RUTHFULLY YOURS

Grand jurors in Ferguson, Mo., refused to indict local police officer Darren Wilson yesterday, heroically resisting pressure from President Obama on down to lynch an innocent police officer who fought off a violent attacker.

The decision is infuriating left-wingers across America because it rebuts the underlying assumption they embrace which is that white police racism caused the death of Michael Brown, a young black thug who tried to seize Wilson’s gun in an attempt to do the officer harm.

As fresh rioting was already underway in the St. Louis area, the decision also angered President Obama who could barely contain his hostility in a disgraceful, unprecedented television appearance following the release of the announcement about the non-indictments. Obama urged activists to refrain from using violence. The president himself bears direct responsibility for fomenting the combustible situation, however.

The county’s elected prosecuting attorney, Robert McCulloch, calmly explained the process in detail last night that the grand jury employed in choosing not to return indictments in five potential charges from first-degree murder to lesser offenses.

McCulloch is a white Democrat who has come under heavy fire from race-baiting members of his own political party. His partisans hate him because he does not share their antipathy for police officers, and presumably, because he is the wrong color. McCulloch easily secured the Democratic nomination for his office in a primary election four days before Brown was killed. In that contest, he handily beat former state public defender Leslie T. Broadnax, a black woman, by a margin of 71.4 percent to 28.6 percent.

McCulloch said many witnesses gave testimony that was not believable. Witnesses fabricated events, admitted they were in error, clung to discredited factual accounts, or gave evidence inconsistent with the physical evidence.

McCulloch said grand jurors were “the only people who heard every witness … and every piece of evidence.”

“These grand jurors poured their hearts and soul into this process,” he said. The grand jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks and was meeting every week since Aug. 20 to hear evidence in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. The panel convened for 70 hours and heard from 60 witnesses.

David Isaac is an editor at Newsmax. He is also the founder of a Zionist history site, Zionism101.org.

David Wolpe, Newsweek’s pick for most influential U.S. rabbi in 2012, serves as rabbi of Temple Sinai in Los Angeles. When approached by Yale University Press to write about an important Jewish figure, Wolpe says “the choice was easy and obvious.” He chose his Biblical namesake, the “most complex character” in the Bible. So complex is David, in fact, that Wolpe reports that in one well-known ancient text, the rabbis confessed they “were unable to make sense” of his character. Yet, that’s just what Wolpe sets out to do. The result is David: The Divided Heart, a character study of Israel’s greatest king.

Wolpe organizes the material thematically, on the theory that “cutting across slices of the story to build a picture of this man, we will have a rounded portrait.” He begins with the “Young David,” and goes on to explore David’s relationships as a lover and husband, as a fugitive from King Saul, as king, as sinner, as father, as a man faithful to God, as a poet of God. He seeks to answer the question, “Why of all the characters in history, does David hold such an exalted place?”

We are introduced to the young David when the Prophet Samuel is sent by God to find a new king when Saul, the ruling monarch, falls from favor. Samuel is told to seek out the home of Jesse the Bethlehemite. He is impressed by Jesse’s first son Eliab, but God says: “Look not to his appearance … For not as man sees does God see.” David, the youngest son of Jesse, is finally brought forward. Samuel anoints him and, “The spirit of the Lord gripped David from that day onward.”

It’s clear that David’s central character trait is faith. David writes in Psalm 34, “I bless the Lord at all times.” And though David will stumble badly later, God will forgive him. Wolpe notes what he takes to be an important reason: “One of David’s most distinguishing features was the sin he avoided: idolatry. Unlike many of his successors, not once in the entire David narrative does he worship idols or false gods. … Not only is David free from the stain of idolatry, his relationship with God is steady and assured throughout the story.”

As a result, even King David’s worst crime, the one he commits against his loyal soldier Uriah, does not destroy that relationship. With Uriah off fighting one of David’s wars, the king sleeps with Uriah’s wife Bathsheba. When Bathsheba becomes pregnant, David has Uriah killed in order to cover up the crime — compounding this villainy he has Uriah himself deliver the letter ordering his commanding officer to ensure that he will be killed in battle. When the prophet Nathan comes to reproach David for his transgression, Wolpe writes: “Here is what David did not do: He did not have Nathan put to death.” On the contrary, David’s reaction is “immediate penitence – ‘I have offended against the Lord.’”

Many of those on the streets of Ferguson, Mo., have legitimate concerns about police conduct and the possibility of wrongful force regarding Officer Darren Wilson’s fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Unfortunately, Ferguson also has become a huge electromagnet for professional protesters who bounce from one focus of fury to the next.

These permanently angry people starred in anti-globalization demonstrations in Seattle, Miami, and Cancun. They screamed themselves hoarse as Governor Scott Walker curtailed the special privileges of the Badger State’s unionized government workers. This mob moved on to Occupy Wall Street — where they turned Zuccotti Park into an open toilet and rape camp — and Occupy Oakland, which featured vandalism and arson.

And now they are in Ferguson. Amid shuttered storefronts, padlocked school yards, and deployed National Guardsmen, this scene threatens to become the Super Bowl of mass public outrage.

The looting and rioting began in Ferguson last summer, soon after Wilson shot Brown. The initial narrative was as painful as it was clear. A ruthless, perhaps racist, police officer cut down an unarmed, college-bound “gentle giant.”

But things soon became clouded.

Brown was not so gentle after all. A security camera caught him stealing cigars from a convenience store. Brown then shoved a clerk who confronted him before he fled with the merchandise. In a recently released audio tape, a Ferguson police dispatcher told officers about a “stealing in progress” last August 9 at 11:53 a.m. Another dispatcher soon added that the suspect was a black male who had stolen a box of Swisher cigars. “He’s with another male. He’s got a red Cardinals hat, white T-shirt, yellow socks, and khaki shorts.”

As the store’s surveillance video confirms, the dispatcher’s description perfectly matches Brown’s attire as he swiped those smokes.

Political analysts still are arguing over why the Democratic party was washed away in the midterm election. Since 2008, ascendant progressives had been crowing over a fresh mosaic of energized minorities, newly franchised immigrants, single young urban women, greens, gays, and — less often mentioned — upscale professionals and the 1-percenter super-wealthy.

These groups were united by their support for the expansion of entitlements, higher taxes, neo-isolationism, amnesty, opposition to any restrictions on abortion, curbs on carbon-energy development, and gay marriage. But what really held them together was Barack Obama. His exotic name, his racial background, his leftwing ideology, and his Ivy League training appealed to each of these diverse groups. Without him on the ballot — as in 2010 and 2014 — most of these identity groups apparently were not energized enough to turn out in sufficient numbers to make up for middle-class voters turned off by progressive rhetoric and the by-any-means-necessary distortions to achieve its ends.

Indeed, a cynic would sum up the unlikely liberal coalition as a bridge over the middle class. Wealthy, influential progressives had enough capital and income to support new efforts at government redistribution, higher taxes, and the sort of green projects that, at least in the short term, would slow the economy and cost blue-collar jobs — but not really affect the 1 percenters’ own livelihoods much.

At the other end, the underclass welcomed expansions of federal entitlement programs and the idea of an activist state guaranteeing an equality of result for the less-well-off, with the taxes to pay for it all falling on someone else.

Note that the new progressive coalition was largely abstract. In their own personal lives, the upscale denizens of Santa Monica, Chevy Chase, and the Upper West Side did not put their children in diverse public schools, much less live among undocumented immigrants or give up their Mercedeses and Volvo SUVs for fleets of Priuses. None promised to take two fewer trips by jet each year.

Our political discourse, national and international, is filled with total dishonesty and it is time we called them on it.

For Iran and the 5+1 does not take a year and a half. If Iran was not working on nuclear weapons, they would reach an agreement in a month and would allow inspectors to go anywhere they want. They do neither; So it is only reasonable and the safe thing to believe that they are working on nuclear weapons. For the Obama administration to keep giving Iran more time only leads to the conclusion that the Administration expects them to have nuclear weapons and is willing to delay them , not stop them.

The Administration is proposing a 10 year agreement. How convenient for Iran. What is being proposed is a Hudna. To agree to a Hudna is to tell them that we won’t attack them and they won’t attack us for 10 years unless the Iranians feel strong enough to attack us. It they have nukes, they will feel strong enough to wage nuclear war.. President Obama went to a madrasa as a youngster. There is no reason to believe that he does not know what a Hudna is and what danger it poses to us.

The Administration does not condemn Muslim violence and genocide against non-Muslims, or Muslims of another sect. However, if a non-Muslim attacks a Muslim it is roundly condemned by the Administration. A case in point is the Hamas war of 2014. Israel attacked a UNWRA school used to store Hamas rockets and/or launch rockets against Israel. Israel is condemned for the attack while Hamas and UNWRA are not attacked for their actions.

Geneva Convention IV

Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 28.

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule97

Congressional Black Caucus Chair: ‘Unwritten Rule That Black Lives Hold No Value’ By Paula Bolyard
Rep. Marcia Fudge: “You may kill Black men in this country without consequences or repercussions.”

On Monday Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) called the grand jury’s decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown a “miscarriage of justice.”

In a statement released through the Congressional Black Caucus, which she chairs, Fudge said the decision not to indict Wilson “is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail.”

“This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that Black lives hold no value; that you may kill Black men in this country without consequences or repercussions,” Fudge said. “This is a frightening narrative for every parent and guardian of Black and brown children, and another setback for race relations in America.”

“My heart goes out to Michael Brown’s loved ones, and to the loved ones of all the Michael Browns we have buried in this country,” Fudge said.
Last week, G.K. Butterfield, (D- District 1 N.C.) the incoming chair of the Congressional Black Caucus — and former Superior Court judge — said that a crime “probably was committed” in the shooting and he warned that “if [grand jurors] turn their backs on justice …there will be pushback from those who are concerned about it — and I’m one of those who’s concerned about it. There will be pushback. We will be asking questions.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/islamism_islamofascism_and_islam.html Yes, the majority are not terrorists.  They are worse! Passive aggressors might be a better description for most of the silent Muslim majority. Words matter. Alas, neologisms come into the language all the time, especially when the drama index is high. Ironically, polemicists on the Right and Left abhor words like Islamism. Liberals think […]

It is official: Obama has now ushered in the Age of the Dictator for America. This man is, in essence, acting as emperor of this country. Despite the will of the American people, despite the outright illegal usurpation of rights that the president of the United States does not possess, Obama has changed the landscape of this country forever.

For those who would counter that Reagan and Bush Sr. afforded amnesty, Mark Krikorian ably refutes this assertion. Unlike previous situations, there have been no “foreign crises in the illegals’ home countries and thus [this] is not relevant to the current discussion.” In fact, Reagan’s and Bush’s moves were cleanup measures “for the implementation of the once-in-history amnesty that was passed by Congress.” But Obama’s move is “directly contrary to Congress’s decision not to pass an amnesty.”

With every move, Obama chips away at the very foundation of America. As one who knows too intimately what a dictatorship looks like, Cuban dissident Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo has written that “[t]hat’s what totalitarianism is all about: the State as an imitation of God.”

In effect, this bullying and total disregard for the law mirrors what Obama is doing concerning discipline in the schools. Society is now expected to accept out-of-control behavior by black students and simply do nothing about it. Consequently:

… ‘[w]hat this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for, because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates,’ predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Bader is a former official in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and has sued and represented school districts and colleges in civil-rights cases.

This is the double standard that Obama is so fond of. He does not have to abide by Obamacare; he does not have to abide by the Constitution; he is above the law simply because of his race. His lies are accepted because to make him accountable is to be racist. Whether it is a 15-year-old student wreaking havoc in a classroom or a 53-year-old president trashing the Constitution, race trumps rules.

I agree with every word ….all this sudden flurry of accusations reminds one of the spurious allegations of child molestation debunked by Dorothy Rabinowitz, and the “recovered memory” which led to accusations of parental sexual abuse….rsk

Those who are certain that numbers don’t lie and that the 15 women who have come forward to accuse Bill Cosby of drugging and molesting/raping them stand as evidence of truth should be reminded that 37 people claimed to be afflicted by witches in the 1692 Salem Witch Trials. This doesn’t mean that Bill Cosby is innocent of the charges but it does mean that this isn’t a class action suit and that the details of each of these experiences may differ significantly enough to not be proof of anything. As of now, we are listening to women tell about events that happened as far back as four decades ago, a long enough time for anyone to forget or re-interpret the past. Some of these women accepted money from Cosby, often over a long period of time. Some, like Janice Dickinson, made a career out of bedding famous men and bragging about that in interviews and books. Many of these women admitted that they were hoping for acting jobs on Cosby’s popular tv show. There was never a shortage of female groupies who considered sexual experiences with entertainers as trophies for their collection or women who aspired to careers in show biz who were perfectly comfortable with the requirements of the casting couch.

Gertrude Himmelfarb is the author, most recently, of The People of the Book: Philosemitism in England, from Cromwell to Churchill.

It was by chance that my first reading of Culture and Anarchy with my students coincided with the centenary of its publication. But it was not by chance that I chose to read it then, in 1969, at the height of the culture war. Anticipating that war by more than a century, Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) wrote a passionate defense of culture—high culture, we would now say—against the prevailing low culture that he saw as tantamount to “anarchy.”
Arnold’s culture is high indeed. It is nothing less than the pursuit of “sweetness and light” (Jonathan Swift’s epigram for beauty and intelligence), “total perfection,” “the best which has been thought and said,” and the “right reason” that comes from the “best self” rather than the “ordinary self.”

His countrymen, unfortunately, were animated by quite the opposite principle: “doing as one likes” and “saying what one likes.” Perhaps out of deference to John Stuart Mill, Arnold did not cite On Liberty to that effect (the book had appeared, to great acclaim, only a decade earlier). Instead, he quoted a Mr. Roebuck, a Liberal member of Parliament who was fond of asking, “May not every man in England say what he likes?”—asserting that this was the source of England’s greatness. To which Arnold replied that culture requires that “what men say, when they may say what they like, is worth saying—has good in it, and more good than bad.” Anything short of that is an invitation to anarchy, for it lacks “the much wanted principle” of authority that governs the culture as well as society.
Culture and Anarchy (1869) was not well received. One critic mocked the author as the “prophet of culture,” another as the creator of a “new religion called Culture .  .  . a sort of Eleusinian mystery,” still another as an egotist who wanted to “make the world a more agreeable place for Mr. Matthew Arnold to live in by multiplying images of Mr. Matthew Arnold.” Rejecting his conception of culture, they also denied the charge of anarchy—denied, in effect, that there was a culture war.

A century later, my students, in the midst of their culture war, recognized in Arnold’s culture the oppressive great-books mentality they were battling in the university. So far from rejecting the charge of anarchism, the more militant of them accepted it. What Arnold praised as authority, they denounced as authoritarian, and what he decried as anarchy, they took to be liberty at its best—the perfect liberty that was the antithesis of the perfect culture he celebrated.