RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0813/glick080813.php3

The media’s collusion with the Obama administration’s false portrayal of jihadist attacks on US targets gives foreign leaders concerned about the US’s lackadaisical attitude towards jihadist threats no reason for confidence. In the absence of public pressure, the Obama administration has no reason to change course when its policies fail

This week, after a three and a half year delay, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was finally placed on trial for massacring 13 and wounding 32 at Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009.

Hasan was a self-identified jihadist. His paper and electronic trail provided mountains of evidence that he committed the massacre to advance the cause of Islamic supremacy. Islamic supremacists like Hasan, and his early mentor al Qaeda operations chief Anwar al-Awlaki view as enemies all people who oppose totalitarian Islam’s quest for global domination.

Before, during and following his assault, Hasan made his jihadist motives obvious to the point of caricature in his statements about the US, the US military and the duties of pious Muslims.

But rather than believe Hasan, and so do justice to his victims, the Obama administration, with the active collusion of senior US military commanders went to great lengths to cover up Hasan’s ideological motivations and hence the nature of his crime. On the day of the attack, Lt. General Robert Cone, then commander of III Corps at Ft. Hood said preliminary evidence didn’t suggest that the shooting was terrorism. Cone said this even though it was immediately known that before he began shooting Hasan called out “Allahu Akhbar.” He called himself a “Soldier of Islam” on his business cards.

In an interview with CNN three after the attack, Army Chief of Staff George Casey said, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The intensity of the Obama administration’s participation in this cover-up became clear in May 2012. At that time, Congress had placed a clause inside the Defense Appropriations Act requiring the Pentagon to award Purple Hearts to Ft. Hood’s victims. Rather than accept this eminently reasonable demand, which simply required the administration to acknowledge reality, Obama’s emissaries announced he would veto the appropriations bill and so leave the Pentagon without a budget unless the clause was removed.

Rather than define Hasan’s attack as an enemy attack or a terrorist act, the administration has defined it as a case of “workplace violence.” Following this determination, those wounded in the attack, as well as the families of the murdered are denied the support conferred on soldiers killed or wounded by enemy fire.

Israel to Palestinians: Sorry, We’ll Keep Building http://frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/israel-to-palestinians-sorry-well-keep-building/print/ This week the Israeli cabinet approved a new national-priorities map by 15 votes and four abstentions. Each year the map extends special benefits to a list of communities. This year, out of 600 that were chosen, 90 are in the West Bank, and 9 of those are […]

http://unitedpatriotsworldwide.com/vinienco/ Obamas Eid Speech: ‘Eid is Part of a Great Tapestry of America’s Many Traditions’ Obamas Eid Speech: ‘Eid is Part of a Great Tapestry of America’s Many Traditions’ : US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle today sent their warmest greetings to Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr around the world, calling it “part of a great tapestry of […]

http://nsroundtable.org/as-we-see-it/who-s-on-the-run/ MEMBERS’ CORNER: The recent closings of U.S. embassies and consulates in response to a “specific” and “serious” threat of an al Qaeda terrorist attack (see below), reveal two things about our national security apparatus and war against Islamic terrorism: neither of them are good. First, it was reported that the recent threat potentially involved terrorists […]

Times change, circumstances are nuanced, players are substituted, but like fashion, history has a tendency of repeating itself.  However, unlike shoes or dresses, reiterative history can be disastrous to a country and its people.  Point in hand, the circumstances and attitude of many Jews today regarding “peace” talks between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs and […]

Another Tack: Judenfrei is fine and dandy In practically two post-Oslo decades, Ramallah’s negotiators haven’t budged a fraction of a millimeter from their initial positions. In that span of unfortunate time, Israel had continually slipped back and now accedes to what would have been unthinkable for our mainstream in 1993. The current two-state sine qua non […]

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2013/03/23/why-conservatives-should-be-critical-of-obamas-middle-eastern-policy-but-no-longer-attack-him-as-an-enemy-of-israel-ron-radosh-see-note-please/

Gee thanks Ron for the admonition….looks like you have been sugar whipped by the President’s silky rhetoric….If a man will not openly denounce the anti-Semitic rantings of his Minister/friend; sides openly with the Arabs, overlooking their Jihadist rants; compares the “struggles” of the murderous Palestinian Arabs with the American civil rights movement which was spurred by peaceful American Blacks; and following his staged “Zionist” speech to gullible Israelis he presses Netanyahu to apologize the the Turks and promoted the dismemberment of Israel he is an antagonist…You don’t want to use the word enemy? You were not so timid when outing the American protagonists of Communism….the useful idiots…..rsk
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/03/22/why-conservatives-should-be-critical-of-obamas-middle-eastern-policy-but-no-longer-attack-him-as-an-enemy-of-israel/?singlepage=true

I, along with other supporters of Israel, have for the past few years rightfully been critical of President Obama and his position on the Middle East, beginning with his disastrous Cairo speech and his misguided decision to combine a wooing of the Arab world with a decision to put U.S. pressure first and foremost on Israel. Particularly, Obama chose to make settlements the most important issue regarding the peace process.

The major change during his two days in Israel was a decisive shift in approach, which many of his ardent supporters have been loath to acknowledge. This shift was succinctly pointed out by veteran foreign affairs analyst Leslie Gelb:

In Israel, Obama went further than ever in trying to placate Bibi’s position. The president said that the issue of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, the hottest button for Palestinians, should not be dealt with in advance of negotiations, as the Palestinians demand, but should be placed on the table only after the negotiating groundwork has been set. Indeed, almost everything Obama has said on this trip backpedals on his earlier priority of freezing those settlements. This is a body blow to Abbas and his supporters that can be assuaged only by a real Washington push for negotiations, one that involves U.S. positions disliked by Bibi and bound to cause moaning among many Israelis.

If one puts this truth first, Obama’s speech the next day to leftist students may be seen as the other side of the coin. Roger L. Simon is not alone in responding favorably to Obama’s words. It was, as David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel perceptively points out, a “left-wing Zionist speech,” perhaps the most cogent statement of such a viewpoint that the Israeli public has heard since the old days of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair, the two most important Zionist left-wing youth groups of the ’50s, ’6os, and Israel’s early period of labor Zionism.

Obama may indeed have stirred the hearts of the hand-picked leftist students who were present at the event, but garnering their wild applause is one thing; the hard reality of trying to make peace with the Palestinians, led by Abbas — not to speak of Hamas — is another. As Horovitz says, the problem is that Obama’s utopian vision “is hardly consensual”:

This speech was the “reset” of Obama’s personal relationship with Israel. It was the speech in which he showed his knowledge of Israel, quoting its religious texts and its political visionaries, recalling the suffering of exile, the yearning for the homeland. It was the speech in which he acknowledged the extent of the hostility tiny Israel has faced and continues to face in this region, the relentless series of wars it has been forced to fight for its survival.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/355239/slow-pogrom-ignored-john-osullivan Among the topics discussed at today’s seminars on National Review’s cruise was that of the “new anti-Semitism.” Unlike the old anti-Semitism of neo-Nazis and skinheads–who have no wider social influence and are effectively pariahs in modern European politics — the new anti-Semitism is the work of respectable intellectuals, politicians, union activists, journalists, students, and lecturers in the […]

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/08/20/a-message-to-conservatives-is-islam-really-our-enemy/?print=1

RON RADOSH, WHO HAS, ON OCCASION WRITTEN SOME GOOD COLUMNS, HAS TAKEN OVER FRONTPAGE FOR HIS ASSAULT ON DIANA WEST AND HER BOOK “AMERICAN BETRAYAL”…TODAY, RADOSH RESPONDS WITH ANOTHER DIATRIBE AND IS ABETTED BY JEFFREY HERF WHO SLAMS WEST WITH AN OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE IMPLICATION ABOUT HER BOOK. IT IS SORT OF UNPRECEDENTED THAT A REPUTABLE SITE WILL TAKE DOWN A REVIEW IT PUBLISHED AND SUPPLANT IT WITH JEREMIADS AGAINST THE AUTHOR DIANA WEST. TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THE EDITOR DAVID HOROWITZ ADDED HIS REMARKS IN AN OP ED DEFENDING THE “HISTORIAN” (HUH?) RADOSH WHO IS HIS FRIEND FOR SIXTY YEARS. AH FRIENDSHIP. WHAT LOYALTY. BUT HERE IS A DEMONSTRATION OF “HISTORIAN” RON RADOSH AND HIS UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM. HE SCOLDS ALL THE CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE MORE PRESCIENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT ISLAM THAN HE COULD EVER BE…..ROGER KIMBALL, ANDY McCARTHY, DAVID SWINDLE, GEERT WILDERS, INCLUDING A PIN PRICK TO HIS FRIEND OF SIXTY YEARS DAVID HOROWITZ, AND ADMITS HE DID NOT READ BAT YE’OR BUT SUSPECTS MANY WOULD TAKE EXCEPTION TO HER AS WELL. HE DOES HOWEVER CONSIDER JEFFREY GOLDBERG “ONE OF THE TOP JOURNALISTS OF OUR TIME” EVEN THOUGH GOLDBERG CALLED THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE IMAM RAUF A “TRUE MODERATE”. AND BY THE WAY GOLDBERG STATED IN JANUARY 2013 ON “SETTLEMENTS” THAT “IRAN POSES A SHORT TERM THREAT TO ISRAEL’S SURVIVAL: ISRAEL’S OWN BEHAVIOR POSES A LONG TERM ONE.”

HIS OTHER GURU IS STEPHEN “SULEYMAN” BIN KOSOVO SCHWARTZ A FORMER HARDENED BOLSHEVIK WHO CONVERTED TO ISLAM AND IS NOW A PROMINENT SUPPORTER OF THE LATE ALIJA IZETBEGOVIC WHO IN HIS YOUTH WAS A RECRUITER FOR THE BOSNIAN MOSLEM BRIGADES ORGANIZED BY THE NAZIS, AND AS AN ADULT WAS A PROMOTER OF A GLOBAL CALIPHATE AND RECRUITED AL QAEDA INTO THE BALKANS DURING THE BOSNIAN CIVIL WAR.…RSK

Introduction and Note to Readers:

Warning: This blog is very lengthy, and has taken me a few days to write and to compile the material discussed herein. You may want to print it. I originally planned to run the different parts on consecutive days. But much of the material is time-bound and events may occur in these coming days that answer some of the tentative questions I raise.

My intention is to set off an honest and real debate about the issues I raise. I am frankly distressed about the growing volatile and rancorous choruses on the Right that seem to insist that there is only one position to take on the nature of Islam. By giving full links to the various sides, you can read through all of them and reach your own conclusions.

But the subject is too serious to act on partial and misleading information, or on the blogs coming particularly from one strident side. So please- read and think!

Part I: Who is Our Enemy?

First: Diana West is my friend. I admire her, respect her and trust her research.

I read her book “American Betrayal” carefully. I came to her book with a serious difference with her over Senator Joseph McCarthy who was Senator while I was experiencing a political growing up at Bronx High School of Science where supporting the candidacy of General Eisenhower was heresy, to say nothing about the “sainthood and martyrdom” of the Rosenbergs.

Like George Orwell, McCarthy’s name altered the dictionary…and “McCarthyism” became synonymous with punishment and harassment of dissent…..I went along with this until I read “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers; until I realized that the Communist hunter James Jesus Angleton (a C.I.A. counterintelligence agent and one of the men who helped found the Mossad in 1951) was right about a Russian/Communist mole in the C.I.A. even though he was called a “crackpot conspiracist”; until the revelations that J.Robert Oppenheimer, the head of the Manhattan Project may have been a Soviet agent (the Alsop brothers hysterically compared the investigation of Oppenheimer to the Dreyfus affair); until I read Diana’s book. Maybe….just maybe…Joseph McCarthy, not the most attractive or likeable messenger was on to something really big. “American Betrayal” is persuasive, informative,meticulously researched and documented and convincing.

Now, many may disagree.David “Spengler” Goldman, a friend whom I like and respect agrees with Ron Radosh. So does a dear friend of mine who has courageously exposed the radical agenda of the climateers and so called environmentalists, so does Jamie Glazov, another person whom I like and respect, so do many others, and Frontpage had every right to publish Radosh’s nasty review.

But, and this is the serious butt of the scandal…Frontpage should not have removed Mark Tapson’s good review and then as a conciliatory crumb offered Diana the chance to rebut Radosh. I don’t blame her for refusing and all the squirming and offensive name calling and apologetics at the site don’t excuse their craven decision to remove Mark Tapson’s review which they had accepted and posted.

In good time and in a venue of her choosing Diana west will reply, I can’t wait to read and post it.

Here is Diana’s response:

I have not had time to respond to the massive hit piece against my book American Betrayal posted today at Frontpage.com.

I will.

I would like to point out in brief, however, the simple, lowdown mendacity of the “Editors’ note” — that would be editors David Horowitz, Jamie Glazov, perhaps others — that tops 7,000 words of misrepresenting, twisting, and omitting by Ronald Radosh passed off as a “review.”

(This is the Radosh m.o., by the way, as briliiantly exposed in 2008 by M. Stanton Evans.)

Here it is:

Editors’ note: Frontpage offered Diana West equal space to reply to Professor Radosh’s points below. She refused.

To say that this misrepresents the truth is one of those understatements of the year.

First of all, Frontpage doesn’t inform their readers that they are actually looking at Frontpage American Betrayal Review #2.

Frontpage posted an earlier review — Review #1. It was positive. They removed it — purged it. (It is archived at Ruthfully Yours.) This is unheard of. Quite commonly, controversial books rack up more than one review, more than one opinion. The commissars of Frontpage don’t permit “incorrect” opinion, however, so the positive review of my book was removed from the website. On my incredulous inquiry of Glazov, he proceeded to explain in emails to me that the reviewer, Mark Tapson, “lacks the expertise” to review the book, and later, that the problem was the review’s “inaccuracy.” I asked what was innaccurate in the review and received no reply.