RUTHFULLY YOURS

In these days I am very worried about Sweden. Never before has the disastrous immigration policy that Sweden implements been so obvious in its failure, as it is these days, when Europe is in the middle of a refugee crisis. Each week, Sweden receives thousands of asylum seekers from the Middle East. At the same time, there are three important questions that the Swedish government cannot answer. The Swedish government does not know where these tens of thousands of asylum seekers will live, how they will be working and how this new wave of immigration will be financed.

Sweden is today going through its worst housing crisis in 50 years. The figures are frightening. According to Boverket, the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, Sweden needs to build half a million homes by 2020. But the government’s costly housing initiative that will cost $387 million annually will only lead to 250,000 new homes by 2020. That is the situation today. How the situation will be after the refugee crisis, and how many homes will be needed by then, no one knows. But a whole generation of Swedes will grow up in a society where homelessness will become part of everyday life.

The FBI’s bizarre and shocking refusal earlier this week to cooperate with legal efforts to force the public release of emails from former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s hacker-friendly private Internet server is yet more proof that the Obama administration is continuing to provide political cover for the 2016 presidential hopeful.

This strange behavior comes as Republican lawmakers escalate their criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s unusual emailing habits. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) is demanding that U.S. Attorney General and Obama lackey Loretta Lynch appoint a special counsel to investigate the case. Other lawmakers want hearings to consider compelling testimony from Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who installed the server in her private residence.

The Department of State is also dragging its heels in processing the electronic correspondence, Citizens United President David Bossie said. The agency is “slow walking” the Freedom of Information Act requests for the almost-certainly damning emails to prevent their release before key Democratic primary elections next year, he said.

The leftist media’s uproar against Ben Carson’s personal opinion against electing a Muslim U.S. president must be met with a much stronger and direct response from mature and informed Americans.

Dr. Carson’s opinion about Islam is correct, but the lack of a supportive counter-uproar by Americans is giving power to the leftist mainstream media. The Left cannot or will not accurately and objectively determine the dangers of an Islamic president, while there are also those leftists who just don’t want to know the truth.

The media claim that the majority of Muslims are “moderate,” but they ignore that fact that in the Muslim world, the “moderates” are out of power and always will be. The reason is not because they represent the true peaceful Islam, but because Islamic guides and books are not on their side. Islamic books, including the Quran, don’t support the concept of “moderation,” peace or forgiveness, but support the concepts of vengeance, retaliation and jihad. It is a fact that Islamic books have always sided with radicals, with no exceptions.

Obama’s final legacy may be the death of millions of Americans.

No government has the blood of more American soldiers on its hands today than the government of Iran. From Lebanon to Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia to Iraq, Iran has been killing American soldiers for decades.

241 in Beirut. 19 at the Khobar Towers. Over 500 in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last time the United States officially fought Iran was under Reagan. But Iran has never stopped killing Americans. There is no reason to believe that it will stop once it has the nuclear weapons that Obama is helping its leaders obtain.

The last time left-wing radicals aided the nuclear program of an open enemy of the United States, they were put on trial for it. The sentencing judge at the time said that because “the nature of Russian terrorism is now self-evident” there was no further room for claims that no harm had been done.

“I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country,” Judge Kaufman stated.

These words of the Rosenberg verdict apply equally well to Obama’s betrayal on Iran. What the Rosenbergs did for Stalin, Obama did for the Ayatollah Khamenei.

After a morning with Pope Francis at the White House, President Obama marked Eid al-Adha with a lengthy statement noting that “regardless of race, religion, and gender we are reminded that our rich diversity is what strengthens our nation.”

Eid al-Adha — the “Feast of the Sacrifice” — begins this evening.

“As more than 2 million Muslims from around the world and across the United States mark the end of their holy pilgrimage of Hajj in Mecca, Michelle and I extend our warmest wishes to Muslims around the world celebrating Eid al-Adha,” Obama said.

“This pilgrimage and Eid is about sacrifice, almsgiving, and equality. Thousands of Muslims around the world travel to Mecca and Medina, leaving behind all that is valuable and dressed in a simple white cloth – all standing shoulder-to-shoulder and equal before God. This experience signifies that no single person is more worthy than another. It is reminiscent of the principle upon which this country is built: e pluribus unum – out of many, one.”

Jews against Themselves
As a new book shows, hatred of Jews can be infectious—and some of the worst carriers are Jews who defame their own people.

J Street is an organization that describes itself as “pro-Israel” and proclaims itself “devoted and committed to Israel’s future.” Yet, as Edward Alexander observes in an important new book, J Street “misses no opportunities to blacken Israel’s reputation and very few opportunities to encourage campaigns to delegitimize it.”

And J Street is not alone. Similar Jewish organizations, some without J Street’s pretensions to Zionist commitment, have been proliferating in recent years both here and abroad. In the United States, they include, among others, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews against the Occupation, Jews for Free Palestine, Jews for Justice in the Middle East, and a multitude of local chapters, offshoots, and branches.

In Jews against Themselves, Alexander takes up the curious and disturbing phenomenon of his volume’s title. A professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Alexander is a distinguished student of American and English literature and an essayist whose erudition is ornamented by a coruscating wit. Among his highly regarded books is The Jewish Idea and Its Enemies (1988), an examination of the various intellectual strands—liberalism, rationalism, relativism—that, emerging from the Enlightenment, have long been in tension with, or in outright opposition to, central tenets of the Jewish tradition.

In Jews against Themselves, Alexander engages in a related project but one that entails turning over a rock. His inquiry examines the disfiguring yet critical subject of Jews who defame their own people. Over the centuries, Alexander writes, there has been “fruitful interaction” between Jewish apostates and the world’s anti-Semites, making for a distinctive Jewish contribution to “the politics and ideology of anti-Semitism” itself.

Jeb Bush has had these strongly held views . . . for at least seven days.

Jeb Bush has come out swinging against multiculturalism.

In this Drudge Report-linked story, Bush hammers the multicultural dogma that differences between Americans should be talked about and treasured:

“We should not have a multicultural society,” Bush said, before beginning a longer explanation of his views of what comprises culture in the U.S. “When you create pockets of isolation – and in some places the process of assimilation has been retarded because they’ve slowed down – it’s wrong,” he added. “It limits people’s aspirations.”

Jeb Bush has had these strongly held views . . . for at least seven days.

Just last week, Bush sent a fundraising letter praising the virtues of his “modern” and “multi-cultural family.”

So, Ben Carson is in the dock because he said he would not advocate for, or support, a Muslim for president because of his concerns that Islam, of which Sharia is an indispensable part, is not compatible with the United States Constitution. First, it is nearly impossible without ignorance or ill will to misunderstand Dr. Carson’s clear and carefully chosen words. He did not say a Muslim could not be president, but only that he personally would not advocate for or support such a candidate due to issues of incompatibility. However, for those since who have relied upon the purposeful misstatement or reinvention of his words, we should be asking why they lie, and what they seek to achieve if they get away with it.

Many Americans are no longer religious, but cannot deny that our nation and our culture are direct products of Judeo-Christian history, experience, and law. The Ten Commandments are the bedrock of our legal system. There is the firmness of the Old Testament, with the temperance and forgiveness of the New Testament. Most of our ancestors were raised with the Bible. For the most part, those who emigrated to the United States through most of the 20th Century also came predominantly from Christian countries, bringing their faith with them. In America, one can accept religion or reject it, but Judeo-Christian history is woven into our culture.

In the spring of 2011, I heard about a dazzling young conservative, the former solicitor general of Texas, who was running for a soon-to-be-open U.S. Senate seat. Brilliant and charismatic, he was a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate who seemed to relish rubbing that pedigree in the faces of Ivy League liberals who couldn’t fathom why he wasn’t “one of them.” But Ted Cruz would never be “one of them,” and that gave him the makings of a conservative superstar.

So I invited this political unknown with negligible poll numbers to appear as a guest on my national radio show. One of the first — and most dynamic — candidates to emerge from the then-nascent Tea Party movement, Mr. Cruz spiritedly championed limited government, fiscal responsibility and economic freedom. When I asked if we could trust him to stay true to those principles, he replied unequivocally, “I give you my word. I will fight with everything I have for them and for this great country.”

And he did. He waged so many lonely battles against President Obama, the left, the media and many in his own party — over Obamacare, the debt ceiling, taxes, Mr. Obama’s executive orders, gutting of the military and global retrenchment — that I began tweeting, “Must Ted Cruz do everything?”

He was the original outsider.

That earned him the enmity of those who resented how bad his leadership made them look. But he wasn’t sent to Washington to be a party apparatchik, and he’s remained one of the very few who has staunchly resisted that town’s seductive call to sell out.

When a woman accepts a job working for an orthodox Jewish congregation, she knows what values that synagogue espouses and stands for. Alana Schultz worked at Congregation Shearith Israel for 11 years – more than enough time to know full well that Orthodox Judaism frowns upon pregnancy before marriage. Nevertheless, she waited until she was 5 months pregnant and unwed before revealing her condition to her supervisor and several weeks later was fired despite having married in the interim. Typical of today’s default conception of women as victims, this woman has sued the congregation for discrimination, raising some interesting questions.

Should a religious institution be allowed to hold stricter standards than other commercial or government enterprises? Does a congregation that stands for a different moral code than the society at large have the right to expect adherence to that code from its employees?