RUTHFULLY YOURS

A number of prominent Jewish organizations and publications, as well as some media outlets, have sharply criticized the manner in which the Obama administration has gone about defending the Iran nuclear agreement by attacking its critics.

Tablet Magazine accused certain proponents of the agreement of using “Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice” such as “[a]ccusing senators and congressmen… of being agents of a foreign power…” to smear their opponents. Similarly, Abraham Foxman, the former director of the Anti-Defamation League, attacked President Obama for fueling the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as warmongers. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center also attacked the administration for bullying opponents of the deal with the “crock of dual loyalty.”

Pastor McConnell’s prosecution is one of a growing number of examples in which British authorities — who routinely ignore incendiary speech by Muslim extremists — are using hate speech laws to silence Christians.

“I think this is an important issue of freedom of speech. I believe a prosecution like this introduces a chill factor into society where people feel that if they speak out on something that they believe passionately they could end up being dragged through the courts.” — Democratic Unionist Party MP Sammy Wilson.

“The police tried to shut me up and tell me what to preach… They have the right to say what they believe in and I have a right to say what I believe… I have no regrets about what I said. I do not hate Muslims, but I denounce Islam as a doctrine and I make no apologies for that… My church funds medical care for 1,200 Muslim children in Kenya and Ethiopia…I’ve no hatred in my heart for Muslims, but I won’t be stopped from preaching against Islam.” — Pastor James McConnell.

“James McConnell didn’t incite hatred or encourage violence against any Muslim…H e simply expressed his views about another religion. Freedom of speech should mean that he has every right to lambast Islam, as Islamic clerics have to lambast him and Christianity if they so choose. Those who disagree with Pastor McConnell should challenge him and attempt to win the debate, rather than close it down… Freedom of speech isn’t only for polite persons of mild disposition airing their views within government-policed parameters. It’s about letting awkward, insulting and even offensive voices be heard too. And yet the silence from civil liberties and human rights organisations here has been deafening. In any democracy worth its salt, freedom of speech isn’t a luxury for your friends, it’s a necessity for your enemies. Defending Pastor McConnell’s right to say what he said doesn’t mean approving or embracing his sentiments.” — Suzanne Breen, an atheist journalist, Belfast Telegraph.

Introduction
Iran’s Supreme Leader is the Main Agitator for the Destruction of Israel

Sixteen years after his death, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s founding vision — that the eradication of Zionism is an inevitable precondition for redeeming contemporary Islam — keeps guiding the current generation of Iran’s religious, political and military establishment. To him the destruction of Zionism was an axiom never to be questioned or strayed from and an objective to be perpetually and actively pursued. According to this vision, Israel should be fought as part of a protracted global struggle between Islam and the West, which “planted intentionally the Zionist Entity in the heart of Islamic World.”

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was faithful to this doctrine, making it the centerpiece of his foreign policy; current President Hassan Rouhani, his successor for the last two years, is also faithful to this doctrine, just less obvious. Notwithstanding, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei bears the torch and is the chief agitator for the extermination of Israel, spreading this message worldwide over social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, books1 and addressing various target audiences in English, Arabic and Persian.

The Iranian religious, political, intellectual and military elite support and repeat Khamenei’s messages. Members of the Iranian Army high command (as opposed to the Revolutionary Guards) have even declared their willingness and capability to destroy Israel, once the leader’s order is given. Practically speaking, the regime’s intelligence and international subversion agencies, mostly the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, massively support anti-Israel terror groups and stage repeated conferences in Iran dedicated to denial of the Holocaust and to the deligitimization of Israel’s right to exist.

Ruthie Blum is the web editor of Voice of Israel talk radio (voiceofisrael.com).

Two pieces published on Monday illustrate the depth of the cognitive dissonance with which Western liberals are afflicted in relation to the nuclear agreement with Iran. One is a report in the Fars News Agency, a semiofficial mouthpiece of the Iranian regime; the other is Roger Cohen’s column in The New York Times, titled “Iran and American Jews.”

The Fars article covers Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s address to the so-called 8th International General Assembly of Islamic Radios and Televisions Union about the nuclear deal.

“Washington imagined that it could use this agreement whose fate is not clear yet … to find a way to wield influence in Iran, and this was their intention,” Khamenei said. “But we closed this path, and we will definitely keep it closed. We will not allow the U.S. to influence our economy, or politics or culture. We will stand against such penetration with all our power — that is, thank God, at a high level today.”

He went on to say, “[The Americans] seek to disintegrate the regional states and create small and subordinate countries … but the territorial integrity of the regional states, Iraq and Syria, is highly important to us.”

It’s not just scandal-mired IPCC chieftain Rajendra Pachauri, he of the roving hands and lustful emails, who makes you wonder about sleaze and sexism at the top of an organisation allegedly devoted to making the world a better place. When it comes to misogyny he has plenty of company
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, while chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 2002 to February, 2015, was the darling of global academia and the media. He oversaw and signed off on the IPCC reports of 2007 and 2013, and stepped squared up at the crease in Norway in 2007 to receive the IPCC’s half-share in the Nobel Peace Prize. Those 2007 and 2013 IPCC reports ramped up the global climate-change industry to what is now a $US1.5 trillion business.

The West’s endeavors to reduce CO2 emissions – notwithstanding the 18-year halt to global warming – are now diverting $US4 billion a day from potentially worthwhile Third World causes such as malaria control, safe water, sanitation and food security. Just for old times sake, I looked up Pachauri’s speech at the Oslo Peace Prize ceremony.

He quoted approvingly, “We honor the earth; for bringing forth flowers and food and trees…” Lovely! He then went on to warn about accelerating loss of water supplies from Himalayan glaciers, relied on “by more than one-sixth of the world’s population”. Oops! That was the Fourth Report’s “all gone by 2035” howler (based on a newspaper cutting) which nearly saw him sacked by the InterAcademy Council in 2010, after he’d abused a genuine scientist for pointing out the error. Pachauri finished, “Will those responsible for decisions in the field of climate change at the global level listen to the voice of science and knowledge, which is now loud and clear?”

Are open-borders advocates and Hispanic activists sowing the seeds for revolution? Not just a social revolution, but an armed, violent revolution?

In a little-discussed news item [1] from this month, a 16-year-old illegal alien set a police cruiser on fire in Texas before attempting to swerve his car into two motorcycle cops during a police chase that followed. Although he was armed — and aimed a rifle at the police twice — he was eventually apprehended without a shot being fired.

The teen, whose name hasn’t been released due to his age, later told [2] investigators he was tired of ICE “always sending Mexicans back to Mexico for no reason.” He said they are the ones in America “doing all the work.” He was also tired of “his people getting shot by police and nothing happening.” His broader motivation? As he put it, to create a “war against the government.”

We’re listening…

As anti-establishment Republicans are gaining traction in the polls, Scott Walker is trying to establish himself as an outsider as well.

In a speech set to deliver in Minnesota on Tuesday, Walker will take on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).Never a bad idea.

“Republican leaders in Washington told us during the campaign last year that we needed a Republican Senate to repeal Obamacare,” the Wisconsin governor will say according to pre-released remarks. “Well, Republicans have been in charge of both houses of Congress since January and there still isn’t a bill on the President’s desk to repeal Obamacare.”

Walker will say that he’s had to take on the establishment in his party before and that he told GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin, “It was put up or shut up time. If we didn’t do what we said we’d do, the voters would have every right to throw us out.”

“And just like I did in my own state, I am willing to take on anyone – including members of my own party – to get the job done,” he will say.

File this one under “UN Sleaze,” or perhaps under “UNRWA’s Use of Dead Infants to Defend and Abet Terrorists.” Though even that may be putting it too mildly.

In the run-up to next month’s annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the latest Israel-trashing report from the propaganda mills of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been released. This one’s a doozy, summed up by an UNRWA press release [1] dated August 8 with the headline: “INFANT MORTALITY RATE RISES IN GAZA FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FIFTY YEARS.”

This is the finding of an UNRWA-conducted study. In the opening sentence, the press release points a finger at — where else? — Israel, saying “the Agency’s Health Director says the blockade may be contributing to the trend.”

GOP presidential candidate would eliminate mandates, provide tax credits based on age
Scott Walker’s proposal to replace President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law would set up a system that eliminates a host of federal mandates and provides tax credits for the uninsured based on age, not income or family status.

The Wisconsin governor and GOP presidential candidate says the plan wouldn’t add to the federal deficit and would completely repeal and dismantle the Obama administration’s health-care law. Mr. Walker says his plan would give more control to the states, overhaul Medicaid and do away with tax credits based on income. It would also toss out the law’s requirement that insurers offer plans that cover essential health benefits such as maternity care and mental-health services.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American; Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

My wife and I were a very nervous and excited young couple purchasing our first home. Our homebuilder was a dear friend of my parents. Upon going to closing, there were numerous odds and ends the builder had not completed. He vowed to complete my home asap and asked that I sign a paper for the bank stating that he completed all the work on my home.

My mom cautioned me not to sign the paper. Mom said, “Eaten bread is soon forgotten.” I ignored Mom’s counsel. Sure enough, after my builder received his check from the bank, I had to chase him for over a year to complete my home.

Just as my builder said whatever necessary to get paid, politicians make voter-pleasing promises on the campaign trail. After they are elected, they forget their promises. Therefore, the final Jeopardy question is: Which GOP presidential contender would keep his word if elected? Having been burnt so many times, trustworthiness, character and backbone must be paramount in selecting our nominee.

In this primary season, we have witnessed honorable conservative candidates dialing back their original comments or apologizing due to pressure from the mainstream media and the candidate’s handlers. This raises concerns in me about how these candidates would holdup under world-class attacks once they are in the WH.

Leftists (mainstream media, Democrats and liberals) viciously insulted and accused president Ronald Reagan of every nasty thing imaginable. It takes a rare human being to stand firm in the midst of 24/7 relentless character assassination. Thus, my question. Which GOP contenders would follow through with their conservative promises?

At the top of my list is Senator Ted Cruz. On several issues, Cruz seems to always end up on the opposite side of the GOP establishment and Leftist Democrats; in-sync with We the People. Cruz never follows the crowd. Eagles fly alone.