RUTHFULLY YOURS

Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.

It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.

Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.

The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.

The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6’4″ 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop’s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man’s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown’s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.

The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won’t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.

Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:

“This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.

But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.”

21st century Americans have come to take democracy for granted as one of the comforts of modern life, like electricity or plastic, a thing that exists unconsidered as the foundation of their convenience. You hit a light switch and the light turns on. You push a button and politicians carry out your will.

The wars of the last century were defined as wars for democracy and the wars of this century have also been fitted into that mold, becoming not wars against external enemies, but wars for the assertion of the popular will of the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq. All wars have become wars of democracy.

19th century America exported religion. 21st century America exports democracy.

Internally however democracy has degenerated into billion dollar elections fought with armies of consultants, polling firms and volunteers who expertly divide and conquer the populace through their infinite identity politics subdivisions on behalf of the wealthiest men in the country fighting to preserve and promote their status quo of a powerful central government and its oligarchic corporations.

The ruling left vocally demands that its leader fulfill their demands by violating the Constitution. They assert that since he won the popular vote in two elections, he can disregard the mere process of ancient laws. Democracy trumps republic just as the Democratic Party trumps the Republican Party.

It is this political climate of Obamaphones and attack ads, free stuff and mob rule, that Bruce Thornton enters with his new book, Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents. Thornton sees a country that has tilted too far toward the populism of the voting booth and too far away from the structure of a republic. Our collision of tyranny and greed has come from the mangling of a carefully constructed lawful structure.

Freedom requires firewalls, not only against the direct power of government, but also against the indirect power of the popular vote through government on the freedom of the individual. We need defenses not only against the tyranny of a tyrant, but also against the tyranny of King Mob.

1. Nice fences do not stop missiles, rockets, and mortars.

2. Complete removal of Israeli forces and Jewish settlers from an area merely signals Israeli weakness and invites escalated Arab terror and aggression.

3. Hamas (and Hezb’Allah and ISIS) cannot be defeated with air strikes. There is no effective alternative to ground invasion and ongoing military control of the ground retaken.

4. Unless the Israeli military controls the ground on the other side of fences, those fences achieve nothing.

5. Goodwill gestures by Israel increase terror.

6. Goodwill gestures by Israel never produce moderation of Arab goals and demands. They also do not win Israel friends in the West but rather encourage outbursts of anti-Semitism.

7. Terror is not caused by Israeli settlements but by the removal of Israeli settlements.

8. Terror is not caused by Israeli military occupation but by the removal of Israeli military occupation.

9. It is impossible for two sovereign entities to exist between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

10. No matter how many concessions Israel makes, the world will always justify Arab terrorism because there will always be still one more capitulation Israel failed to make.

A young New Jersey man who was visiting Israel to study at a yeshiva and went missing shortly before Shabbat has been discovered dead in the Jerusalem Forest.

Aaron Sofer, 23, of Lakewood, N.J., was hiking in the forest on Friday when he disappeared. Search teams have been looking for him since 6 p.m. that day.

He was hiking with a friend, who says he lost sight of Sofer as the New Jersey man walked ahead of him down an incline. That was about noontime.

His parents flew to Israel and offered a 100,000 shekel reward for their son’s return. The FBI was involved in the search because Sofer is an American citizen.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Sofer’s body was found today by a United Hatzalah volunteer.

“Soon after beginning our search we came across a man’s body among the shrubbery that seemed to match the missing student’s description,” Yisrael Erlich, a United Hatzalah worker, told the paper. “We immediately notified the police via our phone app, and a large group of police and rapid-responders quickly appeared on the scene. I was not expecting the incident to end in such a horrific tragedy.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement that with the discovery of Sofer’s body “our worst nightmare has come true.”

“Ever since Aaron went missing, communities throughout the United States, Israel, and beyond gathered in worship on behalf of Aaron. During this period of mourning, I hope the Sofer family can be comforted with the knowledge that countless people, friends and strangers alike, prayed for Aaron’s well being and those acts of devotion will only continue,” Menendez said of his constituent. “It has become clear to me that everyone who knew Aaron saw tremendous promise in this young man who was committed to his family, his Jewish faith and his community of Lakewood.”

“I understand a full, complete, and thorough investigation is underway. Throughout this process, I stand ready to assist in every way possible and Aaron’s family will have no greater advocate working on their behalf.”

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary Clinton will make her announcement that she is trying for a second time to become the Democratic nominee for president sometime in 2015. She will then go on to easily get nominated, and coast to a solid victory in the 2016 general election against any Republican nominee.

Clinton’s presumed path to victory relies on a number of factors, including that her candidacy will enable Democrats to excite another key element of their base — female voters, particularly single women, much as Obama did in 2008 and 2012 with African American voters. If she runs, she will have no serious opposition, unlike in 2008, when she was heavily favored, but led Obama in the year before the primaries began (2007) by only 10-15 points, not the roughly 50-point lead she now holds [1]over any potential opponents for the nomination. So too, Obama , even while trailing, represented a real threat to Clinton, with his ability to pull away black voters, and even women once he was endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Obama also appealed to the anti-war left of the Democratic Party due to his early opposition to the Iraq war, which Clinton had supported as a senator. One study has calculated that Winfrey’s support may have shifted [2] a million votes in the tight Democratic nominating contest from Clinton to Obama, undoubtedly the decisive factor, if the numbers are even close to accurate.

With no serious opposition this time, Clinton’s already established national fundraising base, plus what she can absorb from the Obama campaign and DNC apparatus in terms of voter targeting and online fundraising, will enable her to fire away at any of her potential GOP opponents from the start of the campaign season. If any Republican candidate catches fire and begins to emerge in the early primaries, negative attacks and a character assassination effort can be financed, similar to what Obama’s campaign did to Mitt Romney in the spring of 2012. Clinton, in essence, will have all the fundraising and organizational advantages normally associated with an incumbent running for re-election.

Clinton is well-known to voters, and seems less divisive as a candidate this time around. Bill Clinton has struggled to restore some dignity to his name, achieved through his “work” with the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, whatever they may actually do. The Clintons will welcome a grandchild into the world later in the year, a great send-off to Hillary’s campaign if her goal is to help soften her image a bit. All the $200,000 and up speeches by the two Clintons have reconnected both of them to a very wealthy donor base, among both individuals, and corporations seeking to cement relationships with the likely next president.

There is one other major reason for delaying any announcement that her candidacy is official. Her national rollout campaign tour, disguised as a book tour, fell flat and at times proved embarrassing. Clinton seemed tone deaf about her family’s financial fortunes when Bill left office and she seemed defensive about her record as secretary of State, in particular the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012, which spoiled an otherwise nearly risk-free tenure as America’s chief diplomat.

Tuesday’s ambiguous, open-ended cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas felt like a huge let-down. Up until the very last minute (and even after it took effect), air raid sirens were wailing endlessly, and the sound of rockets exploding or being intercepted by the Iron Dome continued to permeate the air.

To make matters worse, a mere hour prior to the announcement of the cease-fire, two people from Kibbutz Nirim were killed in a mortar attack. This happened just a few days after a four-year-old boy from Kibbutz Nahal Oz suffered a similar fate.

In addition, since the many cease-fires to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed throughout the 50 days of Operation Protective Edge all ended abruptly with a Hamas breach, Israelis were hard pressed to believe that this one would be any different. And there was a general sense of malaise about aborting the operation before rendering Hamas totally powerless.

So, while Hamas leaders emerged from their bunkers to declare victory — with a few thousand Gaza residents dancing in the streets, shooting in the air and chanting songs about killing Jews — Israelis sat at home (or remained in temporary lodgings away from the Gaza border), deflated, disillusioned and angry.

On Wednesday evening, Netanyahu gave a joint press conference with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz to assure the public that the government had given in to none of Hamas’ demands — and to reassure us that no subsequent “drizzle of rockets” would be tolerated. Netanyahu stated unequivocally that the IDF would hit Gaza even harder if Hamas pulled any stunts.

Residents of the south were furious, fearing that the war had not made them any safer than they had been before. They continue to worry not only about a resumption of rocket-fire, but about the possibility that not all the terror tunnels leading into their area were destroyed — something that would put them at risk of slaughter while they sleep or abduction in broad daylight.

Debates about whether the current situation constitutes a victory or a defeat for Israel began to rage, as did arguments over the long-term goals of the government where the Palestinians are concerned. The unity that characterized society at the beginning of the war in July seemed a thing of the distant past, with Netanyahu’s popularity at 38 percent, down from 85 percent six weeks ago.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, writer, public speaker, and a 9/11 survivor of the WTC attacks in NYC. She formerly served as a counsel for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and for the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Mayor Giuliani. She currently works for Vigilance, Inc. and is considered an expert on OIC UN resolutions. She is the primary writer and researcher for a recently released book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, published by CFNS.

FP: Deborah Weiss, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

DW: Thank you for inviting me.

FP: Tell us a little bit about CAIR and its background.

DW: CAIR holds itself out as a Muslim Civil Rights organization, but in fact it’s an Islamist supremacist organization whose ultimate goal is the implementation of Sharia law. It has a network of chapters that are separately incorporated, but have similar goals, tactics and often overlapping or interchanging directors and staff. It’s based in America and Canada.

CAIR’s roots spawn out of Hamas and the Islamic Association of Palestine, both of which are State-designated terrorist organizations. It adheres to the same interpretation of Islam as the Muslim Brotherhood and serves as the propaganda wing of the so-called “Islamic Resistance Movement” in the West.

It has some funding from its membership, but also receives large contributions from donors in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Kuwait.

FP: What are CAIR’s goals in the United States?

DW: CAIR appears to have three main goals. One is to silence all criticism of anything related to Islam including Islamic terrorism. Second, it seeks to Islamize the workplace, and third, it works actively to hamper American national security.

FP: Can you give us some examples of how CAIR engages in each of these activities?

DW: Sure. CAIR often files frivolous lawsuits against anyone who blows the whistle on CAIR in order to silence their speech. It also tries to smear reputations and shut down speakers, authors, and politicians who seek to inform the public about the dangers of Islamism, whether it’s regarding Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But it also tries to shut down individuals or companies that make jokes, cartoons or films that shed Islam or Muslims in a negative light.

‘Easy Meat’: Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs — on The Glazov Gang

The Left’s ugly role in 1,400 children discovered as victims of Muslim prostitution rings in Rotherham, U.K.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/easy-meat-inside-the-world-of-muslim-rape-gangs-on-the-glazov-gang-2/

A horrifying news report in The Telegraph has recently confirmed that 1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”

Daniel Greenfield’s blog at The Point deals with this shameful and outrageous story: “UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children.”

In response to the surfacing of this story, and to shed light on the dark forces that help make the vicious system of Islamic sex slavery possible in the West, Frontpage is re-running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation about the terrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left facilitates their barbaric crimes against helpless young girls. The series crystallizes why the horrible story emerging about the 1,400 child victims in Rotherham was a Muslim crime that the Left allowed to occur.

In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon, “Easy Meat,“ and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”:

Say this about Vladimir Putin. The Russian strongman has taken the measure of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama. He knows they dread a showdown over Ukraine, so he is ignoring their rhetorical protests and moving to carve out even more of Ukraine for Greater Russia.

That’s the meaning of the Kremlin’s decision this week to move Russian forces into the Ukrainian coastal town of Novoazovsk while shoring up Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. A NATO official said “well over” 1,000 Russian troops, backed by heavy armor, have joined the separatists in fighting Ukraine’s military.

The Kiev government is calling this an “invasion,” while NATO clings to “incursion,” but that’s a distinction without a difference. Russia invaded Ukraine in February by grabbing Crimea. It has since escalated its military intervention in multiple ways, including with special forces and by firing artillery at Ukrainian positions from both Russian territory and inside Ukraine. If Spanish-speaking men in army garb grabbed El Paso and Mexican artillery fired at the Texas National Guard, Americans would call it an invasion.

The strategy behind Mr. Putin’s move into Ukraine’s southern coast is to open a land bridge between Russia and Crimea. The goal is to reduce Crimea’s isolation so Russian military garrisons can be reinforced by land instead of by air, and the peninsula’s economy can be knit more closely to Russia’s.

The escalation also opens up another front for the Ukrainian military as it tries to regain control over the east. Ukraine’s military has been making progress against the separatist forces occupying Donetsk and Luhansk, and Mr. Putin may figure he had to act now to prevent the rebels from being overrun. Kiev’s forces will now have to fight on a third front against Russian soldiers and armor.

The timing is notable, but not surprising, on the heels of the much-ballyhooed Tuesday meeting between Mr. Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Western Europeans, in their desire to have this crisis go away, had hoped the meeting would yield progress toward a negotiating solution.

The Obama administration talks global warming as the world burns.

Secretary of State John Kerry said during his January 2013 confirmation hearings that he would be a “passionate advocate” on climate-change issues, and he’s living up to that promise. In a speech this month in Hawaii, Mr. Kerry called climate change “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now.” Not 10, 20 or 100 years from now—right now.

If only Mr. Kerry were right. Unfortunately, America faces much bigger immediate challenges and threats than climate change. Our enemies around the world are intent on harming us—right now. America’s secretary of state should worry more about them and less about the Earth’s temperature decades from now.
Here’s a list of a few challenges, all of which pose a greater threat to the world than climate change. It might help the president and his colleagues understand why Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy approval rating is about 36%, according to an August poll by Gallup.