RUTHFULLY YOURS

HOMOSEXUALITY IS ILLEGAL IN MOST AFRICAN NATIONS- USUALLY ENFORCED BY SHARIA LAWS…RSK

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has signed into law a ban on same-sex marriage in Africa’s most populous nation.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry slammed the decision Monday.

“Beyond even prohibiting same-sex marriage, this law dangerously restricts freedom of assembly, association and expression for all Nigerians,” he said in a statement.

“People everywhere deserve to live in freedom and equality. No one should face violence or discrimination for who they are or who they love.”

Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, characterized the law as a “big setback for human rights for all Nigerians.”

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the bill passed by the Senate at the end of last year introduces a 14-year prison sentence for people who are convicted of entering into a same-sex marriage or civil union.

Afghan President Hamid Karzi has recently authorized the release of 72 prisoners, regarded as a threat to the security of the United States. The State Department has vociferously objected to that decision. On Thursday, Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman said, “These 72 detainees are dangerous criminals against whom there is strong evidence linking them to terror-related crimes, including the use of improvised explosive devises, the largest killer of Afghan civilians.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney added, “We are very concerned about the release of any detainees who would pose a threat to U.S. forces.”

Yet, just in order to get the Palestinian Authority to deign to sit down at the negotiating table with Israel, the United States pressured the Israelis to release 104 terrorists, all of whom are responsible for the most heinous crimes imaginable. It is an absolute fallacy to believe that the terrorists that murder Israeli or American Jews on the streets of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv are any less a threat to the survival of Western civilization as we know it, then those released on the streets of Afghanistan.

Any one of them, whether they be from a Sunni Islamic group such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or Ansar al Sharia, or a Shiite Islamic group such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Al Quds Force of Hizb’allah, delights equally in the murder of either American or Israeli civilians. Not to believe this is to make a distinction without a difference.

“True Detective” comes with all the ingredients for one of those dark, atmospheric series built around a search for a mysterious murderer—think “The Killing.” Set in Louisiana, it is awash in atmosphere and authenticity, along with overtones of the occult emanating from a sensationally ugly homicide, all peculiarly irrelevant to the reasons for this saga’s electrifying power. Det. Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson), police veteran, is assigned to the murder case of a young prostitute, along with Det. Rust Cohle (Matthew McConaughey)—a self-possessed man who keeps his distance to a degree the genial Hart can’t abide. He expects more, some sharing of thoughts, from the partner at his side all day.

Hart has reason to regret his wish when Cohle does venture to chat a bit, early in the first episode. In a word or two here and there he’s soon delivering subtle but unmistakable indicators of the cold-eyed observer he is—indicators, too, of the wit and eloquence of this script by series creator Nic Pizzolatto, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. They’re also signals to Hart, vague but disturbing ones, that his new partner’s views are unlike any he can grasp, alien to all that he understands to be normal and right.

A family man, Hart doesn’t, himself, always follow the straight and narrow, but his transgressions—mainly his taste for sexy women other than his attractive wife—are, as he sees it, the essence of normality. A kind of right for a hardworking detective, and even a good thing for his marriage. A man needs release, he’s given to explaining—for the good of the family. His partner Cohle’s transgressiveness is a very different kind—the real thing, and deeply offensive to Hart.

Though you wouldn’t know it from our current political tempers, the wealth of 20th-century America wasn’t created in Washington, D.C. It was built by the likes of Tom Jones, the Californian and aerospace visionary who died last week at age 93.

Jones’s spectacular career spanned the modern age of aviation—from victory in the Pacific in World War II to the era of stealth and drone aircraft. Fresh out of Stanford with an engineering degree, he worked for Douglas Aircraft and helped design the planes that won the war against the Japanese fleet.After a postwar stint advising Brazil’s nascent aviation system, Jones went to Rand Corp. and wrote a path-breaking study on “The Capabilities and Operating Cost of Possible Future Transport Airplanes.” A major theme of his career was adapting new technology in ways that were effective and affordable for military platforms.

He pursued that credo at Northrop, a faltering aviation company that he turned into a giant over his 37-year tenure, including some 30 years as CEO starting in 1960. He helped to make the company, now Northrop Grumman, a backbone of American national defense.

The judge’s ruling that it was not anti-Semitic for the fifteen-year-old to declare, “Let’s burn the Jew” as he set fire to his classmate’s hair is a disturbing case that reveals the talons of anti-Semitism in both the courtroom and the school system, and represents an open tolerance for again hating “the Jew.”

Anti-semitism sank to a new low in Canada after a Winnipeg judge ruled that grabbing a Jewish classmate, flicking a lighter to her hair and saying, “Let’s burn the Jew,” was not anti-Semitic. The incident took place between two fifteen-year-old classmates, where the defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon. The lawyer for the defendant implied that it was the girl’s fault that her hair caught fire — because she pulled away. Then Manitoba Provincial Court Judge Robert Finlayson agreed with the defense that the action was one of teen impulsiveness.

The victim not only stated that the incident “changed her world upside down,” but that she needed therapy to deal with her fears and felt that she was blamed by some people in the school for making too much out of the incident.

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center in Canada expressed horror at Finlayson’s ruling. In a press release, CEO Avi Benlolo stated that he could not imagine “the same decision would have been rendered had the perpetrator targeted any other minority group in a similar way.”

In December, two new studies, one funded by the German government, found that the majority of Muslims believe that Islamic Sharia law should take precedence over the secular constitutions and laws of their European host countries.

“Critics of Islamic ideology and its organizations are constantly confronted with lawsuits and have to legally defend themselves against the accusations of blasphemy or incitement-to-hatred. Even if it does not come to a conviction, such processes cost a lot of time and money…Thus… we are experiencing a de facto application of Islamic law.” — Felix Strüning, Gustav Stresemann Foundation Report.

“[It] must be recognized: democracies must beware of those who believe a free society is something that needs to be vanquished.” — Die Welt.

What follows is a chronological review of some of the most important stories about the rise of Islam in Germany during 2013:

In January, the Turkish-run Kuba Camii Mosque in Eschweiler, a city situated along the German-Belgian-Dutch border and about 50 kilometers (30 miles) west of Cologne, for the first time began publicly calling Muslims to prayer.

The call to prayer was described as an “historical event” and was attended by numerous dignitaries, including the Turkish consul and the Turkish attaché.

In January 1939, as Germany and Russia rearmed, Kingsley Martin, the editor of the New Statesman, spoke to the former chancellor and war secretary about the prospects of conflict and how Britain should prepare.
British statesman Winston Churchill speaking to recruits to the armed forces
British statesman Winston Churchill speaking to recruits to the armed forces at Mansion House, London, in 1939. Photo: Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

The Second World War was still eight months away when Kingsley Martin, the editor of the New Statesman, interviewed Winston Churchill about the need for rearmament and the British attitude to war. Their conversation was published in the NS of 7 January 1939.

A famous journalist once told me of an alarming interview that he had with Mr Churchill some years before the last war. Mr Churchill happened to be in full Privy Councillor’s uniform and emphasised his points with finely executed passes and slashes of his sword. Mr Churchill himself declares that this is a fairy tale; and certainly, when I went to see him the other day, he was wielding nothing more ferocious than the builder’s trowel with which he was completing an arch in the house that he has built with his own hands this summer. He was not, however, too much absorbed to discuss very fully the problem of Democracy and Efficiency.

Kingsley Martin The country has learnt to associate you with the view that we must all get together as quickly as possible to rearm in defence of democracy. In view of the strength and character of the totalitarian states, is it possible to combine the reality of democratic freedom with efficient military organisation?

Mr Winston Churchill The essential aspects of democracy are the freedom of the individual, within the framework of laws passed by Parliament, to order his life as he pleases, and the uniform enforcement of tribunals independent of the executive. The laws are based on Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the Petition of Right and others. Without this foundation there can be no freedom or civilisation, anyone being at the mercy of officials and liable to be spied upon and betrayed even in his own home. As long as these rights are defended, the foundations of freedom are secure. I see no reason why democracies should not be able to defend themselves without sacrificing these fundamental values.

KM One point people are especially afraid of is that free criticism in Parliament and in the press may be sacrificed. The totalitarian states, it is said, are regimented, organised and unhampered, as the Prime Minister suggested the other day, by critics of the Government “who foul their own nest”.

WC Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop.

DAVID HORNIK IS ONE OF THE BEST COLUMNISTS FROM ISRAEL- AMONG THE TOP THREE WITH MARTIN SHERMAN AND RUTHIE BLUM….WHILE I AGREE WITH HIS GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF ARIEL SHARON, I DISAGREE THAT THE WITHDRAWAL FROM GAZA IS HARD TO ASSESS. IT HAS BEEN AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER AND HARD EVIDENCE THAT ANY FURTHER SURRENDER OF LAND WILL NOT BRING PEACE BUT ONLY EMBOLDEN THE JIHADISTS…..RSK

Ariel Sharon was laid to rest on Monday at his beloved ranch in southern Israel. As Sharon said in a speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2005:

If the circumstances had not demanded it, I would not have become a soldier, but rather a farmer and agriculturist. My first love was, and remains, manual labor; sowing and harvesting, the pastures, the flock and the cattle.

Sharon was born in 1928 in Kfar Malal, an agricultural village north of Tel Aviv. His love of farming was, indeed, part of his profile as in many ways a quintessential sabra—a native-born son of Zionist pioneers. So was his chutzpah—an audacity composed in large part of a slapdash disdain for rules and constraints.

Sharon had the trait so strongly that he became known as the bulldozer—someone who, when he thought he saw the solution to a problem, plowed straight toward it without regard for protocol and niceties.

Some of Sharon’s moves, both as a general and a statesman, were so dramatic that he in fact made history. That makes his legacy difficult to evaluate, since its entails speculation—speculation about what would have happened if Arik Sharon had not taken his daring, often stunning initiatives.

The Freedom Center’s Shillman Fellow unveils how and why Obama gave Iraq to al-Qaeda.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/robert-gates-revelations-confirm-horowitzs-party-of-defeat-on-the-glazov-gang/

On this special episode of The Glazov Gang, Ann-Marie Murrell, the National Director and Editor-in-Chief of PolitiChicks.tv, filled in for Jamie and interviewed Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, Daniel Greenfield, who runs the blog The Point at Frontpagemag.com

Ann-Marie and Daniel discussed Abandoning Iraq. The dialogue occurred in Part I (starting at the 9:50 mark) and focused on How and Why Obama Gave Iraq to Al-Qaeda.

Two years before Occupy Wall Street’s band of radical grad students set up their tents and cardboard signs in Zuccotti Park, Mayor Bloomberg warned the City Council against frivolous tax hikes. “One percent of the households that file in this city pay something like 50% of the taxes. In the city, that’s something like 40,000 people. If a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral.”

And then the 1 percent became the target of the left’s answer to the Tea Party. It wasn’t unusual to see bus riders wearing “We Are the 99%” buttons the way they had once carried I Heart New York bags.

New York City now has a radical leftist in Gracie Mansion, Bill de Blasio, a radical leftist City Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, and a radical leftist public advocate, Letitia James. The city is now run by the Working Families Party/ACORN and tax hikes will be used to finance generous payoffs to unions.

But the unions who rigged this election may never see those payoffs. New York City’s unfunded pensions are estimated as being as high as $136 billion. The crash may only be four years away.

The top 1 percent pay half the income taxes in the city and the top 10 percent pay 71 percent. Drive them away with tax hikes for municipal union goodies and the unions will have as much trouble collecting even basic benefits from New York as they do from Detroit.