RUTHFULLY YOURS

Let us engage in a brief thought experiment. Imagine three US service members disembarking off their ship docked in the Israeli port of Haifa. They paint the town but are suddenly and unexpectedly surrounded by a group of 12 or so hooligans, who yell epithets at them, call them “murderers,” throw garbage at them, rough them up and then place bags over their heads. Imagine further that the hoodlums are caught and arrested by Israeli authorities but are inexplicably released shortly thereafter.

Let us engage in another thought experiment. Imagine that Israel, under the pretext of ensuring its security, dynamites eight-hundred “Palestinian” homes. The Israelis argue that smuggling tunnels under some of those homes warrant drastic action and announce their intention to construct a barrier where those homes once stood, displacing ten-thousand residents.

These two incidents actually occurred but not in Israel. On November 12, in a sickening display of brute thuggery, three US sailors in Istanbul were assaulted by a group of Turkish nationalists. They were roughed up, humiliated, had bags stuffed over their heads and chased to chants of “Yankee go home.” Some of the suspects were apprehended and despite the fact that they showed little remorse, were inexplicably released by Turkish authorities.

The second incident, involving the wonton destruction of some eight-hundred homes and the displacement of some ten-thousand residents occurred in the Egyptian controlled part of Rafah that straddles the border between Sinai and the Hamas enclave of Gaza. It seems that the Egyptians had had enough of Hamas’s shenanigans and decided to act resolutely after as many as 31 Egyptian soldiers were killed in an attack that the Egyptian government blamed on Hamas.

Now let us return to our thought experiment. What was the State Department’s reaction to these two occurrences? In the latter example, there was simply no reaction, only silence. There were no condemnations from John Kerry, no claims by Jen Psaki that such drastic measures were disproportionate and no protests from Obama shills Ben Rhodes, Phillip Gordon and Josh Earnest that such sweeping actions amount to collective punishment, are a source of regional instability and present obstacles to peace.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/dr-bill-warner-on-measuring-extremism-in-islam-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Bill Warner, a scientist who has studied Islam since 1970. He has used the scientific method in the study of Islamic texts and has made its doctrine easy to understand. As an example, he had produced a Koran that anyone can read and understand. Visit his site at politicalislam.com.

Dr. Warner joined the show to discuss Measuring Extremism in Islam, illuminating how Sharia compliance defines a way to gauge civilizational “extremism” that goes beyond beheadings:

Don’t miss this week’s second episode with Dr. Mark Christian, the President and Executive Director of the Global Faith Institute. He is the son and nephew of high ranking leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in his home country of Egypt. A former Islamic Imam who converted from Islam to Christianity, he dedicated his life and work to the proposition that “the first victims of Islam are the Muslim themselves.”

Dr. Christian discussed Islam’s Assault on Women’s Sexuality, analyzing the misogynist texts of Islam and their earthly incarnations:

To watch previous Glazov Gang episodes, Click Here.

The British Royal Family and the Islamist Terrorists

Four men aged 19-27 were arrested by British police on Thursday, November 6th, for allegedly planning a terror attack in London against Queen Elizabeth during the Remembrance Day ceremony that took place on Friday, November 7th.

The terrorists were seized by the police following months of surveillance and police were said to be interrogating the suspects – who are thought to have hatched a plot to assassinate the Queen with a knife.

England, of course, under Prime Minister Cameron is a leader in tolerance and respect for Islam and even allows Sharia Law-governed “no-go” areas. After the ISIS beheading of British citizen David Haines, Cameron was quoted as feeling the need once again, just as after every terrorist murder, to emphasize that such terrorism was not done by the “religion of peace”: “They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people… they boast of their brutality… they claim to do this in the name of Islam, that is nonsense, Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.”

In my book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed (Mantua Books, second edition), I discuss how the endless tolerance of the intolerant illiberals endangers us all if these intolerants take power and end all tolerance. Britain has quite an ambivalent relationship with Islam and especially those who commit violence, or otherwise attack British historic liberties and freedoms, for the purpose of conquest and a jihadist caliphate.

Britain, of course, had its own version of 9/11, the July 7, 2005 London bombings (often referred to as 7/7) which were a series of coordinated suicide attacks in central London, which targeted civilians using the public transport system during the morning rush hour.

As well as the four bombers, 52 civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured.

Suppose you saw a person driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, against the traffic. Would you call him a stupid and/or incompetent driver? You say, “Williams, what kind of question is that? Of course he’s one or the other!” I’d say, “Hold your horses. What are his intentions?” If the driver’s intentions are to cause highway calamity, one can hardly call his actions stupid or incompetent. Given his intentions, he is wisely acting in a manner to achieve his objectives.

This observation lies at the heart of my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell’s column last week, in which he says, “Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past.” After suffering an elective trouncing at the polls, President Barack Obama issued Congress an ultimatum, saying that if it doesn’t enact the kind of immigration law that he would like, he will unilaterally issue an executive order to change the nation’s immigration laws. This threat, along with other abuses of his office, is not a sign of presidential stupidity or incompetence.

Obama is doing precisely what he promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, to cheering and mesmerized crowds: “We are going to fundamentally change America” and “We will change America. We will change the world.” Obama is living up to those pledges by subverting our Constitution and adopting the political style of a banana republic dictator. He showed his willingness to ignore the Constitution when he eliminated the work requirement in welfare reform laws enacted during the Clinton administration. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was enacted by Congress and hence is the law of the land. Obama has used executive orders to change the law on several occasions. Ask yourself whether our Constitution permits the president to unilaterally change a law enacted by Congress. For a president to do so is for him to behave like a banana republic dictator.

As Sowell says, “people who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.”

The recent elections, which gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, clearly indicate a repudiation of much of Obama’s agenda. But the question is whether the Republican majority has the courage to act on that repudiation and stop the president from running roughshod over the Constitution. Because Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, there is not much a president can do without a budget appropriation. The question is whether Congress has the guts to exercise its power.

The media is buzzing with “climate warming” deals and legislation. Well, the Gruber guide to hoodwinking “dumb” Americans is very effective when it comes to global warming, and unlike Obamacare where critics and skeptics outnumber the apostles, too many really smart Americans are buying really stupid junk science theories.

Don’t get me wrong. I recycle foil, plastic and papers. But I don’t buy into “the end of the planet” scenarios of the climateers which they will apply to all industry from the Keystone Pipeline to light bulbs. I get their agenda because I have read and reread a book the explains it all.

Roosters of the Apocalypse: How the Junk Science of Global Warming is Bankrupting the Western World (New, Revised…Nov 25, 2013) by Rael Jean Isaac

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513iaXWaovL._AA160_.jpg

Iran’s love letter to Obama: Thanks for the nukes!
The Islamo-fascist dictatorship in Iran has so many reasons to thank President Obama, and the wider West. Now, they’ve written a letter of love and thanks for allowing them to get nuclear weapons

Dear President Obama, You’ve been a great friend for the last six years and, to express our appreciation, we’d like to acknowledge some of your many helpful actions:

1) In 2009, our presidential election results were so dubious that millions of brave, pro-democracy protesters risked their lives to demonstrate throughout our country. When our Basij paramilitary force brutalized them, you kept your response irrelevantly mild for the sake of “engaging” us. That surely helped Iranians understand the risks of protesting our “free” election of 2012 (involving our eight handpicked candidates). It was indeed a very orderly rubberstamp.

2) After eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we KNEW you’d fall for the smiles of his successor, President Hassan Rouhani! Human rights abuses have actually worsened under his rule and his polished charm only makes him better at duping the world into acquiescing to our nukes, so we LOVE how you’ve overlooked these facts.

3) You’ve been unilaterally weakening the sanctions against us by simply not enforcing them (which reassures us that you’re desperate to avoid any real confrontation).

4) You’ve threatened to thwart any Congressional attempt to limit your nuclear generosity by simply lifting sanctions without Congressional approval. Good stuff!

5) You isolated Israel on the issue of how close we are to a nuclear capability – we love how your estimates are so much laxer than theirs are!

6) The diplomatic snubs and betrayals of Israel by your administration have been EPIC. We couldn’t have asked for more – from your humiliation of Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2010, to Secretary of State John Kerry’s betrayal of Israel during Operation Protective Edge, to calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit” a few weeks ago, without even apologizing later.

More than 1,000 young people from France have joined extremist groups in Syria and Iraq, more than from any other European country. The recruits are no longer just coming from the margins of society.

The Lost Children: France Takes Stock of Growing Jihadist Problem By Julia Amalia Heyer

Sometimes Séverine Mehault climbs the stairs to the second floor for no reason at all. She walks along the hallway, past her son’s room and into her daughter’s bedroom. Then the 40-year-old lies down on the bed, next to a white stuffed bunny, and closes her eyes for a moment, trying to understand why only one of her two daughters, 15-year-old Kenza, is still there — and why Sahra has abandoned her.

ANZEIGE

Not much of Sahra is left in the room: her stuffed rabbit, a Koran in translation, a prayer book and a guide to the correct methods of bathing for Islamic women. The guide is a worn, pink brochure with small illustrations. Chapter 3 is titled: Instructions for Cleaning Your Ears.

There’s a dish containing red nail polish, mascara and lip gloss, but Sahra hasn’t worn makeup in almost two years. After turning 15 at the time, she converted to Islam.

She left France on March 11, 2014 to joint the jihadists in Syria. The family doesn’t know where she is exactly, or which terrorist group she has joined.

Her father drove her to the train station in Narbonne on that March day, as he did every day, when she would take the train to school in the nearby city of Carcassonne in southwestern France. A surveillance camera image shows Sahra, 17, standing on the platform in Narbonne, at 7:44 a.m. She is wearing white jeans, white sneakers and a black headscarf, and she is carrying two shoulder bags. The last image of Sahra on French soil, also taken with a surveillance camera, shows her at the airport in Marseille. She took an afternoon flight to Istanbul, and the next day she continued to Antakya on the Turkish-Syrian border.

Séverine Mehault has spread out photocopies of the surveillance camera images on the dining room table, next to the last photo she took of Sahra. It depicts her daughter dressed entirely in black, in a jilbab, a floor-length robe with baggy sleeves, and a hijab, or headscarf. She is smiling, with a soft, roundish face.

Even while the media is describing Peter Kassig, the ISIS hostage who apparently converted to Islam in captivity and was beheaded, by his American name, the Obama statement calls him by his Muslim name.

“Today we offer our prayers and condolences to the parents and family of Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known to us as Peter,” Obama’s statement reads.

“While ISIL revels in the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims, and is bent only on sowing death and destruction… ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own.”

Most of the hostages had in fact converted to Islam, with a exceptions like Steven Satloff. It’s understandable that his family would have wanted to push the “He’s a Muslim” line in the hopes of saving his life (a futile effort) but it’s truly despicable for Obama to exploit the murder of an American in order to do public relations for Islam.

The interesting media phenomenon is that Westerners who convert to Islam and become terrorists are almost never referred to by their Muslim names. Meanwhile Kassig who was killed by Muslims is.

Every Muslim act of terror is followed by a political act of cover-up.

While it’s hard to know what was in Kassig’s heart, unlike most of the hostages, he never read a statement denouncing America.

A friend said the lack of a statement suggested he had defied his captors. Michael Downey, a close friend from Beirut said: “I think he refused. He was a man of principle and wouldn’t give into intimidation from thugs. He never took the easy route.”

Too bad our government loves not only giving into thugs, but glorifying their religion of thuggery.

President Barack Obama appears to be determined to reward the ruling clerics in the Islamic Republic for its “good” behavior by engaging in nuclear negations.

In addition, President Obama has created the narrative that the Islamic Republic is in a weaker position in the nuclear negotiations because the Iranians want sanctions to be lifted against them. But what we witness in reality is that every time that the Islamic Republic rejects any deal that does not comply with its objectives, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep coming back with a new deal to satisfy the Iranian leaders. If the Islamic Republic is the weaker actor in these negotiations, then why are the rules of the nuclear deal not being set based on the p5+1 criteria?

John Kerry has been holding bilateral talks with the Russians and French in order to make sure that a final nuclear deal can be reached between the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and the Islamic Republic. Additionally, President Barack Obama seems to be determined.

President Obama has also recently written a secret letter — revealed by the Wall Street Journal – to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, implying the shared regional interests that the Islamic Republic and the United States bear in the Middle East. The letter appears to be asking the Supreme Leader to grasp the opportunity and seal the final nuclear deal, which would result in the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Apparently, President Obama is determined to strike the final nuclear deal and to make friends with enemies in other parts of the world in order to add to his superficial Middle East achievements.

But the crucial question is whether these rewards, and diplomatic leniency towards Iranian politicians and leaders, have resulted in creating or reinforcing good behavior in the Islamic Republic.

Most recently, Ayatollah Khamenei published a nine-step plan that would “eliminate” Israel. In response to the question “What is the most urgent action to take to militarily confront Israel?” the Supreme Leader points out, “The West bank should be armed like Gaza and those who are interested in Palestine’s destiny should take action to arm the people of he West bank, so that the sorrows and grieves (sic) of the Palestinian people will reduce in the light of their powerful hands and the weakness of the Zionist enemy.”

The White House must restore trust in the military, and Congress should increase defense spending.

Mr. Obama enters the last quarter of his presidency with the Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress. This guarantees friction at a time when a bellicose Russia has shattered stability in central Europe and when we are fighting a haphazard war in the Middle East. There are two steps that the president and the Congress could take to enhance our national security, reduce risk, and improve the relationship between the two branches of government.

First, repair the distrust between the White House and our military. Two successive secretaries of defense — the moderate Republican Robert Gates and the staunch Democrat Leon Panetta — issued the same public critique: The White House staff has usurped too much power in national-security matters and manifests a distrust of the military. Our common security has been badly served by this development.

The solution is obvious. Mr. Obama should appoint as his national-security adviser a centrist with an impeccable professional reputation and a long-standing relationship with the military. There are many well-qualified candidates. Our intent is not to place any particular name forward. Rather, it is to point to previous examples, including retired general Brent Scowcroft during George H. W. Bush’s term and retired ambassador Frank Carlucci during President Reagan’s second term.

Why is a change needed now? To put it bluntly, Mr. Obama needs someone skillful to mold policy to fit military realities. In Afghanistan, the administration has promised to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2016. No experienced commander believes it is wise to pull out completely. The risk is simply too great.

Indeed, because we did pull out of Iraq, that country fell apart, and we were compelled to go back in. But we have done so in a haphazard way. The president’s promise that no American will engage in ground combat is too extreme. Our warriors are both professional and volunteers. They want to fight for us. Yes, the vast bulk of fighters against the Islamists should be Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. But consider what happened in Afghanistan in November of 2001. A handful of our Special Forces teams, some on horseback, called down America’s awesome aerial firepower upon the Taliban and al-Qaeda, enabling local forces to take over. Similarly, we should not tie one arm behind our back in Iraq. A few small American teams protected by our powerful air support would provide a vast psychological and physical leverage.