RUTHFULLY YOURS

Was this the Metropolitan Opera’s Peter Gelb speaking?

“”This is a very, very tough subject, and we’ve tried to approach it honestly and fairly”

Or how about this? “…….” that the Israeli occupation of land once owned by Palestinians justifies their terrorism”….Or this: “A sympathetic Palestinian says that he and other terrorists (the Basque ETA gangs, the IRA) simply want to return and live in their old homes. The blame for their terrorism rests on those who now live in those homes and refuse to leave. ”

And how about: “Cultured Palestinians passionately explain: “We are for twenty-four years the world’s largest refugee population. Our homes taken from us. Living in camps. No future. No food. Nothing decent for our children.”

He also blames Jews for turning the Palestinians “into animals” and charges them with exploiting guilt over the Holocaust.

Was Alice Goodman the librettist of the Klinghoffer travesty the one who said “…… the creation of Israel a “mistake,” blamed Israel for “the whole shameful history of the dreadful suffering of the Palestinian people,”and advocated policies to undermine the state.”

How about the linking of Jews and money? Is this from the opera? ”

A leitmotif linking Jews and money will make more than a few viewers wince. “…..A Mossad handler growls: “I want receipts!”We’re not the Rothschilds, he says, just a small country. “We need receipts. You got me? Whatever you’re doing somebody else is paying for it.” Or: “A Jew and a Frenchman – we could haggle forever.”

Well no. This is all from the vile movie “Munich” which won so many awards and accolades. And Alice Goodman’s anti-Semitism pales in comparison to Tony Kushner….the “librettist” of “Munich”…Briefly, the movie presents, via pulse-pounding scenes of kidnaping, death, stalking and more death, the message that Israel was brutal, bungling and immoral in its reaction to the massacre. True, the hostage-takers were also brutal; but dispossessing Palestinians, we soon learn, lies at the root.

These are all quotes from a review by CAMERA…http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=1042&x_context=8

And finally: “Again, no. Indeed, merely to state clearly this argument is to refute it. A man who murders innocent by-standers is not the same thing as a man who resists oppression. The first is defined by his actions, the second by his aspirations. And if someone seeks freedom by murdering innocents, he is to be condemned as a terrorist, even if we sympathize with his aspirations. He may even forfeit those aspirations.”

The lull in the coverage of all things Islamic was broken by two terrorist attacks in Canada, a reminder that so long as the world does not unite to destroy the Islamic State, we shall all remain vulnerable. A “lone wolf” terrorist can kill you just as dead as one in a terrorist organization, particularly one encouraging these attacks.

While the media’s herd mentality continues to report about Ebola in West Africa and gears up for massive coverage of the forthcoming November 4 midterm elections, the Middle East remains in a low state of boil, never failing to produce bombings, skirmishes, and the usual inhumanities we associate with Islam.

Americans pay attention to the Middle East only when blood is flowing and at the present time the only element generating that is the Islamic State (ISIS) which continues to attack Kobani in northern Syria and assault the Yazidis and other targets in Iraq. The U.S., Britain and France are bombing ISIS forces, largely to protect and assist the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, the only fighting force of any consequence.

Virtually unreported are the 18 million Muslim refugees throughout out the Middle East. The U.N. reports that these and internally displaced persons reflect the turmoil in Afghanistan, Iraq. Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. To grasp this, think about what either the U.S. or Europe would be like with a comparable number of refugees.

As David P. Goldman, a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Wax Family Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, noted October 20 on the Forum website, “That is cause for desperation: unprecedented numbers of people have been torn from traditional society and driven from their homes, many with little but the clothes on their backs.”

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obamas-dangerous-strategy-of-linking-iran-isis-and-israel

In fifty days of Gaza conflict, Israel launched 5500 precision air strikes against terror targets. In 70+ days, the US launched less than 500 air strikes in Iraq and Syria against ISIS. Why?

It’s not lack of planes and fire power. It’s a lack of political will, despite all the rhetoric of having to degrade and defeat the Islamic State rampage and mayhem.

Despite Obama’s late decision to launch air strikes he has only tickled the enemy. He could do more. He won’t. He doesn’t want to. What is the reason for this procrastination?

Part of the reason for Obama’s reticence in attacking ISIS with more force seems to be contained in a think tank policy document he commissioned entitled “The Iran Project. Iran and its Neighbors. Regional Implications for US Policy of a Nuclear Agreement.”

https://www.scribd.com/doc/239959345/Iran-and-Its-Neighbors-Regional-Implications-for-U-S-Policy-of-a-Nuclear-Agreement

Experts who signed off on this document include Thomas Pickering, Brent Scowcroft, Daniel Kurtzer, Nicholas Platt, and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The document mistakenly sees the possibility of using ISIS to drive Iran and Israel closer together in a common cause. This misguided strategic fantasy is described thus, “If ISIS were to continue to progress, Israel and Iran might find themselves with a common enemy.”

The dream of bringing Iran and Israel together seems so devoutly to be wished by the Obama Administration that it surmounts any political reality to facts on the ground.

Could this be the reason that America has not applied the full measure of air power at its disposal in killing and driving back ISIS?

In a revelation that will surprise almost no one at this point, the Obama administration has been caught in another lie. Records obtained by USA Today contradict the administration’s assertions the 2,228 people freed from immigration jails in 2013 only included those with minor criminal records. Instead, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials released a number of illegal aliens facing serious criminal charges that include “kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and homicide,” the paper reports.

Despite last year’s furor surrounding the release, the administration continued to insist that only “low-risk offenders who do not have serious criminal records,” had been set free. That statement was part of the hundreds of emails and spreadsheets obtained by the newspaper showing that while two-thirds of those released had no criminal records, several had significant criminal records.

These realities blatantly contradict testimony by then-ICE Director John Morton before the House Judiciary Committee on March 19, 2013. Morton assured the Committee there were “no mass releases of dangerous criminals underway or any planned for the future, just efforts to live within our budget.” He also had the following exchange with Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA):

Forbes: Let me ask you this question. On the aggravated felonies that you talked about, I am looking at the list here, and I am just running through a couple of them. But no one on that list was charged or convicted with murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, were they?

Morton: They were not.

USA Today, which obtained the ICE data via a Freedom of Information Act request, reveals the fraudulence of Morton’s claims, noting there was “one person in Texas charged with aggravated kidnapping and sexually assaulting a child, as well as others charged with armed assaults or assaulting police officers,” the paper states. “Another immigrant released from Miami had been charged with conspiracy to commit homicide. Two detainees from Boston had been charged with aggravated assault using a weapon.”

The mother of the Muslim terrorists who attacked Canada’s parliament building on October 22 says she is weeping for her son’s victims, not for her son. What a contrast with the mothers of Palestinian terrorists who murder Israelis.

Mrs. Susan Bibeau, the mother of Canadian terrorist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, told the Associated Press on October 23: “If I’m crying it’s for the people, not for my son…I am mad at my son.”

If only Palestinian mothers felt the same way! Instead, they have the jihad mentality, too.

Last year (on Jan. 27, 2013), the Facebook page of Fatah, the movement headed by Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, posted a feature about the mother of 23-year-old Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber. She murdered one Israeli, and wounded over 100, by blowing herself up in a Jerusalem supermarket in 2002. The posting quoted Wafa’s mother as saying “She is a hero…My daughter is a Martyr (Shahida).”

The Fatah page added: “Wafa’s mother said that she is proud of her daughter, and hopes that more girls will follow in her footsteps.”

More recently, in an interview with Israel Television on June 29, the mother of one of the Hamas terrorists involved in the kidnap-murders of three Israeli teenagers said: “If they [the Israelis] accuse him of this [the kidnapping], and if it is a true accusation, I will be proud of him until Judgment Day. If the accusation that he did it is true…My boys are all righteous, pious and pure. The goal of my children is the triumph of Islam.”

The past 10 days have seen three hysterical editorials from the New York Times pleading for a U.S. economic lifeline to the Castro brothers’ terror-sponsoring regime (i.e. to end the so-called embargo).

It’s the economy, stupid—Venezuela’s that is. Those plummeting oil prices (20% in the past few months) are playing havoc with the Cuban colony’s already-rotten economy. Venezuelan subsidies to Cuba last year, mostly in the form of essentially free oil, were estimated to total $10 billion. That’s more than double what the Soviets used to send.

But Castro’s Venezuelan puppet Maduro is now on very shaky ground. The only thing keeping this pathetic satrap in power—besides the 30,000 or so Cuban military and security “advisors” essentially running Venezuela—are the bread and circuses that sitting on top of the world’s largest oil reserves allows the Venezuelan regime to put on for Venezuelans.

Now this oil-fueled largesse looks imperiled—and with it the subsidies to Venezuela’s colonial overlords in Havana. Hence the Castro brothers’ desperation for a rescue from U.S. tourists and taxpayers—and the SOS to their regime’s traditional agents-of-influence worldwide, among whom the New York Times features very prominently.

“Fidel Castro…has largely vanished from public view in Cuba,” reads the second NY Times editorial on Oct. 14. “But the 88-year-old former president [italics mine] has not altogether abandoned the business of telling Cubans what to think.”

Is the Times — at long last! — acknowledging a totalitarian streak in the longest-reigning Stalinist dictator of modern history? Sure sounds like it. Now please pay close attention as the editorial continues:

On Tuesday [Oct. 14th], Mr. Castro dedicated a column to an editorial published in The [New York] Times on Sunday [Oct. 11] that called on the Obama administration to restore diplomatic ties with the Cuban government and end the counterproductive [italics mine] embargo the United States has imposed on the island for decades. His take was remarkable for one main reason…quoting nearly every paragraph in the [our] editorial…Hosts of Cuban state-run radio stations [also] read Mr. Castro’s column and discussed its content…

In brief: so closely did the New York Times echo the sentiments of a Stalinist dictator that he gleefully ordered their article disseminated—almost word for word – throughout his regime’s KGB-founded and mentored media. It gets better:

He [Fidel Castro] appeared to endorse the thrust of the editorial,” The second NY Times editorial boasts, “comparing it to an interview he gave in 1957 as a young rebel leader to a [New York] Times foreign correspondent at the time, Herbert Matthews…

Britain’s The Telegraph reports that Britain is aiming to take serious measures against the Muslim Brotherhood. The situation contrasts notably with the one in the U.S., where—among much else—the Obama administration has cut back ties with the current, geopolitically moderate Egyptian government because—backed by the most massive popular protest in world history—it came to power by overthrowing a Muslim Brotherhood regime that the administration favored.

As The Telegraph describes it:

Downing Street is to order a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and a network of Islamist groups accused of fuelling extremism in Britain and across the Arab world.

[Prime Minister] David Cameron launched an inquiry into the Brotherhood earlier this year, prompted by concerns it was stoking an Islamist ideology that had encouraged British jihadists to fight in Syria and Iraq.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), is an adviser to the inquiry and “is reported to have described [the Brotherhood] as ‘at heart a terrorist organization.’”

The Telegraph adds that:

A senior source close to the inquiry said its report—compiled but not yet published—had identified “an incredibly complex web” of up to 60 organisations in Britain, including charities, think tanks and even television channels, with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, which will all now come under scrutiny.

The inquiry, aided by the security services, has also investigated its network abroad. One expert said that the Brotherhood was now operating from three major bases—London, Istanbul and Doha, the capital of Qatar.

That the Brotherhood operates out of Turkey and Qatar is, of course, not news to politically sentient people in the Middle East, who are well aware of the Turkey-Qatar-Brotherhood-Hamas axis.

As for what Britain plans to do about its domestic Brotherhood terror base:

The Government crackdown will stop short of outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood but action is expected to include:

Þ Investigations into charities that are effectively “fronts” for the Brotherhood;

Canada has experienced two murderous jihad terror attacks in the last three days, not long after the Islamic State called for such attacks – but the denial and obfuscation are as thick as ever.

On Monday, Ahmad Rouleau, a convert to Islam, hit two Canadian soldiers with his car, murdering Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Then he led police on a high-speed chase, during which he called 911 and explained that he was doing it all “in the name of Allah.” The chase, and Rouleau’s jihad, ended when he flipped his car and then, brandishing a knife, charged police, who shot him dead. One of Rouleau’s close friends said: “It was a terrorist attack and Martin died like he wanted to. That’s what happened….He did this because he wanted to reach paradise and assure paradise for his family. He wanted to be a martyr….The caliphate called all the Muslims on earth to fight. He listened to what they had to say and he did his part here.”

Then on Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who has been widely reported to be a recent convert to Islam but whose father is a veteran of the jihad in Libya and who has been a Muslim for at least three years, went on a shooting rampage in Ottawa, murdering military reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo and engaging in a gun battle inside Canada’s Parliament building. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said that there was “no evidence at this stage” that Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to any jihad groups, but CNN reported that “according to a U.S. counterterrorism source, Zehaf-Bibeau was connected to Hasibullah Yusufzai through social media. Yusufzai is wanted by Canadian authorities for traveling overseas to fight alongside Islamist fighters in Syria.” And “other radicalized people connected to Zehaf-Bibeau are still believed to be living in Canada, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

So Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to at least one jihadist who went to Syria to wage jihad, and Rouleau listened to what the Islamic State was saying, and “did his part” in Canada. What was the Islamic State saying? Late in September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.” He also addressed Western non-Muslims: “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses, and thereafter we will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards.”

I said yesterday that I got angrier about the events in Ottawa as the day went on. My anger continued today.

“…apropos Muslim ‘reverts’ who want to engage in what the Premier of Quebec calls ‘spontaneous acts of extremism’, I’m tired of being told that we have to change to accommodate them. They are the ones who have to change, or have change forced upon them.

“And, rather than confiscating passports and preventing these guys from leaving to fight for ISIS, I think we should wait till they get there to cancel their passports: If they prefer to be citizens of Headhackistan, so be it. But, if they attempt to return to Canada (or America, Britain, Australia, Europe), they should be charged with treason.”

Here’s my full interview with Alan Jones. I look forward to seeing Alan in studio when I’m Down Under in a couple of months.

A group of New York police officers were attacked by a hatchet-wielding assailant today, and CNN is reporting that the man’s Facebook page has “links to extremism.” The details:

Four police officers and a woman were injured, and a hatchet-wielding man was fatally shot during a bloody altercation Thursday in Queens.

Four rookie police officers were working near 162nd Street and Jamaica Avenue when a freelance photographer asked them to pose for a photo in front of a Conway store. While they were posing, another man, described as a 32-year-old male, attacked without saying a word, Commissioner Bratton said at a press conference Thursday.

“The suspect was described as having charged at the officers,” Bratton said.

Swinging an 18-inch metal hatchet, the man first hit a 24-year-old officer in the right arm — he was later taken to Jamaica Hospital in stable condition.

The suspect kept swinging, striking a second officer in the back of the head, critically injuring the 25-year-old.

The other officers fired multiple shots, killed the suspect at the scene.

A 29-year-old woman passing by was struck by gunfire in the lower back. She underwent surgery at Jamaica Hospital and is in stable condition.

Bratton said he didn’t believe the photographer was working with the attacker, but they are now reviewing his pictures.