RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://carolineglick.com/the-truth-hurts/

To hear it from the White House, and from Israel’s leftist media, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon is a major liability. As half the planet now knows, Ya’alon is harshly critical of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s persistent efforts to force Israel to surrender its land and ability to defend itself to the PLO.

In a private conversation that Ya’alon did not expect to be made public, he criticized Kerry’s so-called security plan that offers Israel advanced technology in exchange for PLO control over its eastern border. Ya’alon also rejected the notion that the PLO is interested in making peace. And he stated the inconvenient fact that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas is only in power because Israel has security control over Judea and Samaria.

Ya’alon also said, again in a private conversation, that Kerry’s razor-sharp focus on Israel and the PLO owes to an “incomprehensible obsession,” and that by neurotically pushing for a deal that has no chance of being concluded or achieving peace, Kerry is exhibiting “messianic” character traits.

Ya’alon’s private statements about Kerry were no harsher than public statements that the Saudis have made regarding the Obama administration’s regional policies. Last November, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal. According to Goldberg, the Saudi royal attacked US President Barack Obama “with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/what-churchill-would-make-of-obamas-iran-appeasement/ In the fall of ’38, the motion was submitted to approve the government’s policy “by which war was averted in the recent crisis and supports their efforts to secure a lasting peace.” The policy was the carving up of Czechoslovakia and the war being averted was World War II. Of that, Winston Churchill said, […]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/richard-l-cravatts/the-guilt-of-israeli-scholars/

As one shocking example of how ideologically detached the professoriate of U.S. universities have become from the thought and beliefs of normal citizens, at a 2003 “peace rally” at Columbia University held to denounce America’s initiation of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s treachery, many were stunned and mortified when Columbia anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova asserted the insidious, perverse notion that “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus,” alluding to the 1993 ambush and slaughter of American forces in Somalia.

Opposition to the government, its military policies, the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, extrajudicial assassinations by unmanned drones—all of these, at various times and during different presidential administrations, have drawn the condemnation of great swathes of academia, precisely because, like Professor De Genova, the academy has become ideologically imbalanced. In fact, a 2003 study, “How Politically Diverse Are the Social Sciences and Humanities?,” identified the existence of highly-biased campuses where self-identified Democrats (liberals) outnumber Republicans (conservatives) at alarming rates, with “results [that] support the view that the social science and humanities faculty are pretty much a one-party system.” The study found that the ratios between Democrats and Republicans in the different academic departments ranged from a low of 3-to-1 in Economics to a shocking 30.2-to-1 imbalance of Democrats to Republicans among Anthropology faculty, the average of the ratios being 15.1-to-1.

As the recent calls for boycotts and sanctions against Israeli universities by the American Studies Association (ASA) and the Modern Language Association (MLA) clearly indicate, an ideological imbalance in the professoriate has resulted in a collective antipathy toward Israel as the latest villain in the academic Left’s panoply of oppressors—this time of the victim of the moment, the Palestinians. These alleged transgressions on the part of Israel are often further conflated with the view that the “brutal occupation” of Zionism has unleashed “crimes against humanity” through U.S. complicity, that as its proxy in the Middle East, Israel tarnishes America through its misdeeds and mirrors the U.S.’s own imperialistic, militant, and anti-Muslim impulses.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/368593/print The Obama administration is no stranger to trying to micromanage complex, intractable problems from Washington. But using the Civil Rights Act to direct schools’ disciplinary practices might be its most foolhardy idea yet. Beginning in 2010, the Department of Education, led by the occasionally sensible Arne Duncan, announced that it intended to pursue vigorously […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/368598/print

Yes, liberal bias does play a role in explaining why — as Newsbusters.org reports — the major networks have had 44 times more coverage of Chris Christie’s “Bridgegate” scandal than they have had on anything related to the IRS political-targeting scandal that began last May.

Jonathan Alter, speaking on MSNBC, has dismissed the comparison by saying that “there are not ongoing revelations [in the IRS story]. If there were ongoing revelations in the IRS matter, that would still be a story.” He made his claim only four days after news broke that the Justice Department had chosen a significant Obama donor to head its investigation of the IRS, creating the obvious perception of a conflict of interest.

But it’s also true that a large part of the difference in coverage is owing simply to the laziness of journalists, for whom anything connected to a future presidential election trumps delving deeply into more complicated topics.

That laziness has extended to the “bullying” issue, i.e., whether Governor Christie is part of the long New Jersey tradition of overbearing political bosses. New Jersey voters are split, with the latest Quinnipiac Poll finding that 40 percent of those surveyed think he is more of a bully, while 54 percent think he is more of a leader (his overall approval rating is 55 percent).

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/congressional-recognition-for-dr-walid-phares?f=puball

Family Security Matters is so proud to share that one of our finest, Contributing Editor, Dr. Walid Phares, received such a high recognition from a distinguished Congressional member.

Please see: Rep. Sue Myrik Interviewed at Family Security Matters- http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-interview-with-rep-sue-myrick-r-north-carolina-district-9

It is my great privilege to recognize the patriotism and valor of Professor Walid Phares, who has been an advisor to my office and the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus since 2006. During that time, he has also ably served as my academic advisor on the Middle East, Terrorism, jihadi ideologies, Middle East minorities, Muslim reformers and democratic movements.

I found his enlightening book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America, to be highly educational. The wisdom and insight I found on every page when I read it in 2005, led me to conclude that the book was a must-read for every American; it would help them to understand the ideological basis of the jihadi threat at home and abroad and enable them to figure out the best strategies against it. Future Jihad was included on the summer reading list of House Republicans in 2007 and was read by many of them. Dr. Phares’ book, The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy, deepened my understanding of jihadists’ use of propaganda to promote their political ideology, penetrate the West, and recruit members. His third book authored after 9/11, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad (published in 2008) also enabled me and other global strategists to forge the appropriate alliances and isolate the extremists.

Since 2006, Dr. Phares has taught a unique course at the National Defense University with classes comprised of students from the military, intelligence community, and House staff, including two of my own, whose support to my own outreach efforts excelled as a direct result. Dr. Phares has been a guest lecturer on the Middle East and Terrorism at several national security agencies, including the Intelligence University where he engaged US military allies on cooperation and mutual understanding. For nearly a decade, his rich academic knowledge and experience have informed and educated many of my colleagues and their staffs.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/from-saudi-arabia-with-terror-controversy-highlights-saudi-ties-to-chechen-jihad?f=puball

Controversy Highlights Saudi Ties to Chechen Jihad

Given that the “Chechen groups that threaten…the games are controlled by us,” Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan allegedly promised to “guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics” to Russian President Vladimir Putin during an August 2013 Moscow visit. Even if untrue, this story surrounding Bandar’s visit raises disturbing questions about ongoing Saudi ties to Chechen jihadists.

Prince of terror?

Prince of terror?

According to reported leaks, Bandar’s comments came in the context of various offers designed to induce Russian abandonment of its Syrian client Bashar al-Assad, currently embattled by Saudi-supported rebels. The Bandar controversy from August remains ominous given ongoing attacks by Chechen jihadists across Russia. A December 29, 2013, Volgograd train station suicide bombing, for example, killed 18, only to be followed the next day in the city by a trolleybus suicide bombing claiming an additional 16 lives.

Volgograd is a key transportation hub on the way to Russia’s volatile Caucasus region including Chechnya and the Black Sea city of Sochi, where the 2014 Winter Olympics will open on February 7. Doku Umarov, Chechen “emir” of the terrorist Imarat Kavkaz (IK or Caucasus Emirate), called in a July 3, 2013, online video for the games’ disruption. Umarov condemned the Olympics as “satanic dances on the bones of our ancestors.”

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304073204579169863937737536?mod=Opinion_newsreel_5 If there’s one certain conclusion from the last 30 years of education reform, it is that more money doesn’t yield better student results. But you wouldn’t know it from the debate in Kansas, where activists are trying to get the state Supreme Court to overrule the legislature and spend at least $500 million more […]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304603704579324783339931114?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

President Obama and Democrats have been at great pains to insist they knew nothing about IRS targeting of conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofits before the 2012 election. They’ve been at even greater pains this week to ensure that the same conservative groups are silenced in the 2014 midterms.

That’s the big, dirty secret of the omnibus negotiations. As one of the only bills destined to pass this year, the omnibus was—behind the scenes—a flurry of horse trading. One of the biggest fights was over GOP efforts to include language to stop the IRS from instituting a new round of 501(c)(4) targeting. The White House is so counting on the tax agency to muzzle its political opponents that it willingly sacrificed any manner of its own priorities to keep the muzzle in place.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/to_protect_his_image_obama_has_tied_pentagons_hands_in_hunting_for_benghazi_attackers.html

Barack Obama and his minions have done everything they can to mislead Americans regarding Al Qaeda and its role in the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans serving their nation. The attack was called by the administration a spontaneous demonstration caused by an all but unwatched video created by a hapless Coptic Christian in California — who was promptly jailed. This narrative was spread by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Then, as the truth leaked out despite efforts by the White House to stonewall and prevent witnesses from testifying, it became all but obvious that the attack was planned and perpetrated by Al Qaeda.

However, that revelation would have caused campaign and image problems for Barack Obama since he had repeatedly and grandiosely declared many times that Al Qaeda was on the run, was decimated, on the ropes and that, needless to say, Bin Laden was dead.