Independence.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12199#.UFwO4rJlSV8

“That was the last letter I sent to George Steiner. I didn’t want to have anymore conversations with him. That is why I broke with Steiner and the Jewish Intelligentsia. I understood that there is much more Jewish destiny and courage in a bullet proof bus going to Gush Etzion than in any rant of this horrible member of the Jewish intelligentsia.”
German taxpayers would be happy to fund Berlin’s Jewish museum if it continues to host Jewish anti-Semites. Meotti has broken off contact with the anti-Israel Jewish intelligentsia, but not before putting them in their place.
The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book “A New Shoah”, that researched the personal stories of Israel’s terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary. He is at work on a book about the Vatican and Israel.
There is no explanation for this pathological phenomenon: the Jewish Diaspora proclivity for self-abasement and sycophancy toward Jew-haters.

A few days ago, the internationally renowned Jewish Museum in Berlin hosted a podium discussion with US academic Judith Butler, who renewed her calls to boycott Israel. It’s the first anti-Israel event held in the Jewish museum since its opening.
Why did only a few Israeli intellectuals and personalities raise their voices against the shameful decision to host Butler? What happened to moral clarity?

In an era in which the Jews are sentenced again to solitary confinement on the moral high ground and where no other nation except Israel is expected to disappear, the Jewish intelligentsia is getting sick.
Thousands of Jewish leading writers, intellectuals, academics, authors and journalists, joined by painters, photographers and actors, have been unceasingly preaching that Israel’s cause is not just. And this, they say, is true not since the Six Day War, the beginning of what they call that unjust “occupation”, nor since the establishment of the state in 1948, which “was born in sin”, but since the beginnings of the Zionist enterprise at the end of the XIX century.

The conclusion is uniform: that Zionism amounted to an evil, colonialist conspiracy to exploit the people dwelling in Palestine, enslave them, steal their land, disinherit them.
After the Butler disgrace, the people in charge of the Berlin Museum could rename it Jewish Museum of anti-Zionism. The German taxpayers would be happy to fund this institution in the middle of Berlin.

What Mr. Romney [might have] meant Americans have always liked to believe one of the remarkable achievements of U.S. society – differentiating it from The Old Country – was social mobility. Our “aristocrats”, whether moneyed or “stars”, were mostly only a generation away from obscurity. And chances were their progeny wouldn’t hang on to their […]

What If Israel’s ‘Peace Partners’ Actually Prefer War? At this point in Israel’s problematic diplomatic agenda, there is really only one overriding policy question: Can any form of negotiation with the Palestinians, Fatah and/or Hamas, ever prove reasonable and productive? From the very beginning, even before formal statehood in 1948, Israel has sought courageously and […]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285742 Into The Fray: Not economic cost, but lack of political will in Israel and perceived legitimacy abroad prevent implementing the humanitarian solution. Over the past few weeks, I have presented the reasoning for, and the operational elements of, an alternative humanitarian paradigm to replace the two-state solution (TSS), and to forestall what has been […]