RUTHFULLY YOURS

While British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was paying homage to Iran’s passive foreign policies, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels were, in fact, busy overthrowing Yemen’s government.

Ali Shirazi, a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader, said in January that: “The Houthi group is a similar copy to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and this group will come into action against enemies of Islam… The Islamic republic directly supports the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the popular forces in Syria and Iraq.”

A peaceful Middle East and a nuclear-free Iran, some British politicians claim, is only achievable if the “moderates” in Tehran can be won over.

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, in The Times, declared:

“New sanctions legislation, which some in America are calling for, would undermine Iranian confidence in the negotiations and irreparably damage the chances of a deal. Hardliners in Tehran, who oppose any deal in principle, would be strengthened.”

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve was on official business in Morocco when informed of the jihad attack against a free speech meeting in Copenhagen. He immediately flew to Denmark where he joined his personal friend François Zimeray, French ambassador to Denmark. Zimeray, who attended the “Art, Blasphemy, Freedom of Speech” event at the Krudttønden Café organized in reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, put it succinctly: “I went to the meeting by bicycle and left in an armored car.”

All- news channels BFM TV and I Télé went into Special Edition, reporting on the attack non-stop from Saturday afternoon to Sunday night, and then some. Frequent zaps to other available stations—CNN, SkyNews, BBC, France24—yielded low to negligible interest in the story…aside from the BBC recording of Inna Shevchenko’s speech. The Ukrainian Femen, commenting on the current state of press freedom in the West, asked “Why do we say we have freedom of speech, but…?” As she repeated for emphasis the “freedom but” her words were brutally punctuated by the sharp crackle of gunfire.

A week from Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint ‎session of Congress. He will find some empty seats as a few dozen Democrats, ‎almost all them either members of the Congressional Black Caucus or the ‎progressive caucus (the most left-wing members of the U.S. House of Representatives), plus a very ‎small number of senators, take the day off. These elected officials will boycott the ‎presentation to express their displeasure with the fact that Netanyahu’s invitation by ‎House Speaker John Boehner was “disrespectful to the president” and violated ‎established protocol. The disrespectful charge came naturally to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have formed a blocking and tackling operation to protect the first elected ‎black president from the time of his inauguration. The protocol issue relates to ‎the timing that the White House was informed, when the invitation was extended, and the ‎timing of a speech by a foreign leader so close to the date of their country’s ‎national election (though the initial date was one three weeks earlier and less in ‎proximity with the Israeli election date, and more in line with other visits by foreign ‎leaders before their nation’s election dates). ‎

▪ Hundreds of Danish Muslims express admiration for, pray at grave of Copenhagen terrorist
▪ By contrast, last night hundreds of Norwegian Muslims form human “peace ring” to protect Oslo synagogue
▪ However, not reported in the BBC, Guardian and other accounts of last night’s Norwegian peace ring: Haaretz: Oslo synagogue ‘peace ring’ organizer blamed Jews for 9/11 (He made the remarks in a speech in Oslo in 2008 titled “I Hate Jews and Gays”.)

HUNDREDS PAY RESPECTS TO COPENHAGEN TERRORIST
Over 500 young Danish Muslims attended the Islamic burial on Friday of the gunman who murdered two people and wounded 5 others in Copenhagen last weekend.
Danish-born Omar El-Hussein, 22, was placed in an unmarked grave in the Muslim cemetery in Broendby, on the outskirts of Copenhagen.
El-Hussein has been identified by police as the gunman who shot dead 55-year-old filmmaker Finn Noergaard and 37-year-old Dan Uzan, an economist and member of Copenhagen’s small Jewish community, who volunteered as a security guard to protect a bat mitzvah party for a 12-year-old-girl. Five Danish police officers were also injured in the attacks.
You can see pictures of the funeral, and admirers posing for photos by El-Hussein’s grave, if you scroll down here.

COPENHAGEN IMAM ON EVE OF TERROR ATTACK: THE PROPHET ENGAGED IN WAR, NOT DIALOGUE, WITH THE JEWS
Video here from February 13, 2015, the day before the murders.
Why isn’t this Imam under arrest?
________________________________________
There have been several such sermons by Danish Imams in the past. For example, in this one, delivered in Berlin last July, the Danish imam explicitly calls for his congregants to kill Jews “to the very last one”.

Intellectuals in public life stand on unsteady footing. Their employers—all of us—are suspicious, and often rightly so. Knowledge can breed overconfidence, imprudence, aloofness, and moral myopia. Yet there are examples of those possessing wisdom that is both contemplative and practical, who can win political success and become a boon to their country. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one. Edmund Burke was another.

With this comparison in mind, Greg Weiner set out to write his treatment of Moynihan’s political thought, American Burke: The Uncommon Liberalism of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Weiner, a professor of political theory at Assumption College and a one-time aide to Senator Bob Kerrey, sees Burke less as a direct influence upon Moynihan—Moynihan rarely quoted the great Anglo-Irish politician and writer—and more as a lens through which to examine him. Neither was a systematic thinker, and so an explanation of their mutual principles can never be entirely precise. But however imprecise that exercise must be, the ideas that Burke and Moynihan shared were profound.

The Wall Street Journal reported this past week that the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has quietly dropped its ban on foreign contributions and is accepting donations from the governments of “the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany, and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.” The Journal’s conclusion: Since 2001 “the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments.”

Needless to say, the gargantuan troll-like conflict of interest that arises as soon as the foundation of the leading candidate for the presidency of the United States begins accepting money from overseas is apparent to every sentient being on the planet except members of the Clinton family and the growing number of advisers, consultants, strategists, pollsters, groupies, allies, and hangers-on whose livelihood depends on that family’s political success. “These contributions,” the foundation said in a statement to the Journal, “are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”

The great humorist, Jerome K. Jerome, suggested many years ago that, “… we all love peace, but not peace at any price.”

Peace is only a reality between states that are rational and can in time become friendly towards each other.

Today, the peaceniks, the liberal groups, the lefties, and all those who shout out the vacuous phrase, “peace and justice,” have turned those once noble words into soiled and tarnished rags.

They have become the very folk who, through one of life’s supreme ironies, shout down dissenting voices and thus become guilty of the very violent behavior they claim to oppose.

The universities and colleges have become hotbeds of radicalized students who chant slogans of peace and justice yet howl down invited speakers with whom they disagree.

Jamie Glazov’s Fight for the Truth About Islam on 3rd St. Promenade.
The Counter Jihad Coalition hits Santa Monica.
http://jamieglazov.com/2015/02/22/jamie-glazovs-fight-for-the-truth-about-islam-on-3rd-st-promenade/

Have you ever asked yourself, ‘would I have helped a Jewish friend or neighbor in Nazi Europe?’ Would I have tried to rouse my fellow citizens in America, when isolationism was the rage? Would I have even noticed there was a call of conscience? Would I have told myself to ignore what was happening around me, until my world was in ruins?

I have no illusions of possessing extraordinary courage. Luckily, as Americans, we do not live under a terror regime. We can inform ourselves easily on the advance of radical Islam. We can speak out. We can exercise our individual conscience. We can listen to the still, small voice that determines our own moral worth.

We are living at what Churchill called “a hinge of fate.” Iran is poised to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians speak of genocide against the Jews and worldwide conquest as fondly as Hitler did. In America, we are all players in this drama.

The entire lesson from the 20th century is to prevent calamitous developments before it is too late. We have had national unanimity on this point. For thirty-five years there has been bi-partisan recognition that Iran is a terror state, dangerous to Israel, the Saudis, Europe, America. Iran has become more dangerous, not less. Iran has also become weaker economically. The Saudi oil price war gives us a real chance that economic sanctions could bring the mullahs down. Except that Obama lifted the sanctions and no longer wants the regime brought down.

Islamists such as Arfan Bhatti, Mullah Krekar and Ubaydullah Hussain have openly said they want Sharia law introduced in Norway, and placed above Norwegian law.

With such requests for divisiveness at it core, it is hard to see how Islam can not be in constant conflict with its surroundings.

There simply has been no real debate about the ripple effects created from this cultural collision-course between Humanism and Islamism.

It is probably high time to take a long, critical look at the contents of the Qur’an and see what values and spiritual seeds it can plant in people’s minds. Europeans are just starting to face a reality with which Israelis have lived for years.

Here, those who seem “out of line” risk being publicly and privately destroyed by self-appointed “anti-racists,” who do their best to sabotage anyone with the audacity to voice an opinion different from theirs.

Either way, this reaction shows that the openness for discussing sensitive issues is not much better in Norway than in Pakistan.

Politicians need to be especially wary of those they choose as advisors. It is so easy to be an extremist in moderates’ clothing.