RUTHFULLY YOURS

ISRAEL’S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS RON PROSOR- NOVEMBER 24,2014
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/an-israeli-ambassadors-strong-response-to-united-nations-hypocrisy-on-israel?f=must_reads
“I stand before the world as a proud representative of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I stand tall before you knowing that truth and morality are on my side. And yet, I stand here knowing that today in this Assembly, truth will be turned on its head and morality cast aside.

The fact of the matter is that when members of the international community speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a fog descends to cloud all logic and moral clarity. The result isn’t realpolitik, its surrealpolitik.
The world’s unrelenting focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an injustice to tens of millions of victims of tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East. As we speak, Yazidis, Bahai, Kurds, Christians and Muslims are being executed and expelled by radical extremists at a rate of 1,000 people per month.

How many resolutions did you pass last week to address this crisis? And how many special sessions did you call for? The answer is zero. What does this say about international concern for human life? Not much, but it speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the international community.

I stand before you to speak the truth. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, less than half a percent are truly free-and they are all citizens of Israel. Israeli Arabs are some of the most educated Arabs in the world. They are our leading physicians and surgeons, they are elected to our parliament, and they serve as judges on our Supreme Court. Millions of men and women in the Middle East would welcome these opportunities and freedoms.

Nonetheless, nation after nation, will stand at this podium today and criticize Israel.

Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.
Sixty seven years ago this week, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Simple. The Jews said yes. The Arabs said no. But they didn’t just say no. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon launched a war of annihilation against our newborn state.

In light of the number of commentaries which attempt to justify our presidents use of executive order to defer indefinitely the deportation of illegals until our congress passes a comprehensive immigration reform law, or which seek to blame our congress for current law which could be argued is too broad, leaving it to bureaucrats to write or the other branches to interpret and enforce-or not enforce, one must consider the administrative policies which led to the massive influx of undocumented children and adults in the first place.

In December, 2013, Judson Berger writes in Judge claims DHS delivering smuggled children to illegal immigrant parents, according to U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, “in more than one case before his court, immigration officials are arresting human traffickers smuggling children into the U.S. — and then “delivering the minors to the custody of the parent illegally living in the United States.” This is verified by “Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council union.”

In an article written by Michele Hickford in June 2014, Feds advertised for escort services for unaccompanied alien children in January , she brings the readers’ attention to an opportunity posted on FedBizOpps.gov which reads, “help wanted” in which “the feds were looking for vendors to help escort unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in JANUARY of this year.”

In two separate Breitbart.com articles written this past summer, Feds Dole Out Healthcare and Child Support Payments for Foreign Minors and Collect More Than $7,000 Per Month for ‘Fostering’ Adult Illegal Aliens, Kristin Tate writes about how illegals have been incentivized by the Obama administration to come to this country. She explains that in advertisements looking for foster parents to house illegals, many of which are already adults, prospective parents will be paid thousands of dollars to house illegals who receive taxpayer subsidized legal counsel, food, education, health care, transportation, and an “allowance.”

The idea that the numbers of illegals are so vast that we cannot enforce the law as it is written brings to mind The Cloward-Piven Strategy, as explained by Richard Poe and published in 2005 at DiscoverTheNetworks.org. In this article, Poe writes, “the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

By sacrificing himself, the Jihadist expects to attain an otherwise unattainable immortality. Existential fears are converted into a twisted form of “heroism” while Israel, meanwhile, is expected to help in its own genocide.

Somewhat like war, Islamic terrorism is founded upon assorted fantasies of redemption through sacrifice. Today, the universal Jihadist rallying cry, “We love death,” animates much of what is presented publicly as “liberation” or “self-determination,”[1] and is common to a broad variety of terrorist groups. This variegated collection includes both Sunni and Shia elements.

The rallying cry, always shrill, and always shouted in chorus, exhibits no core differences between ISIS in Iraq or Syria, and Hamas/Fatah in Gaza.

Oddly, this critical observation has been lost upon the administration in Washington. For some as yet undisclosed reason, the president decided to bomb the former, but (effectively) support the latter.

Despite readily discoverable commonalities of Islamist terror, in the particular evolution of Palestinian terror, there exists an almost unique historical narrative. Originally, before an explicitly sacred love of death took its uncompromising hold throughout the Islamic Middle East, the fraternity of Palestinian terrorist groups had brought together several extraordinarily disparate bedfellows.

Then, the principal desired end of insurrection and war, Israel’s “liquidation” (the first term used most frequently in the Arab aggressor’s lexicon) had amply justified all manner of eager participants.

Then, virtually every Arab enemy of Israel was more-or-less welcome to join in the expectedly conclusive battle against “Zionists.”

President Obama’s foreign policy of disengagement has been shattered by the events of the past year. His conviction that a retrenched United States would be better for Americans at home and for people around the globe has only invited aggression, from the Middle East to Europe to the Pacific. The animating ideas behind Obama’s policies have been called into question: the beliefs that “military solutions” are always inferior, that American troop deployments are tantamount to occupations, that multilateral compromise is more moral than decisive unilateral action, and that America’s enforcement of world order does more harm than good.

Obama is actively uncomfortable exercising American power abroad, but he is entirely comfortable exercising centralized power at home. He believes that a strong central government is a moral force inside the United States, but he does not believe that American power is a force for good outside our borders. He is especially certain that American “boots on the ground” don’t do anyone any good—not us and not the countries to which they are deployed.

This is wrong. Indeed, it is tragically wrong. Having compared growth and development indicators across all countries of the world against a database of U.S. “boots on the ground” since 1950, I’ve discovered a stunning truth: In country after country, prosperity—in the form of economic growth and human development—has emerged where American boots have trod.

I stumbled upon this ad in a newspaper The Sundry Times which has a very small circulation:

POSITION AVAILABLE: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CANDIDATE MUST HAVE THESE QUALIFICATIONS:

1. Total obedience to the President and Valerie Jarrett

2. Hatred of all wars except those declared by President Obama

3. A natural disdain for the armed services.

4. A respect for all religions even those of our alleged enemies.

5. Hostility to Israel is not necessary but it is essential.

6.Willingness to reach across the Congressional aisles but only to Democrats.

Good Example:

Harold Brown was U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1977 to 1981 in the cabinet of President Jimmy Carter. While Secretary of Defense, he insisted in laying the groundwork for the Camp David accords. He took part in the strategic arms negotiations with the Soviet Union and supported, unsuccessfully, ratification of the SALT II treaty. He advocated détente with the Soviet Union. He believed in “the need to upgrade U.S. military forces and improve collective security arrangements—but with a stronger commitment to arms control.”

Bad Example:

Donald Rumsfeld

Judi McLeod is the Editor of Canada Free Press
Ferguson, Missouri throws a new window wide open to the world. Hijacked by globe-trotting gangs of anarchists, socialists, communists and Islamists, Ferguson, MO proves in digitalized real time that anarchists, socialists, communists and Islamists not only share the same bed, but are the real racists.

The protesters burning down homes and businesses and rioting and looting today in Ferguson are in fact exploiting the death of Michael Brown by making it second to Palestine. The signage and banners hoisted high by masked millennials do not bear the name of the media-dubbed “gentle giant” killed by now resigned police officer Darren Wilson. They read: ‘Occupation is a Crime Ferguson to Palestine’; ‘Resist US Racism’. ‘Boycott Israel’.

It is not the death of Michael Brown that enrages the protesters but the ‘Occupation’ of Palestine. The irony is that Israel does not occupy Gaza. Hamas occupies Gaza.

How does Boycotting Israel bring Michael Brown back to his grieving mother?

How does the torching of stores and homes by arson boycott Israel?

What’s happening in Ferguson is proof positive that the anarchists, socialists, communists and Islamists were only waiting for the right moment—and the most convenient powder keg—to stage worldwide mass outrage.

Authorities should expose the hijackers for what they are, kick them out of town and send them back to the hide-y-holes from which they crawled.
Al Sharpton and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) millennials organized by the Canadian-headquartered AdBusters magazine, are the commie-Islamo-Nazis’ most reliable useful idiots.

But even as the acrid smoke hangs over Ferguson on Thanksgiving weekend, the highjackers, who opened the door to anarchy, have also opened a window for the world masses who now clearly see how the Communists and radical Islamists operate in full sync.

The mainstream media and the Internet’s social networks are hyping it up in a way they never hyped ISIS.

The 6 years of Barack Obama’s foreign policy have seen American influence and power decline across the globe. Traditional rivals like China and Russia are emboldened and on the march in the South China Sea and Ukraine. Iran, branded as the world’s deadliest state sponsor of terrorism, is arrogantly negotiating its way to a nuclear bomb. Bloody autocrats and jihadist gangs in the Middle East scorn our president’s threats and behead our citizens. Countries in which Americans have shed their blood in service to our interests and ideals are in the process of being abandoned to our enemies. And allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia are bullied or ignored. All over the world, a vacuum of power has been created by a foreign policy sacrificed to domestic partisan advantage, and characterized by criminal incompetence.

How we have arrived at this point, the dangers to our security and interests if we don’t change course, and what must be done to recover our international prestige and effectiveness are the themes of Bret Stephens’ America in Retreat. The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. Stephens is the Pulitzer-prize winning foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and in his new book he analyzes our current retreat from global responsibility with the same stylistic clarity and analytic rigor that make his weekly columns indispensible reading.

A clear sign of American retreat is the precipitous decline in military spending. “In the name of budgetary savings,” Stephens writes, “the Army is returning to its June 1940 size,” and “the Navy put fewer ships at sea at any time since 1916.” The Air Force is scheduled to retire 25,000 airmen and mothball 550 planes. Our nuclear forces are being cut to meet the terms of the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia, even as its nuclear arsenal has been increasing. Meanwhile Obama––whom Stephens likens to Canute, the Danish king who in legend attempts to stop the tide––issues empty threats, blustering diktats, and sheer lies that convince world leaders he is a “self-infatuated weakling.”

Unfortunately, 52% of the American people agree that the U.S. “should mind its own business internationally,” and 65% want to “reduce overseas military commitments,” including a majority of Republicans. This broad consensus that America should retreat from global affairs reflects our age’s bipartisan isolationism, the centerpiece of Stephens’ analysis. This national mood is not a sign of decline, according to Stephens, who documents the enormous advantages America still enjoys globally, from its superiority in research and entrepreneurial vigor, to its healthy demographics and spirit of innovation. But it does bespeak a dangerous withdrawal from the policies that created the postwar Pax Americana––even though this global order policed by the U.S. defeated the murderous, nuclear-armed ideology of Soviet communism, and made possible the astonishing economic expansion that has lifted millions from poverty all over the world.

Stephens first traces the history and causes of America’s distrust of military engagement abroad. The left, of course, committed to a universalist ideology challenged by national sovereignty and self-interest, promoted isolationism once the threat of Nazism had been destroyed. Henry Wallace, FDR’s third-term vice president who was “willfully blind to the reality of Stalinist Russia,” vigorously opposed the Truman Doctrine, which saved Greece from a communist takeover in 1947, as a “disaster” and “reckless adventure.” Like progressives today, Wallace believed that America was a global “sinner,” as Stephens puts it. As such, the U.S. should meet aggression with appeasement, and consider those who protect our security to be a greater danger than foreign aggressors.

Charles C. Johnson is an investigative journalist with a knack for enraging progressives. His recent coverage of issues in Ferguson has made him such a gadfly that trolls in social media convinced Twitter to shut down his account – because, as Johnson put it, “Twitter apparently has a journalism problem.”

Johnson, who has worked with both the late, great Andrew Breitbart and Alan Dershowitz, is the founder and editor-in-chief of Gotnews.com, which seeks “to transform journalism by empowering everyday people, experts, and sources to break news” – very much a Breitbartian aim. A contributor to the Daily Caller and The Blaze, Johnson is also the author of Why Coolidge Matters: Leadership Lessons from America’s Most Underrated President and The Truth About the IRS Scandal. He has written for Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Los Angeles Times, American Spectator, and others.

“It’s no secret that I’ve been targeted by the Ferguson mob for publishing material that they don’t like,” Johnson wrote at Gotnews. For example, he reported that Michael Brown’s stepdad Louis Head, who incited a riot by telling protesters, “Let’s burn this b*tch down!” was a former Blood gangbanger. Johnson is also delving into information provided by Ferguson police that Brown himself had been charged with 2nd degree murder – but that was as a juvenile, so the records have been sealed. Now that Brown is dead, Johnson has sued for the release of those records. That investigation is still ongoing, Johnson told me.

Then, after the grand jury came back without an indictment for Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, The New York Times published the home address of Wilson and his wife. It was an unconscionable and reckless act, considering the target it put on the Wilsons’ backs, but not an unexpected one from the leftist news media, which have been known to willfully endanger people on the wrong side of the leftist narrative before (e.g., the gun owners whose addresses were mapped out in Journal News).

In response, Charles Johnson called the homes of the writers responsible for the article, Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson, to ask them about it. Bosman later tweeted that she revised the piece by removing a photo that contained specific information which should not have been made public. But it had been made public and the potential damage was done. Charles Johnson felt that turnabout is fair play, so he posted Bosman’s and Robertson’s home addresses online as well. According to Johnson, Bosman has been phoning the police incessantly complaining of harassment and requesting protection.

Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf-Bibeau, the crackhead turned Jihadist spawned by the mating of a Canadian immigration official and a Libyan Muslim Jihadist, just wanted peace.

Meanwhile in Israel a reporter interviewing Arab Muslim settlers in Jerusalem found that they too wanted peace. On their terms. “Yes we want peace,” one of them said, “but peace means no Jews.”

When negotiating peace with other cultures it’s a good idea to make sure that the words you are using mean the same thing. Most Muslims and Westerners want peace. But to Westerners peace means co-existence. To Muslims, peace means the end of your existence.

Ideas carry heavy cultural baggage. Peace in the West summons up images of Armistice Day, of the Christmas Truce of WW1 in which French, German and English soldiers could share meals and play soccer together. It carries with it the subversive idea that both sides realize the war isn’t worth fighting.

Such a subversive idea has no place in Islam. The Jihad is at the heart of Islam. To question the holy war is to also question the faith. When war is religion then peace through setting aside war is heresy.

The Western idea of peace is a wholly alien one to Islam. In Islam, peace does not come from men transcending their differences, but from destroying men who think and live differently. That is the function of the religious police of our allied “moderate Muslim” countries who seek out the practice of other religions and other ways of living in places like Saudi Arabia and suppress their practitioners.

Islamic peace does not come from diversity, from accepting the existence of other nations, religions and peoples, but from unity through Islam and eliminating as many differences as possible. If Islam is the source of peace, then all that which is “not Islam” is the cause of war.

Kill the Jews. Kill the Christians. Then there will be peace.

You will hear a lot between now and when Congress convenes in January about how urgent it is that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s replacement be confirmed by the Senate. The president will nominate someone and then shrug his shoulders at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, noting that things aren’t going well, and asking, “What do you expect? The Republicans are to blame because they haven’t confirmed the new defense secretary.”

It will all be baloney, of course, because we know that the secretary of defense’s job has been neutered by Obama’s White House team and it will remain so as long as he’s president.

We know this from any number of factual emanations from the administration, not the least of which was former defense secretary Bob Gates’s memoir, Duty, in which he whinged at great length about how all national security decisions were made by the president himself or his White House National Security Council. There is no evidence to show that the White House gave Hagel any greater authority or leeway, and there is no reason to expect that his successor will find any change.

So when the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorialized that, “Given the importance of the issues handled by the secretary of defense, most Americans would probably prefer to hear that Mr. Hagel is leaving President Barack Obama’s Cabinet over policy differences and not some personal dispute,” we have to shake our heads and wonder if its editors have any idea of what is actually going on in Washington, or how America’s national defense decisions are being made.

If they had a clue, they’d know that it will always be easy for Obama — or any president — to find a willing patsy to take a cabinet post — any cabinet post — regardless of the White House’s denizens arrogating all the post’s authority and prerogatives to themselves. The prestige of a cabinet post will always be enough to attract precisely the kind of people you don’t want on those jobs. Which is how Hagel was chosen originally: he wasn’t picked because he possessed a towering intellect and knowledge of the world of defense.