RUTHFULLY YOURS

As a deeply religious person, I don’t like blasphemy. My religion and its holy books are sacred to me. And I understand perfectly well why a Muslim would not care for a cartoon of a naked Mohammed.

But the debates over freedom of speech and the sensitivity of religious feelings also miss the point.

For non-Muslims, the right to blasphemy is also the right to believe. While we may think of blasphemy in terms of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, each religion is also mutually blasphemous.

Muslims argue that the West should “respect prophets” by outlawing insults to Mohammed and a panoply of prophets that it gathered from Judaism and Christianity. But Islam considers the Christian view of Jesus to be blasphemous and Christianity considers Islam’s view of Jesus equally blasphemous.

If we were to truly prosecute blasphemy, the legal system would have to pick a side between the two religions and either prosecute Christians for blaspheming against Islam or Muslims for blaspheming against Christianity. And indeed in Muslim countries, Christians are frequently accused of blasphemy.

It may be difficult to understand how the leadership of our own government could be behind a push for anarchy, but incredibly this is precisely what we are witnessing — not only in Washington, but among political leaders in some states and cities across the United States. The prime issue behind this lunacy is immigration. Entering the realm of immigration is the equivalent of entering a parallel universe where up is down, left is right and right is wrong.

On December 22, 2014 the newspaper, Arizona Daily Star published an article titled “Tucson ‘dreamers’ line up to get driver’s licenses” that contained the following quote:

Many undocumented immigrants have to drive without licenses to get to work or school or do anything in their daily lives, said Rodriguez, who said he was brought to the United States from Agua Prieta, Sonora, when he was in third grade.

The Victory of Zionism by Emmanuel Navon is a collection of articles written by Navon over the course of fours years from 2010 to 2014. Navon, the Director of the Political Science and Communications Department at the Jerusalem Orthodox College as well as an International Relations lecturer at Tel Aviv University and at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC), analyzes a myriad of issues confronting Israel on the domestic, regional and international level. In a concise and lucid manner, each article either reveals a tidbit of new information, or debunks a spurious claim, or simply exposes some of the hypocrisy that is rampant amongst the critics of Israel.

France is at war.
Or don’t you think it’s war? What would you call it – a series of unfortunate events?
It’s a war. Every day the same enemy violently attacks France for the same reason, under the same name. The enemy is radical Islam.
They have a name for their war. It’s an Arabic word: jihad. It means holy war, against infidels. Infidels are all non-Muslims, or even Muslims who aren’t radical enough, like the Muslim policeman murdered while guarding the magazine Charlie Hebdo. They were attacked because they would not submit to the Muslim edict that no one may draw an image of Mohammed, let alone insult him. They would not submit, so they were murdered. That’s what the word Islam itself means in Arabic: submission.
On Wednesday, 12 people were killed at a magazine. On Thursday a policewoman was killed in the street. On Friday four were killed at a Jewish grocery store.
Is that not a war? The jihadists know it is. They say it is. They’re doing it.
You have to work very hard to pretend radical Islam is not at war with the West, and our secular, liberal democracies.

It was reported today by Daniel Greenfield that the Clinton Foundation is Integrating with Hillary’s Campaign

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/clinton-foundation-integrating-even-more-closely-whillary-2016/

And she is mum on the atrocities in Paris. Well, did you know this? There is a lot more on that……read http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5382

One of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors is the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Disclosure forms indicate that of all government donors, the Saudi regime was the most generous, contributing between $10 and $25 million to the president’s foundation. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee this April, Treasury undersecretary Stuart Levey observed that “Saudi Arabia today remains the location where more money is going to terrorism, to Sunni terror groups and to the Taliban than any other place in the world.” Besides topping the list of terror-sponsoring states, Saudi Arabia continues to rank at the bottom by almost every measure of political freedom. A 2008 Freedom House survey placed Saudi Arabia among the least free countries in the world, just a notch above Chinese-occupied Tibet and the war-torn Russian puppet state of Chechnya. The key Clinton foundation contributor also has the dubious distinction of being one of only seven countries in the world that punishes homosexuality by death.

Direct contributions are just one source of financing that the foundation draws from the Saudi government. The foundation has also received between $1 million and $5 million from the pro-Saudi advocacy group, Friends of Saudi Arabia (FSA). Launched in 2005 and supported by the Saudi royal family, the group acts as a kind of public relations agency, protesting what it considers the country’s unfair portrayal in the U.S. and otherwise working to “dispel misconceptions” about the kingdom. Among these supposed “misconceptions” is Saudi Arabia’s association with terrorism. Prior the release of the 2007 film “The Kingdom,” for example, FSA executive director Michael Saba wrote a letter to the chairman of Universal Studios expressing his concern “that the movie might present negative stereotypes about the people of Saudi Arabia.”

Speaking of abusing non-profits, one of the worst candidates may be the Clinton Foundation which not only lets assorted dubious foreign governments influence a presidential candidate, but provides her with a non-profit publicity tour.

The Clinton Foundation announced Friday it is shaking up its leadership team, replacing its chief executive officer with a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – at least temporarily.

CEO Eric Braverman is stepping down from his post, the foundation said. The position will be filled on an interim basis by Maura Pally, a Hillary Clinton confidante who worked as a deputy assistant secretary during Clinton’s time at the State Department. Pally joined the Clinton Foundation in 2013 to “supervise Secretary Clinton’s Foundation-related activities, exploring new opportunities and ways to leverage existing Foundation efforts,” according to an internal email from then-CEO Bruce Lindsey at the time of Pally’s hiring.

Pally also has been named a senior vice president for women and youth programs at the foundation.

Hillary Clinton is largely running based on her, failed, time as Secretary of State. Not long ago her people were promising a more vigorous foreign policy. But after all this time, she hasn’t even bothered to make the most basic statement about the Paris terror attacks.

In the original primaries, Hillary boasted that she would be there to take 3 AM phone calls. Meanwhile days later, she still can’t even comment on the attack.

We’ve slammed Obama before for his inattention and laziness, but Hillary Clinton seems to be even worse. And Benghazi is a reminder of how her sloppiness and inattention to important details already cost lives.

Jake Tapper slammed Obama and GOP candidates for not going to Paris. He left out any mention of Hillary. Of course she didn’t have to fly to Paris, but she could have at least issued a boilerplate statement.

In the past Hillary was criticized for delaying a statement as long as possible in order to take the safest position, but how controversial is a generic condemnation of terrorism?

Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama’s illegal bailout of the Castro regime. This should be a no brainer.

After all the hype about Hillary’s Twitter account, there were two Tweets on it last month, both for charities. So much for her claims to want to emphasize social media.

No one is asking Hillary to march in Paris, but she could at least have put out a two sentence statement. It’s the kind of thing you do if you want to be president.

It used to be that the media would at least wait a day before sweeping the latest victims of Muslim terrorism into the trash to refocus on the looming “anti-Muslim backlash” that never actually comes.

The increase in Muslim terrorism however has made it risky for the media to wait that long. 24 hours after a brutal Muslim terrorist attack, there might be another brutal Muslim terrorist attack which will completely crowd out the stories of Muslims worrying about the backlash to the latest Muslim atrocity.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.

With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash” stories.

The Scandal of Free Speech
A year from now none but the unfeint of heart will still be with Charlie.

Last May, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage gave a talk at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics in which he used a term so infamous that it caused members of the audience to walk out “in a state of distress.” Later, a petition was put forward to demand that the institute apologize “for failing to stop” Mr. Savage from using the term, and to “assert a commitment to preventing the use of slurs and hate speech in the future.”

The word in question? To adapt the old joke: I could tell you but they’re going to kill me.

Well, OK, here goes. The word is “tranny,” meaning a transgender, or transsexual, or transvestite person. So hideously offensive is this word nowadays that, when I arrived at an Institute of Politics event a few weeks later, a group called Queers United in Power—or QUIP, minus the humor—held a protest outside and handed out fliers denouncing (without spelling out) the use of the “T word.” I had to ask around to find out just what the word was; I got the answer in a whisper.

Attention all of you logicians of Hyde Park: If words are to be forbidden, must they not first be known?

Scott Walker and Right to Work
Wisconsin’s Governor bobs and weaves on another labor reform.

Scott Walker is heading to Iowa this month as part of his consideration of a run for the White House, but in the meantime he’s starting a second term as Governor in which he presumably wants to accomplish something. So it’s unfortunate that he’s ducking a chance to make Wisconsin the country’s 25th right-to-work state.

At his second inauguration last week, Mr. Walker told voters that prosperity comes “from empowering people to control their own lives and their own destinies through the dignity born from work.” In the Badger State, he added, “we understand people create jobs, not the government.”

He’s right, which makes it that much stranger to watch Mr. Walker dodging the right-to-work challenge. In December, after Wisconsin Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald said he was interested in taking up a right-to-work bill, the Governor called it a “distraction.” Then he told WKOW-TV “Capitol City Sunday” that despite the chatter about right-to-work momentum, “there’s a lot of things that are going to keep the legislature preoccupied for a while,” like taxes and education.

That may be, but Wisconsin needs an economic lift and right to work can help. Big Labor spins right to work as radical, but it merely gives workers a choice to join a union. Many workers decide to drop their union affiliation once government coercion is repealed, and union political clout tends to fall.