RUTHFULLY YOURS

Jonah’s post quoting from The Hill on American rules of engagement against ISIS is deeply disturbing. If it is true that we’re refraining from air strikes if there’s a risk “of even one civilian casualty” (and I say “if” because rules of engagement are supposed to be classified), then the administration is imposing a deeply immoral standard on American forces.

Jonah’s exactly right that this standard — especially now that it’s announced — drives ISIS much deeper into the civilian population, incentivizing the use of human shields and creating — as he says — “safe zones” for ISIS operations. All of this, of course, means that more civilians will die — not from the American pilots who are forbidden to drop their ordinance — but from ISIS. Every month that it endures and grows, it kills more innocents, often in the most horrible ways imaginable.

Hillary Clinton’s reticence is drowning out her message, which is that she is the cure for the many ailments that afflict America during a second Democratic presidential term. Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) has called her “the most opaque person you’ll ever meet in your life,” but when opacity yields to the necessity of answering questions, here are a few:

Your first leadership adventure was when your husband entrusted you with health-care reform. Using a process as complex as it was secretive, you produced a proposal so implausible that a Democratic-controlled Congress would not even vote on it. Your legislation was one reason that in 1994 Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years. What did you learn from this futility and repudiation?

Three times in your memoir Hard Choices you say that as secretary of state you visited 112 countries. Do you think “peripatetic” is a synonym for “effective”? You tell readers that at a 2009 meeting with Chinese officials you said, “We need to build a resilient relationship that allows both of us to thrive and meet our global responsibilities without unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict.” Does it trouble your environmental conscience that trees died to produce the paper on which you recycled that thought?

“Sweden, to a much larger extent than other countries, allows hate preachers to enter the country and give lectures to spread their message. Sweden should deal with this.” — Haras Rafiq, President of the Quilliam Foundation.

Every year, about 60,000 Swedish passports are reported stolen or lost. Police estimated last year that about 180,000 Swedish passports are touring the world. There are people who have “lost” up to 20 passports, yet have no problems acquiring new ones. One cannot but wonder why people should be allowed to have three passports issued over a five year period.

Stockholm’s politicians want to “include” homecoming jihadis into Sweden’s “infidel” society by giving them health care, jobs, welfare benefits and housing.

Despite Foreign Minister Margot Wallström’s promises, when Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine, assuring everyone that this move would give Sweden more leverage to make demands on the Palestinians, Sweden continues to send money their way with no strings attached.

“You can’t draw me,” says Muhammad.

“That’s why I draw you,” says Bosch Fawstin, the winner of the cartoon contest.

That says it all. What is not allowed by Islam and by the violence of terrorists, we will do it anyway. And we call that: Freedom of speech.

A few weeks ago, I was in Garland, Texas, at a conference and an exhibition of Muhammad cartoons. Shortly after I had spoken, a terrorist attack took place. Islam and the terrorists do not want us to show these cartoons. But terror and violence may never defeat freedom of speech. That is exactly the reason why we should do what the terrorists want to prevent us from doing.

A book has appeared that ought to become a primer for all future studies of the subjects of marriage, romantic love, and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. This is Ron Pisaturo’s Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage.

On April 7th, when Masculine Power first appeared on Amazon for sale, I wrote there:

I recommend this book highly for anyone confused by today’s “sexual politics.”‘ Pisaturo gets down to the basics of gender and gender identity. Those wishing (literally) to be something else are sure to disagree with Pisaturo’s fact-based discussion on the nature of the male and female genders. One’s gender is not disposable, it is not a suit of clothes one can discard and adopt another. One can’t discard it just because one doesn’t “feel right” in it.

CONTENTS
1. Isis snuff movie plumbs new depths
2. Leading media close their eyes
3. ISIS crucifies two children, accusing them of breaking Ramadan fast
4. ISIS offers Yazidi sex slaves as prizes for Ramadan quiz
5. Female suicide bombers murder 30 at crowded Ramadan mosque that wasn’t Muslim enough
6. ISIS begins blowing up ancient shrines in Palmyra
7. Meanwhile at the NY Times: Erekat: Jerusalem is Israel’s capital; NYT says Tel Aviv is
8. New York Times’ Rosenthal and colleagues act out mass killings at work
9. Former President Ahmadinejad: U.S. seeks to arrest the Hidden Imam
10. Video: Pepsi uses Seinfeld character to film ad in Israel

I just listened to President Obama’s announcement about his new, changed, unchanged negotiating, and non-negotiating strategy with hostage takers. As usual, you could pick out sentences to support any position that you think he has taken.

President Obama claims that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. However, we know that he has negotiated with:

· The Taliban

· The Palestinian Authority

· Hamas

· Hezbollah

· The Muslim Brotherhood

· Iran

President Obama negotiated with the Taliban to trade 5 high high-ranking terrorist held in Gitmo for a deserter. He then held a Rose Garden ceremony with the deserter’s parents. The father praised Allah in Arabic.

A recent poll [2] found that 51 percent of Democrats supported criminalizing hate speech. It also found that the same number of self-described liberals supported its criminalization.

Liberal self-identification has hit its highest mark [3] in decades while the ranks of the moderates have declined. And while the idea that the liberal and the moderate are opposites may be a troubling one to those who still think of liberalism in classical terms, the modern liberal is really a leftist in denial.

When William Voegeli writes in the Claremont Review [4] about the crisis of political correctness, it is about a clash between liberals and leftists that no longer really exists. The liberal backs the same censorship agenda as the leftists that Voegeli discusses.

And under his control, the Democratic Party has signed on the dirty dotted line.

The dark truth about disease and Obama’s border lawlessness.

By now most Americans are familiar with the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to force-feed amnesty for illegals to a largely recalcitrant American public. The most egregious part of this effort occurred during last year’s border “surge” when the administration not only embraced the admittance of tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) into our nation, but the purposeful and secret dispersal [2] of them into all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. What Americans don’t know is that the Obama administration ignored [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines [4] that apply to legal immigrants and prevent the unvaccinated, or those with a “communicable disease of public health significance,” from entering the country. As a result, it is quite possible the outbreak of unknown diseases or those mostly eradicated in the U.S. for quite some time is no coincidence. The administration’s stance on the issue? A combination of silence, denial [5], or blame-shifting [6] to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

We begin with last year’s outbreak [7] of Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68), a disease that paralyzed and killed American children. That in and of itself should have elicited a media firestorm, along with demands for establishing the origins of the outbreak beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet coverage was scant. Reporter Sharryl Attkisson revealed [8] the disease was first identified in California in 1962, but that outbreaks had been relatively rare. She further noted the CDC “hasn’t suggested reasons for the current uptick or its origin.” Sundance at theconservativetreehouse.com [9] attempted [10] to correlate the outbreaks of the disease with the location of UAC shelters. And while part of his investigation was stymied by the reality that the administration kept many of those shelter locations secret, “there are significant numbers of them in both cities in which the current outbreak was first identified,” he explained.

On June 17, 2015 the Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules conducted a joint hearing concerning “A Review of the President’s Executive Actions on Immigration [2].”

Inspector General (IG) John Roth testified at this hearing along with Sarah R. Saldaña, the Director of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and León Rodríguez, the Director of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). For those not familiar with the federal government, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comparable to “Internal Affairs” where police departments are concerned.

Before we begin to consider the Inspector General’s testimony and what it tells us about the administration’s use of what is claimed to be “prosecutorial discretion,” I want to begin by calling attention to what I hope is obvious to everyone: The Congressional Subcommittee on National Security was one of the two subcommittees that called this hearing, thereby reenforcing the nexus between immigration and national security — a nexus that was identified by the 9/11 Commission.

Nevertheless, precious few members of Congress, or journalists for that matter, are willing to publicly address this nexus. Talk about the proverbial “elephant in the room.”