RUTHFULLY YOURS

Why Saudi Prince Bin Talal Funds Middle East Studies in America

http://www.campus-watch.org/blog/2012/02/why-saudi-prince-bin-talal-funds-middle-east

HIS LARGESSE IS SPREAD THROUGHOUT ACADEMIA INCLUDING MEDICAL AND LAW SCHOOLS. HE WOULD NOT BE AS SUCCESSFUL WERE IT NOT FOR THE MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION WHICH PREPARES ITS MEMBERS…..ALL FACULTY TEACHING THE SUBJECT….TO HATE ISRAEL, LIE ABOUT ITS HISTORY, THROW IN ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS, AND PROMOTE THE “RELIGION OF PEACE” BLATHER…..BIN TALAL HAS VERY WILLING ACCOMPLICES IN ACADEMIA……RSK

Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal–million dollar benefactor of Middle East studies programs at Harvard University, Georgetown University, and beyond–spoke at Harvard this past Wednesday. The prince touts himself as a model of liberalism in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia–in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, he advocated for reform among Middle Eastern monarchies in response to the demands of the “Arab Spring”–and he has always claimed that his funding for Middle East studies in the U.S. springs from nothing more than a desire to promote cross-cultural understanding.

Yet, as the following excerpt from this Harvard Crimson article reveals, the underlying reason for his largesse likely has more to do with promoting a positive image of Islam in the West. Hence the whitewashing of Islamic history that routinely occurs in the programs he funds and via the professors, such as Georgetown’s John Esposito and Harvard’s Ali Asani (both are quoted in the article) whom he has tapped to direct them:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/02/how_incompetence_and_malfeasance_infect_the_voting_process.html Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, a recent book by J. Christian Adams, provides shocking evidence of DOJ racial bias toward minorities and the failure to apply federal law in a race-neutral fashion. A five-year DOJ Voting Rights Section veteran, Adams cites his firsthand experience with officials who sought to […]

A Kosovo Model for Syria Bill Clinton stood up to Milosevic. Barack Obama can confront Assad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577211143509449410.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I AM NO ADVOCATE FOR MILOSEVIC WHO WAS A THUG…BUT A COMPARISON WITH ASSAD IS OUTRAGEOUS! AND WHAT HOLBROOKE, HALBRIGHT AND CLINTON DID IN THE BALKANS WAS TO DESTROY SERBIAN INFRASTUCTURE WHEN MILOSEVIC WAS ALREADY ON HIS WAY OUT, AND PAVE THE WAY FOR KOSOVO WHICH WAS LEGALLY AND HISTORICALLY AN INTEGRAL PART OF SERBIA, TO BECOME ANOTHER MOSLEM STATE, WHOSE LEADER, MONSTER HACIM THACI WAS ACCUSED OF HUMAN ORGAN TRAFFICKING…..THIS IS AN AJAMI DELUSION….SHAME ON HIM…..RSK

The bloodshed and the brutality of the dictatorship in Syria are at long last beginning to challenge the passivity of the Obama administration. The word is out that the Pentagon has launched a “scoping exercise” to determine what could be done should the president want to respond to the Syrian catastrophe.

For months, the administration pursued the mirage of a United Nations Security Council condemnation of Damascus, when there was no chance that Russia and China would go for it. The administration persisted even though a similar effort last October ended in failure. There was no need to court the Russians. We granted them the pride of being treated as a great power, and they played it for all it was worth, at home and abroad. The time wasted on the courtship of Russia should have been put to use “scoping” ways the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad could be brought down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104576655280219991322.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

KABUL—U.S. taxpayers paid Afghan entrepreneur Ajmal Hasas millions of dollars as part of a plan to win over villages in the country’s insurgent heartlands.

Instead, Mr. Hasas’ seven-mile road construction project went so awry that his security guards opened fire on some of the very villagers he was trying to woo on behalf of his American funders.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/880/abu_qatada_is_an_extremist_so_why_won_t_the_bbc_tell_the_truth_
Abu Qatada is an extremist so why won’t the BBC tell the truth?

Calling Abu Qatada an extremist may well be a value judgement but it would be the right value judgement and more importantly than this it would also be the truth

According to notes shown to the Daily Telegraph, BBC journalists have been told by the corporation’s managers that they should avoid referring to the al-Qaeda preacher Abu Qatada as ‘an extremist’. This, they were told, would be to make a ‘value judgement’ and rather they were to describe Qatada as ‘a radical’.

Yet this seems an incredible position for the BBC to have adopted, and it’s incredible because it very clearly appears that the BBC is instructing it’s journalists to avoid telling the truth.

Abu Qatada is quite demonstrably an extremist. Calling him a radical just doesn’t suffice. You might say that Roy Jenkins was a radical Home Secretary or that Ayn Rand with her views on the virtue of selfishness was a radical. They were radicals because, to varying degrees, they went against the grain of the prevailing orthodoxies that had existed. But Abu Qatada sits at the extreme end of what is in itself an overtly extreme and violent ideology.

Good old Auntie has done its best not to offend this man and his advocates
Good old Auntie has done its best not to offend this man and his advocates

This is after all the man who essentially acted as Bin Laden’s ambassador to Europe. He is known to have acted as a mentor to shoe bomber Richard Reid, Abu Hamza and Zacarias Moussaoui; the so called ‘20th hijacker’ of 9/11. And Qatada has been a fundraiser for terrorist activities and linked with terror groups whose networks stretch from as far as Algeria to Chechnya. Indeed, the immigration judge who thought it would be a good idea to rule that Qatada should walk free from Long Lartin high security prison had already been advised by his security team that the preacher posed a ‘grave risk’ to national security.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/882/on_iran_the_right_lesson_is_hitler_not_mao
On Iran, the right lesson is Hitler, not Mao

History is an imperfect teacher. But when push comes to shove, it would be more prudent to take Hitler’s Germany, as opposed to Mao’s China, as a precedent for today’s Iran

History is an imperfect teacher. The lessons from events of the past often contradict one another, leaving policymakers the challenge of deciding which ones are most relevant to the issues of today.

That challenge lies at the heart of the debate over what to do about Iran’s quest for nuclear weaponry.

On that issue, history offers conflicting lessons that derive from two earth-shaking events of the last century.

http://news.investors.com/Article/600740/201202091913/climate-change-not-melting-himalayan-ice.htm

Hoaxes: New research shows that the world’s greatest snow-capped peaks have lost no ice in the last decade and that polar ice is melting at a much lower rate than warm-mongers say.

The new study was conducted by scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder, published in the journal Nature and based on satellite observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite.

GRACE, which was launched as a joint project between NASA and Germany in 2002, orbits the earth at an altitude of 500 kilometers (315 miles), so it sees everything from the highest peaks down to the mouths of glaciers. The satellite measures gravity, which is related to mass, and would be affected by decreases in polar ice, glaciers or mountain snow packs.

Before the amazing GRACE data, teams of researchers had to measure ice loss at a few easily accessible glaciers and then extrapolate it to the 200,000 glaciers worldwide. Measuring mountain snow packs, glacier mass and the thickness of polar ice was an inexact science prone to overhyping by climate-change enthusiasts with an agenda…REA MORE AT SITE

Robert Kagan and Muslim DemocracyPosted By David P. Goldman
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/02/09/robert-kagan-and-muslim-democracy/

Robert Kagan’s new book, The World America Made, argues with a straight face that an anti-American Egypt is good for the United States, as long as it is democratic. This remarkable assertion encapsulates the trouble with most foreign policy thinking on the right wing of American politics. I review the book today at Tablet Magazine; in a nutshell: “Kagan’s purpose in defending U.S. foreign-policy activism here is to deflect criticism of America’s unpopular engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is no easy task, and to perform it, Kagan adopts the two-stage approach to persuasion made famous by Prof. Harold Hill in The Music Man: Establish first that there is trouble in River City, and then propose a solution, namely a marching band. Kagan also offers a marching band, but with 40 divisions behind it.”

Hardest to fathom is Kagan’s enduring faith in the efficacy of Muslim democracy. He writes:

The inevitable victory of Islamist parties in some Arab states will probably bring governments to power that are less accommodating to some American interests than the previous dictatorships had been….Americans’ enduring interest in a liberal world order generally transcends other, more narrow and temporary interests. The United States can lose an Egyptian ally but still gain a healthier world order.

The Red Race Card Posted By Daniel Greenfield

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/10/the-red-race-card/print/

Racism is about many things but it isn’t about race. To understand the uses of race in American liberalism requires understanding its place in the political culture. When American liberals speak of race they aren’t speaking in the genetic sense. What they are doing is clumsily piggybacking class onto race and adding one dubious construct to another.

The placement of racial politics at the center of liberal advocacy coincided with a growing national prosperity that seemed to be on the way to making class warfare of the old kind irrelevant. Previous liberal civil rights activity had been a subset of class, but class now became a subset of race. And both were a means of liberal self-definition as the people concerned with the plight of the downtrodden.

Class warfare was not really about the poor. It was about using a permanent social problem as a means of recreating the social order and gaining permanent political power. Race is just class dressed up in the same old class warfare clothes so that there is nearly no distinction between the two. Reformers gain power by attacking the failures of the system and positioning a social problem as an open sore that must be healed. But it isn’t healing that they have in mind.

When your power is a product of social problems, then the failure to locate social problems that are an open sore on society, a cry of conscience and a grievous crime that must be faced, leaves you powerless and irrelevant. Once you start running out of legitimate social problems to tackle, then you have no choice but to start creating them or exaggerating them. Whether the problems you are dealing with are real or unreal, your challenge is to find ways to make them worse in order to retain your power and the social relevance of your movement.

Party Like It’s A.D. 632 Posted By Bruce Bawer

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/10/party-like-its-a-d-632/

Recently the Partij voor Moslim Nederland (Party for Muslim Netherlands), which already enjoys a significant presence in various municipal governments in that country, announced that it intended to run candidates for the Dutch Parliament. An article in Forbes listed the party’s major principles, which included limits on “offensive” speech about religion; the criminalization of blasphemy and of the destruction of religious texts; immediate admission of Turkey to the EU; an end to support for Israel; and the free and unimpeded importation of Muslim brides from abroad.

Whether to work within existing parties, or to concentrate on forming and building up separate Muslim parties, has always been a key strategic question for the soft jihadists of Europe. Though there are Muslims in Norway who are prominent members of several large traditional parties, the country now has a Muslim party too. Founded in 2009 as the Independent Labour Party, it was obliged later that year to change its name to the Samtidspartiet (Contemporary Party) because of official concerns that it might be confused with the Norwegian Labor Party. When outlining the party’s goals, its founder, Norwegian-Pakistani Ghuffor Butt, focused on a desire for lower taxes, gas prices, and the like – making it sound like rather a libertarian party for Muslims. Formerly a cinema director, producer, and political journalist in Pakistan, as well as an actor in some twenty Pakistani movies, Butt ran – and, as far as I know, still runs – a successful store in Grønland, a largely Muslim district in Oslo, that sells Bollywood films.

Yet lest these credentials suggest he was a “liberal” and “modern” Muslim, Butt made it clear, in answer to a Dagbladet journalist’s questions, that his party’s other objectives included lifting the ban on hijab in the police force, establishing exclusively Muslim schools and hospitals, instructing immigrant-group children in their parents’ native tongue rather than in Norwegian, easing residence-visa rules, using taxpayer money to fund the building of mosques and pay the salaries of imams, punishing those who had reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and prohibiting homosexuality. (Later, presumably loath to offend some of his allies on the left, Butt made a phone call to Dagbladet to walk back the bit about gays: while homosexual conduct is forbidden by Islam, he said, the party did not intend to change Norwegian law on the subject. Yeah, right.)