RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-real-difference-between-islamic-extremists-and-moderates/print/

ISLAMIC EXTREMIST” NEUROSURGEONS” BELIEVE IN BEHEADING INFIDELS, WHILE THE MODERATES JUST WANT TO KILL THEM IF THEY DON’T CONVERT….AND FOR STARTERS THEY WANT TO DESTROY ISRAEL….JUST ASK THE REAL MODERATES….THE APOSTATES LIKE HIRSI ALI, NONIE DARWISH, WAFA SULTAN, IBN WARRAQ…..RSK

There were eras in human history whose great challenges lay in isolating chemical compounds, unlocking the structures of human genetic material and examining the hearts of dying stars. But the great challenge of our time is telling apart Muslim moderates and Muslim extremists.

Fly to Tripoli International Airport, take the Airport Highway into Tripoli, drive along the coast through all those towns and cities you heard about on the radio when the announcers were excitedly describing battles between the brave Libyan rebels and the despicable forces of the despot; Homs, Misrata, Sirte. Drive through the night while hugging the Mediterranean coastline until you reach Benghazi.

Benghazi is the city on whose behalf we went to war against Gaddafi. The imminent peril to Benghazi was the reason that Obama gave for the conflict. “We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it,” he declared proudly. But the firepower that proved so potent in displacing and dismantling the Gaddafi regime could not protect Ambassador Stevens and the American consulate.

The Benghazi consulate’s own security forces had been stripped down to their bare essentials. Inside the compound, in their own barracks, were members of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade who were tasked with providing security for the consulate. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade is an Islamist militia affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The attackers firing off RPGs into the compound were members of Ansar Al Sharia, a spinoff of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, associated with Al Qaeda.

On diplomatic paper the moderate February 17 Martyrs Brigade and the extremist Ansar Al-Sharia had nothing in common. In reality, the differences between the two militias were mostly cosmetic and the Martyrs Brigade had been contacted ahead of time by an Al Qaeda politician and asked to stand down while the attack took place.

A month later and a thousand miles away, the moderate Free Syrian Army and the extremist Al Nusra Front captured a missile base in Syria. The base was stocked with the rather popular S-75 SAMs which may be a bit dated, but had still managed to shoot down an F-111 over Libya back in 1981 and would make short work of most commercial airliners.

The Free Syrian Army is the force that almost everyone agrees we should be supporting. They are almost certainly the fighters that Obama is conveying weapons and trainers to. And the Treasury Department approved a license to provide direct financial assistance to the FSA. The Al Nusra Front however is linked to Al Qaeda and waves the black flag of the Caliphate. It considers the United States an enemy of Islam.

The rebel spokesman for the local franchise of the Brave Syrian People ™ explained, “We don’t distinguish between the groups Al Nusra and the other militias, as long as everyone is working toward one goal of ousting the regime.” Our beloved moderates were making no distinction between themselves and the extremists. By helping the Free Syrian Army, we were really helping Al Qaeda.

The missile base attack was not the first time that the Free Syrian Army and the Al Nusra Front had worked together. The exploits of the Free Syrian Army were often actually the work of the experienced Jihadi fighters of Al Nusra. When gullible Westerners thought they were applauding the daring acts of freedom fighters, they were actually cheering the fanatical murderous frenzy of their own enemies.

The S-75s of Aleppo won’t pose much of a threat to us because the Syrian Air Force promptly swooped in and blew the missile base to bits, thereby probably saving a few hundred or a few thousand American lives—not that they did it for that reason. The real mission of the FSA and Al Nusra however had been to dismantle Syrian air defenses on its northern border clearing the way for a Turkish invasion of Syria.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330771/dazed-and-deceptive-libya-roy-blunt Having misled Americans for weeks about the September 11 attacks in Libya, the Obama administration is now attempting to mislead us about how it misled us. The president himself used this tactic during last night’s debate, claiming that he immediately recognized the violence in Benghazi as a planned terrorist attack and that he leveled […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330809/rich-democrats-deroy-murdock Top Democrats do not just disagree with Republican nominee Mitt Romney. They consider him a loaded, multiple-house-owning son of privilege unfamiliar with the common man. At last week’s running-mates’ debate, Vice President Joe Biden suggested that Romney is “going to continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy.” “Mitt Romney just […]

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/330821 Total annual spending on federal means-tested welfare programs has hit $1 trillion. The Congressional Research Service is out with a new memorandum on spending on these programs. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate budget committee who requested the memo, has crunched the numbers and come up with the astonishing figure of […]

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/10/17/the-murders-in-libya-the-presidential-debate-and-the-pattern-of-obama-foreign-policy/

While foreign policy did not figure large in the second presidential debate, the Middle East again emerged as the overwhelming international issue.

In the beginning of the debate, President Barack Obama claimed that he put a high priority on energy independence, an assertion well refuted by Governor Mitt Romney. A president who wants energy independence from the unreliability of Middle East supplies has many options: he could easily expand oil drilling on federal land, promote the use of new technology to produce oil and gas, approve a major pipeline from Canada, and continue production and use of coal for generating power. To do none of these things and put his effort into restricting traditional energy sources and pushing hard for untested, long-term, and failed “green energy” schemes subverts energy independence.

But the main emphasis in the debate was on the Benghazi assassinations. Obama said:

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn’t happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

In other words, Obama said let’s increase security — after the attack was made — and then investigate and find those responsible for the attack. This is all rather obvious and anyone would have done that. But the real questions are different ones: How about investigating why there was such a security breach and the reasons for the attack?

And how about what happened beforehand?

Crowley’s Interference Saved Obama From Another Shellacking Crowley’s Interference Saved Obama From Another Shellacking Crowley loudly supported President Barack Obama’s version of reality, and contradicted Governor Mitt Romney’s recollection of Obama’s post-Benghazi comments. Candy Crowley, the moderator of the presidential debate at Hofstra University on October 16, interfered in this U.S. presidential race in a […]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443854204578058382033394080.html

Mitt Romney won’t make war on women, the Middle East or the middle class.

Dear Wavering Voter:

No, abortion rights and access to contraception will not be jeopardized if Mitt Romney becomes president. Not remotely, not vaguely, not even close. No woman in America, including Sandra Fluke, will have war made upon her by a President Romney.

Maybe you think the job of a president is to be our DJ-in-Chief and set the mood music for the country. In that case, the slow-jam Obama administration has everything to recommend it, while a Romney presidency may get on your nerves like a hokey country song. But it won’t get in your way.

How am I so sure? It’s not a question of Mr. Romney’s sincerity on social issues. It’s the fact that since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land almost 40 years ago, Republican presidents have named seven justices to the Supreme Court, while Democratic presidents have named only four. Guess what? Roe v. Wade is and will remain the law of the land.

No, we will not have another war in the Middle East. Not even if President Romney orders Iran’s nuclear sites bombed to smithereens.
Remember “Operation Desert Fox”? Probably not. That was a four-day, full-on bombing campaign against Iraq ordered by Bill Clinton in December 1998, on the eve of his impeachment. The ostensible purpose of the campaign was to degrade Saddam’s WMD capabilities, which then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called “the threat of the 21st century.”

It must have worked beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Air strikes may be acts of war, but not the kind of war President Obama is warning will be our lot if Republicans are elected. Incidentally, Mr. Obama also says “all options are on the table” when it comes to Iran. If he isn’t serious about keeping a nuclear weapon out of the hands of the ayatollahs by any means necessary, he should come out and say so.

No, America will not once again become the global pariah it supposedly was under George W. Bush if Mr. Romney is elected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062721764365776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

One of the feats of President Obama’s re-election campaign is its ability to describe his record in a way that bears little or no relation to the reality of the last four years. Exhibit A is Mr. Obama’s riff on energy at Tuesday night’s debate, when he all but ran to the right of Mitt Romney, and maybe Sarah Palin.

The exchange began when an audience member asked Mr. Obama about Steven Chu’s job description, which the Energy Secretary has repeatedly said does not include helping to lower gasoline prices. Mr. Obama never answered that one, but he did use the opportunity to pose as the John the Baptist of fossil fuels, invoking oil drilling, the natural gas fracking boom and even coal production.

Mr. Obama (and his green allies) must have died a little on the inside when he said that, given that he ran in 2008 on a promise to build a “new energy economy,” by which he meant everything but fossil fuels.
Related Video
As we have learned, the plan was to subsidize dozens of companies with little commercial potential but that were often owned by Mr. Obama’s green allies. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency would go on a regulatory binge like nothing in modern U.S. history against traditional carbon-based sources of energy, coal in particular.

Mr. Romney went small bore in the debate, noting that the Administration has not in practice promoted the production of U.S. energy resources on federal lands and waters, in fact the opposite. Mr. Obama responded by flatly stating that “very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous Administration.” He said he supported “an all-of-the-above strategy.”

http://www.steynonline.com/5225/let-them-go-hungry I dislike first ladies — as a concept, I mean, not as dinner dates. I think of the first lady as an individual who happens to be married to the guy with the job, rather than as a job in its own right with a huge staff and bloated budget. But I seem to […]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/american-publishers-blast-saudi-arabia-for-indoctrinating-children-with-hatred-via-textbooks/ American publishers blast Saudi Arabia for ‘indoctrinating children with hatred’ via textbooks Group’s editorial in The Daily Beast cites failed promises by the kingdom to institute reforms By MICHAL SHMULOVICH 2012, 3:08 am 0 Major American publishers on Wednesday denounced Saudi textbooks for inciting hatred and promoting bigotry in a scathing editorial written for […]