RUTHFULLY YOURS

From an e-pal Jan Poller: “If the US. was going to do this, it would have to be prepared to hit any site any time in the future. It can’t be a one time thing.Obama missed the opportunity to support the anti-Ayatollah, Pro-American Green revolution in Iran.The U.S. missed the opportunity to strike ISIS when they moved across the desert from Iraq to Syria.In 5 years of less, we will regret missing the opportunity to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Since sometime in 2009, I have felt that Obama WANTS Iran to have nukes. Nothing has changed, including his lies and his actions, since then to make me even doubt that let alone change my mind. Jan Mel Poller

WASHINGTON — U.S. airstrikes aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely set back the regime’s quest for a weapon by one or two years and require waves of attacks spearheaded by the ultra-heavy conventional bomb known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, according to military officials and experts.

A comprehensive attack aimed first at taking down Iran’s air defenses and destroying its deeply buried nuclear facilities would provide a “moderate confidence level” that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon would be set back by as much as two years, said a senior officer familiar with the planning.

Two senior officers involved in planning potential Iran attacks spoke to USA TODAY. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Dr. Phil Taverna has written some interesting articles stressing right brain and left brain functions. Organizations that have been infiltrated by a large number of left wing extremists, like the Democratic Party, know how to appeal to the right brain functions which are more emotional, as opposed to Republicans who attempt to counter left wing artifice with facts which originate in left brain functions. Hence, Republicans often may seem to be mean, nasty little “fact people.” For the anti-fact brigade, if you care enough, you will set the facts aside, and you will “have a heart.”

Mrs. Clinton staked herself out as a right brain person a long time ago with the sophomoric but cagey book, It Takes A Village. Updating her book, we see today that it takes a village of “soft on crime citizens” to produce the heartless murder of a Kate Steinle. It takes a village of corrupt, Tammany Hall-style grafters and job seekers to cast aside the normal interests in family and productivity in our urban black communities. Fifty to eighty years of Democratic Party rule in our large metropolises has led to oceans of poverty, alienation, frustration, and generational disappointment with life among African-Americans. It takes a village to look the other way while crony capitalists in both parties oil the wheels of state and corrupt the corrupters…buying influence, and widening the gap between the electorate and the power elite. Yet in Mrs. Clinton’s “village” there is no mention of the ever-widening power gap – yes, power inequality – between the political class that controls our government at all levels and the people.

The Tribalist, by Louis Marano, is ostensibly a work of fiction but at its core a kind of love song by a gentile journalist for the State of Israel, and especially its secular Zionist core. (Because of the relentless attacks by left-wing polemicists on Israel’s allegedly “messianic” fringe, it’s often forgotten that most of Israel’s founders and all its leaders have been secular Zionists.)

The author, the product of an Italian-American family in Buffalo, served two tours of duty in Vietnam as a Navy Seabee. After a brief career in academia, he spent 22 years as a journalist in Washington, D.C., including a decade at the Washington Post and five years as reporter, columnist, and feature writer for United Press International. His acute and vivid depiction of the mean-spirited, untidy passions of American Mideast correspondents toward Israel is the book’s great contribution to our understanding of one phalanx of the ignorant armies arrayed against the Jewish state.

“Politics in a work of literature,” wrote the great French novelist Stendhal, “is like a pistol-shot in the middle of a concert, something loud and vulgar, and yet a thing to which it is not possible to refuse one’s attention.”

Is this someone you’d like as your Commander in Chief?Is this someone who understands stealth jihad and creeping shariah in America and who will be a stalwart defender of our liberties?Is this someone who understands the threat posed by Islam with its goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate under shariah?Is this someone who understands that Mohammed was a tyrannical mass murderer and pedophile and believes that Islam is a “religion of peace?Is this someone who understands the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the government while focusing solely on the possibility that Huma Abedin’s “sexually deviant” husband had access to Hillary’s classified emails and NOT her more threatening (and obvious) MB connections?Is this someone who denounced “Piss Christ” and the dung-covered Madonna with equal fervor OR at all?Watch the two minute video and read the article below. Janet Levy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bB5pbP-Mxlw

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/whats-wrong-with-donald-trump/What’s Wrong with Donald Trump By Pamela Geller

Donald Trump has catapulted to the top of the Republican Party Presidential polls because he saying in plain language what so many are thinking about immigration. Immigration is out of control, and even most Republicans are so afraid of the “Latino vote” that the immigration issue has become the third rail. But Trump has numerous weaknesses – notably a huge blind spot about the jihad threat, including a disturbing willingness to kowtow to jihadist intimidation and surrender the freedom of speech.

And as always with Trump, it all goes back to his business interests.

Work in BigTech for Hire: Americans Need Not Apply A post-graduate student-visa program is just another scheme to displace American technology workers.
American technology workers won a big victory in the federal courts this month. The D.C. District Court ruled that a STEM-related visa program created by the Department of Homeland Security was potentially damaging to the domestic labor market and also in violation of federal rule-making procedure. For the plaintiffs in the case, the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers, however, the fight against BigTech lobbyists and Homeland Security has only just begun.

DHS’s so-called Optional Practical Training (OPT) program allows foreign nationals to live and work in the U.S. on a student visa even after graduation. In a rule promulgated by DHS in 2008, foreigners graduating in a STEM field at a U.S. school had these authorizations extended to nearly two and a half years after their graduation. U.S. employers love this because, on top of the longer work period, they have a greater chance to transition them into the H-1B program, a “professional specialty worker” visa that can last up to an additional six years. Also, employers receive a tax benefit for hiring OPT participants over Americans, as they do not have to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes for aliens on student visas.

Et Tu, John Yoo?By John C. Eastman

Birthright citizenship has exploded into the national discourse. The issue is generating a lot of heat on the Republican side of the aisle in particular, because it threatens to expose the long-standing rift between the party’s base and its pro-crony-capitalism establishment.

Unfortunately, in arguing that the 14th Amendment requires citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, some of the more prominent interlocutors are promoting an incorrect understanding of history. The Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial on the matter is a case in point, and my good friend John Yoo’s NR essay repeats one of the same basic flaws.

The first clause of the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Journal thinks the meaning is “straightforward”: “Subject to the jurisdiction” covers everyone born on U.S. soil (except the children of diplomats and invading armies), because “‘jurisdiction’ defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom — and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth.” It then states: “By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.”

Professor Yoo makes the same claim (absent the ad hominem word “restrictionist”): “Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory: Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment.”

This claim plays off a widespread ignorance about the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” It fails to recognize that the same word covers two distinctly different ideas: 1) complete, political jurisdiction; and 2) partial, territorial jurisdiction.

As with Obamacare, Congress will have to pass the ObamaNuke deal to find out what’s in it. Literally.

When many in Congress apparently failed to read the 2,409-page Obamacare legislation, it was mainly their fault. Although Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi jammed the final bill through the Senate and House with little time for their colleagues to absorb it, scores of lawmakers otherwise failed to consume that heaping helping of mind-numbing, nausea-inducing prose — nearly twice the length of War and Peace. Yes, every member of Congress should have devoured it. But what unappetizing reading.

The ObamaNuke deal with Iran is something entirely different.

Congress cannot read key details of the agreement. They are secret, and America’s duly elected representatives are forbidden to see the entirety of what Obama is pressuring them to approve.

Case in point: the recently exposed provision that allows Iran to self-inspect its Parchin military site, south of Tehran, long feared to be a nuclear-research facility.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, since its founding in 1979, has had an ideology that seeks to “export the Islamic revolution” — if necessary, by force.

Despite what President Obama likes to say, it is not true that the agreement, “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” or “cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb.” This agreement means the U.S. has accepted that after 15 years, or sooner, Iran may build as many bombs as it likes.

Iran is not a country busy trying to preserve its own sovereignty. Iran, instead, undermines other countries’ sovereignty.

Iran’s regime is extremely pragmatic: it sees that its survival is not, threatened no matter what it does. It sees — as does everyone else – that transgressions are, in fact, rewarded.

Why does the U.S. wish to allow a regime that wants to destroy America’s closest Middle East ally to acquire more advanced conventional — and later, nuclear — weapons? Why would anyone allow a country that gives missiles to terrorists to get hold of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)?

The appeasement of Iran in respect of its nuclear development is so likely to be the prelude to future violence that other danger-spots are overlooked. Vladimir Putin’s imperialist Russia is bearing down on Estonia, formerly occupied by Communist Russia and now independent and a member of the EU and NATO. Last September, President Obama visited this Baltic State, and gave an assurance that NATO’s doctrine of collective defense would be applicable in the event of Russian aggression. Only two days later, a Russian strong-arm squad crossed the border, and on Estonian territory kidnapped Eston Kohver, an Estonian security agent. Taken illegally to Russia, he was held in prison, for all we know in the former KGB and now FSB’s Lubianka headquarters itself, where tens of thousands of innocent victims have met their fates.

Joe Biden had good reasons to huddle privately with Elizabeth Warren on Saturday at his official residence. The Massachusetts senator may have chosen not to run next year, but her populist rhetoric and agenda dominate the 2016 Democratic contest. Should Biden challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination, he will need either Warren’s neutrality or her blessing.

Socialist Bernie Sanders isn’t the only candidate pounding the drums of class warfare. Hillary claims “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” attacks high-level corporate salaries, and says that “we have to go beyond Dodd-Frank” in passing laws to rein in Wall Street firms. All of these themes are straight from Elizabeth Warren’s playbook and bear scant resemblance to the centrism that Bill Clinton embraced as president in the 1990s.

But Warren is stoutly refusing to endorse any candidate, so far preferring to use her leverage to influence the entire Democratic field. In an interview on Friday, she told WBZ in Boston: “I don’t think anyone has been anointed.”