RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Islam is a religion of peace and has nothing to do with the ideology of our enemies.” — Home Secretary Theresa May, on the beading of David Haines by IS in Syria.

The documentary did not shed light on why the British government continues to allow Sharia law to take precedence over UK law by tolerating polygamy.

“You’ve got an eight, nine, 10-year-old child playing those kind of violent games with heads blowing off and limbs blowing off. What kind of mentality is that kid going to have?” — Convicted terrorist Shahid Butt blaming video games for radicalization of Muslim youth.

“Gangs raping children get let off and ignored, people making comments about it get chased down and treated more severely than the rapists.” — Angry citizen in South Yorkshire

Islam-related issues were widespread in Britain during the month of September 2014. What follows is a summary of the main stories, presented in three broad themes.

1. Islamic Extremism and Syria-Related Threats

The House of Commons on September 26 voted 524 to 43 to approve a request by British Prime Minister David Cameron to join the American-led coalition against the jihadist group Islamic State [IS], but only in Iraq, not in Syria where the IS has established its headquarters.

The vote came after IS jihadists decapitated the British aid worker David Haines in Syria on September 14.

In a politically correct statement on the beheading, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg claimed that the murder had nothing to do with Islam. “No religion could possibly justify such grotesque acts,” he declared.

There has never been a war in American history so strategically ill-conceived as the one currently developing against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria.
The Mexican war of 1846-47 was essentially an aggressive operation to take Alta California and New Mexico, and to cement the status of Texas. It was limited in its objectives, and it was conducted in a strategically sound manner. The goals – their legality apart – were achieved, and the balance between costs and benefits was never in doubt. Vae victis!
The Civil War (under whatever name) was a “rational” bid by Abraham Lincoln and his team – legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations notwithstanding – to create a centralized state. He won the war, and hugely expanded federal governmental power. This was a disaster for America, but it was a resounding success from the standpoint of its instigators.
The 1898 war against Spain was but another exercise in Realpolitik. It finally moved America from a republic to an empire, the “manifest destiny” now manifested in Admiral Mahan’s and Theodore Roosevelt’s geopolitical designs.
Woodrow Wilson’s 1917-1918 intervention against the Central Powers was the first overtly “ideological” war – to make the world safe for democracy etc. Its slogans were silly, but in the end it could be argued that the geopolitical purpose was well served: to prevent the dominance of the continent of Europe by a single hegemon. America did not make much difference to the outcome in the battlefield, but her entry signaled to the Germans that the Entente could not lose.
World War II was a convoluted affair that entailed FDR provoking Japan in order to provoke Germany. Considering Roosevelt’s Weltanschauung it worked beautifully. His goals were rational within that paradigm, and they were fulfilled beyond expectations.

NEW YORK (AP) — Mayor Bill de Blasio refused to take questions Friday about the latest revelations surrounding an embattled top aide who has become a flashpoint in his strained relationship with the rank-and-file in the New York Police Department.

De Blasio didn’t break stride as he walked past waiting reporters into City Hall after attending a memorial service for fallen NYPD officers. But controversy continued to swirl around Rachel Noerdlinger, a highly visible face of the administration, and what she revealed on background checks when she was hired for the $170,000-a-year position as chief of staff to first lady Chirlane McCray.

The Department of Investigation found that she declined to disclose that she was living with her boyfriend, Hassaun McFarlan, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in a 1993 shooting when he was 15 and later served time for drug trafficking. The news website DNAinfo reported that McFarlan’s Facebook page, now taken down, had several posts referring to police as “pigs.”
The DOI probe concluded without recommending that Noerdlinger be disciplined. De Blasio, who has repeatedly defended her, has snapped at reporters asking about the aide’s future, declaring on Monday that it was “case closed.”

But two more damaging stories appeared Friday.

DNAinfo reported that she and her underage son were in the car with McFarlan when he was pulled over in 2011 for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The officer smelled pot in the car, and McFarlan was arrested for marijuana possession. Police in Edgewater, New Jersey, confirmed the arrest and said Noerdlinger was given a summons for allowing someone to drive a car without a license.
Additionally, the New York Post reported that Noerdlinger left a $28,000 tax lien off her Conflicts of Interest Board disclosure form. De Blasio aides said she later updated her form.

Though the mayor remained silent, his spokesman voiced support for Noerdlinger later Friday.
“Rachel Noerdlinger is a valued member of our team,” said Phil Walzak, who praised her experience “fighting for social justice and equal rights.”
The rank-and-file police union has called for Noerdlinger to be fired. But it’s not just her association with her boyfriend that has made her a source of ire for many officers.
Before assisting McCray, the most prominent first lady in city history, Noerdlinger used to be a top aide to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been a fervent critic of the NYPD for decades. He took center stage again this summer by leading protests over the death of Eric Garner, an unarmed man who died after being placed in a police chokehold.

​VIDEO at LINK​
The Friday release of 10,000 pages of Clinton White House documents scored an enormous amount of media attention with broadcast and print news reporters scouring the pages and covering the sordid Monica Lewinsky affair and the Paula Jones allegations and civil case. However, hidden in the historical documents is evidence that Associate Justice Elena Kagan achieved her position on the nation’s highest court as reward for being a “good soldier” in the “war to defend President Bill Clinton.”

Elena Kagan and Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy holding a photo op during her confirmation hearings.
Elena Kagan and Sen. Patrick “Leaky” Leahy holding a photo op during her confirmation hearings.
US Senate Photo Gallery
According to a section on Kagan, a Washington, D.C., lawyer, she served in the Clinton White House as a associate counsel to the president in 1995-96 and then deputy assistant to the White House Domestic Policy and then deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) from 1997-1999. While Justice Kagan performed duties with regard to AIDS, budget appropriations, campaign finance reform, education, health, labor, race, tobacco, Native Americans, and welfare, her most important job was the handling a lawsuit brought against President Bill Clinton by a woman who claimed then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton had sexually harassed her.

The released documents touch on how Elena Kagan as a White House counsel defended Bill Clinton against allegations in a civil suit brought by an ex-Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones. In one May 1996 memo, Kagan appeared to be more concerned with how it looked “unseemly” for the president to be represented in court by so many attorneys, but made no mention of how unseemly it was for a sitting U.S. President to be accused of bullying a defenseless low-tier employee.

In the documents submitted to the opposing counsel and to the judge in the case, Kagan had many of the attorney’s names — who worked on the case — removed from the cover-sheets for all documents and correspondence. “While not a criminal act or even a serious breach of civil law, [Kagan’s] actions in removing those names could be considered unethical. Let me put it this way, if you or I did such a thing with legal documents, the judge or judges would not act kindly towards us,” said political strategist and attorney Laurence Collier-Stevenson. “Ask yourself: is this the kind of person you want passing judgement on the entire government and nation?” he asked rhetorically