RUTHFULLY YOURS

Passing the torch: Ryan connects with Gen X
CNN
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
News
Passing the torch: Ryan connects with Gen X
With Paul Ryan, 42, holding down the No. 2 spot, the ticket hopes to strengthen his Generation X demographic ahead and broaden the campaign’s appeal to a wealth of younger voters. During his speech, Ryan spoke directly to young voters’ economic concerns. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz251jj4i8i
Dem’s ‘war-on-women’ attack based on myths
U.S. News
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Commentary
Dem’s ‘war-on-women’ attack based on myths
In 2010, Republicans won the women’s vote over Democrats by 49 percent to 48 percent, exit polls showed. Ever since, the Democratic political strategy has been to make female voters, who comprise more than half the electorate, their No. 1 target. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz251jqRBK2
Martinez talks about political conversion
Weekly Standard
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Blogs
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez grew up, like most New Mexicans of Hispanic descent, a Democrat. Her telling of her conversion to the Republican party was aimed less at the GOP delegates seated before and more to those Hispanic Democrats and independents watching at home. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz251k01kcX
Ryan’s speech unites GOP faithful and Tea Party
Fox News
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Commentary
If any political speech at the GOP convention can bring together Tea Partiers, independents and the Republican faithful, Rep. Paul Ryan’s was it. Ryan drew a clear connection between fiscal responsibility in government and economic opportunity for the nation. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz251kG4nhL

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/its-a-girl-%e2%80%93-the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world/print/

It’s a Girl – The Three Deadliest Words in the World

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Evan Grae Davis, the founder of Shadowline Films. From the Aral Sea disaster in Eastern Europe to poverty in Africa to social transformation among tribal groups of South America, Evan has traveled the globe with camera in hand for 16 years. He has dedicated his career to advocating for social justice through writing and directing short documentaries and educational videos championing the cause of the poor and exploited. He draws from his experience and passion as he lends leadership to Shadowline Films, a team of filmmakers who share a common concern for the critical issues of our time. It’s a Girl is his first feature-length documentary.

FP: Evan Grae Davis, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Tell us about your new film, It’s a Girl.

Davis: Thanks Jamie.

In India, China and many other parts of the world today, girls are killed, aborted and abandoned simply because they are girls. The United Nations estimates as many as 200 million girls are missing in the world today because of this so-called “gendercide.” Girls who survive infancy are often subject to neglect, and many grow up to face extreme violence and even death at the hands of their own husbands or other family members.

Shot on location in India and China, It’s a Girl reveals the issue. It asks why this is happening, and why so little is being done to save girls and women. The film tells the stories of abandoned and trafficked girls, of women who suffer extreme dowry-related violence, of brave mothers fighting to save their daughters’ lives, and of other mothers who would kill for a son. Global experts and grassroots activists put the stories in context and advocate different paths towards change, while collectively lamenting the lack of any truly effective action against this injustice.

FP: Why is there a war against girls?

Davis: The war against girls is rooted in centuries-old tradition and sustained by deeply ingrained cultural mores that say women are less valuable than men. In nations like India and China, only sons can inherit wealth, carry on the family name, and perform last rites for their parents upon their death. Sons also care for their parents in old age. Daughters, once married, join their husband’s family and are no longer considered a member of their parents’ family. In addition, in India, the family of girls must pay an expensive dowry of property and money to the husband’s family upon marriage. These practices, in combination with government policies in China which restrict families to one or two children, accelerate the elimination of girls. Girls are often aborted, killed immediately after birth, or abandoned. Those women who do live past childhood, are often subjected to abuse and neglect.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/laura-l-rubenfeld/democrats-embrace-siraj-wahhaj-supporter-of-cop-killer-al-qaeda-and-hamas-1/

In just a few days, the Democratic National Convention “Kick off events”week will include its first ever “Jumah (gathering) at the DNC” – three Islam-centered events beginning with a Friday prayer and sermon, an evening Islamic banquet and an all day Islamic festival.

Many of the individuals scheduled to speak during the DNC week have extremely spurious backgrounds, including support for Al Qaeda and the U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization, HAMAS. Brooklyn-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj will headline the Muslim portion of the convention.

This is part two of an in-depth study of a man who will have the ear of thousands planning to attend the DNC Convention, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ DNC. [To see Part I, click here]

Wahhaj Supports Islamic Extremism in Sudan

Hassan Al-Turabi was the leader of the National Islamic Front (NIF) political party in Sudan In the 1980’s. [i] It was then that shari’ah law was implemented nationwide to Muslim and non-Muslim people alike. The criminal code was changed to include such barbaric punishments as cross amputation (cutting off the left hand and right foot), stoning, flogging, and death sentences for apostasy and blasphemy. The prominent Islam reformer, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (“Taha”) was executed in 1981 for apostasy. [ii] Siraj Wahhaj supports Al-Turabi’s draconian shari’ah as it was enforced. In one sermon at his mosque, Wahhaj proclaimed “I would cut off the hands of my own daughter (if she stole) because Allah stands for Justice.” [iii]

Sudan became a safe-haven for terrorists i.e. Osama Bin Laden and HAMAS, under Al- Turabi, And in 1993, after the World Trade Center bombing, Sudan was named by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror. [iv]

Siraj Wahhaj made these statements at the time Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror:

May Allah bless Sudan…these are people who want to establish the Shari’ah, establish Quran, and Sunnah, they want to establish the religion and therefore hated by the government of the U.S.A…I’m not going to make you comfortable because our book, the book we believe in, is not Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People; But it’s the Quran.

Wahhaj Joins ISNA in Support for HAMAS and the National Islamic Front (NIF)

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) calls itself the largest Islamic organization in the U.S.. The leaders of two terror groups Sami Al-Arian – Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Mousa Abu Marzook- HAMAS “helped establish” ISNA in 1981.[v]

Wahhaj became a member of the ISNA Advisory Council in 1987. 10 years later, HAMAS leader, Mousa Abu Marzook who had been deported from Jordan for his terror related activities[vi], wrote a thank you to many organizations in The Washington Report Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) for their support of him.. One of the organizations he thanked was ISNA. It was at that time, Wahhaj was ISNA Vice President, having been named to that position the same year, in 1997. [vii]

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/laura-l-rubenfeld/democrats-embrace-siraj-wahhaj-supporter-of-cop-killer-al-qaeda-and-hamas/ Democrats Embrace Siraj Wahhaj: Supporter of Cop-Killer, Al Qaeda and Hamas Posted By Laura L. Rubenfeld On August 29, 2012 @ 12:25 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 61 Comments In just a few days, the Democratic National Convention “kick off events” week will include its first ever “Jumah (Arabic for gathering) at the DNC” […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/rage-against-the-useful-idiots-on-the-brewster-gang/print/

On this week’s Glazov Gang, Susan Olsen, Dwight Schultz and Susanne Reyto gathered to discuss Rage Against The Useful Idiots. Below are all three parts of a three part series.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

With the next four years at stake, the only topic of conversation is the Race Card. The left plays the Race Card and then accuses the right of playing the Race Card. There are dogwhistles in the air that only white middle-aged pundits can hear and arguments over whose diverse lineup truly represents the philosophy of the future and whose is just shameless tokenism.
The media madhouse insists that a half-black man who went from the Illinois State Senate to the White House in 5 years is proof that we are a racist country and that Southern Europeans whose ancestors moved to this continent are an oppressed racial minority. Arguing with this insanity is a sure way to get called a racist. Ignoring this insanity means being charged with privilege. Privilege being the ungodly power to ignore someone else’s assertion that privilege through victimization should begin and end every single discussion on every topic, up to and including the moon landing.

The Democratic Party and its media affiliates have become a party of trolls who only know how to hijack every discussion with an obsessive insistence that every issue can be boiled down to race and that the difference between the two parties is that one of them is racist and the other has good taste in fonts.

It’s hard to know what the Democratic Party stands for anymore. All we know is that it is against racism. Never before has an entire election been run around a single negative issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual challenges facing the country. Instead we have the national spectacle of members of minority groups being pitted against each other by two parties to prove which of them is less racist.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/winning_the_agw_science_debate_heres_how.html

The upcoming election battles may be unique in offering for the first time a debate about global warming. Neither Bush-Gore nor McCain-Obama chose to discuss the issue — maybe because they were not really that far apart. By contrast, Barack Obama has already announced that, if re-elected, he will make climate change an important priority — while Paul Ryan is an assertive skeptic on AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

The science of climate change is not just of academic interest, but has been leading to policies for large-scale changes in energy use and supply — with important economic consequences. The burden of proof for AGW therefore falls on those who call for such policies. They must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that human activities are causing global warming, that a future warming will produce significant economic and ecological damage, and that it would be more cost-effective to mitigate now rather than to adapt later. They must also be ready to respond to any critique of the underlying science.

A recent example of irresponsible AGW claims is a just-released statement by the American Meteorological Society — the same crew that cannot predict the weather three days in advance. The concluding section begins:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate.

I would start by asking AGW supporters the following question: “What is your single most important piece of evidence for AGW?” I have received many answers to this question; most of them can be disposed of in a trivial way. Some examples are:

* “Man-made CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.” True, but is warming increasing as a result?

* “Climate models predict rising climate temperatures in the future.” True, but models are not evidence.

* “Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, storms are increasing, droughts and floods are increasing.” Even if any of these were true, they don’t reveal the cause and certainly cannot furnish temperature data like thermometers.

* “Sea levels are rising.” But they have been rising for 18,000 years, and there is no evidence that the current rate of rise is affected by temperature; 20th-century data show no acceleration.

* A common misleading reply by AGW supporters: “The past decade is the warmest in X years.” This may be true, provided X is chosen appropriately, but the current trend over the past decade has been approximately zero. (One must not confuse Trend [measured in degrees C/decade] with temperature [measured in degrees C]. According to climate models, it is an increased temperature trend that should relate to any increasing trend in greenhouse gases.)

But note also that climate seems to follow long-term cycles of about 1,500 years (Singer and Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, 2007). If the “Bond-cycle” is active now, we may expect further, irregular warming in the present century and beyond — entirely due to natural causes, likely related to the Sun.

Finally, a common response simply appeals to the report of the U.N.-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). To which one should say: “OK, then let’s see if it holds up to scrutiny.” (Note that the “evidence” presented as crucial has been different in every one of the past four IPCC assessment reports.) The latest IPCC claim for AGW is laid out simply in the Summary for Policymakers on page 10 of the 2007 report: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely [i.e., 90-99% sure] due to observed anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases.”

* This claim is advanced in the SPM and eventually backed up by fig. 9.5 on page 684 of the 2007 report. The models are “fitted” to the observed temperature record from 1900 up to about 1970 by choosing suitable sensitivities and model parameters, using “expert judgment.” But the figure shows a large gap after 1970 between reported temperatures and unforced models (i.e., models that do not incorporate an increase in GH (greenhouse) gases).

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/intelligence-professionals-tell-obama-off

Few people really know what triggered the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Most believe it was the random discovery of the sites in aerial photographs taken by high-flying U-2 aircraft over Cuba.

But the U-2 flight was ordered after a “leak.”

Two-and-a-half weeks before the flight, an undercover CIA agent overheard a conversation in a bar in Cuba involving Fidel Castro’s personal pilot. He bragged the island nation would soon have nuclear weapons.

The agent’s subsequent report of this to Washington prompted U.S. President John Kennedy to order the U-2 flight that revealed solid evidence as to what the Soviet Union was doing.

During World War II, the phrase “Loose lips sink ships” evolved within the U.S. military to remind those entrusted with classified information not to talk about it.

Obviously, Castro’s pilot had never heard the expression. His loose lips would bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. Although the end result proved beneficial to U.S. national security interests, the Cuban pilot’s lack of operational security — opsec — cost his country a nuclear weapons capability.

For as long as there have been military secrets to be kept, history is replete with examples of enemies eager to learn them. The United States has been victimized at times as there have been those guilty of failing to observe opsec, endangering the country’s national security, either through lax security or a personal need to promote themselves as knowing what others do not.

But it is inexcusable when it is our own leaders, with access to all our national security secrets, who violate opsec for political gain, endangering our national security in the process.

This is the clarion call of a recent documentary entitled “Dishonorable Disclosures: How Leaks and Politics Threaten National Security.” The film reveals concerns by retired military and intelligence professionals who have come together to emphasize the personal risks to our warriors involved in conducting classified operations and opportunities lost to use the intelligence those operations yielded as a direct result of leaks made by our own president — leaks members of both political parties agree endanger our national security interests.

The documentary cites several examples:

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/

Everytime you think it can’t get worse….

It’s quite bad enough that Iran is taking over the three-year chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement, — one of the largest voting blocs in the United Nations General Assembly — and is right now hosting a summit for the occasion in Tehran.

It’s even worse that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon decided to attend this summit, and is right now in Tehran, where he met Wednesday with terrorist-backing pro-genocide rulers such as the putative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and big boss Ali Khamenei (he of the Iranian Islamic Revolution’s modest title “Supreme Leader”) — you can see a photo of the Khamenei encounter here, courtesy of Iran’s Fars News Agency, in which Ban is leaning forward, head humbly lowered, presumably to catch every word of the enthroned ayatollah.

But on top of that display comes word that Ban, while touring the Tehran regime, has brought in tow a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman, who just last month moved to the UN to serve as Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs. Actually, what delivered that news more powerfully than words was another photo, released by Iranian authorities, and, appropriately enough, dubbed “Photo of the Day” by Foreign Policy. The photo gives a wider view of Ban’s meeting with Khamenei, in which Khamenei sat authoritatively in a chair, and Ban sat humbly on a couch — and there, sharing the couch right next to Ban, is the American, Jeffrey Feltman.

Feltman looks ill at ease, eyeing the photographer while Ban’s attentions are all on Khamenei. There are plenty of reasons for Feltman to look uneasy. This is a diplomatic coup for Iran’s regime, which tops the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring states, thumbs its nose at UN and U.S. sanctions, and continues to pursue nuclear weapons, coupled with threats to America and America’s allies — including the genocidal threat to annihilate Israel. Nonetheless, not only has the UN Secretary-General gone to Iran to round out the guest list of Iran’s pals in “non-alignment.” He has brought with him, under the UN banner, a former high-ranking U.S. diplomat, to help pay court to Khamenei.

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/08/29/how-to-replace-eric-holder-president-romney-style/

When I give speeches or interviews, I am often asked how the Department of Justice can be fixed. Of course Mitt Romney has to win in November to undo the damage Eric Holder has done. But winning is only step one. It is just as important that President Romney appoint the right person as attorney general. Appointing the wrong person will cover over the rot inside DOJ (and perhaps even strengthen it) because some conservatives will be less willing to criticize bad DOJ policies in a Romney administration.

So who is the right person to serve as Eric Holder’s replacement? First, let’s list some qualifications. The next attorney general cannot view the threat of terrorism as a law enforcement issue. It is a national security issue and should be treated as such.

Next, because racialist policies are being used to advance a broad leftist agenda to the detriment of American business, institutions, and state sovereignty, the next attorney general cannot be a coward, to borrow Eric Holder’s term, about racial matters. (Of course my New York Times bestseller Injustice details this very problem.) Candidates fearful of what the once-proud and now corrupt NAACP says about him or her are not qualified to serve in a Romney administration. Many others in the GOP sold out the dream of Constitutional racial equality in the face of such threats.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, the next attorney general must recognize that the vast majority of the career civil service will seek to thwart the administration’s goals. The next attorney general sadly must view many in the career civil service as an instrument of Democrat Party policy.

I’ve spoken with a broad range of former Justice Department officials about who satisfies these three requirements, and a number of names emerge.

In no particular order, the people who are best suited to replace Eric Holder are listed below.