RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2908/president-obama-turns-a-corner-on-iran

ALWAYS DEPENDABLE TO BE UNDEPENDABLE……DERSH, A PROMOTER OF THE TWO STATE DISSOLUTION OF ISRAEL ALWAYS STRUTS HIS POMPOUS RAGE….AND THEN….GOES BACK INTO THE ARMS OF THE OBAMATHONS. THIS IS COLUMN IS SHEER NONSENSE….. ON IRAN OBAMA WALKS SOFTLY AND OFFERS A LIMP CARROT…RSK

President Obama has turned an important corner in his efforts to persuade Iran not to try to develop nuclear weapons, and in his efforts to persuade Israel to allow his combination of punishing sanctions and tough talk to work. In his recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in Atlantic Magazine, President Obama sent a clear message to the Iranians that he is not bluffing, that he means it when he says that American policy is not to accept a nuclear Iran, and that no option, including a military one, is off the table if sanctions and threats appear not to be working.

I was not surprised by President Obama’s strong words, because he said similar things to me in private conversation. But now he has said them in public, and with words that are unequivocal and put his credibility, and the credibility of our country, on the line. (I will not repeat the President’s words here because they can be found in the Goldberg article that appears http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/).

For those who have claimed that Obama is anti-Israel and/or weak on Iran, these forceful statements should make them reconsider. I, for one, am satisfied with the President’s words. Now I want to hear them repeated by Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, by Joint Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey and by others in the Obama Administration. For me the problem has never been President Obama. His voice has generally been strong and clear in support of Israel’s security and his determination to prevent Iran from securing nuclear weapons. The same cannot be said for other members of his administration. The resulting mixed message has been viewed as a green light, or at the very least a yellow light, by the Iranian mullahs. Now they have been given a clear red light, and if they try to speed past that red light, they should understand the grave consequences.

Having said all this, there still is some distance between the United States and Israel when it comes to timing and red lines. Israel has a closer red line, because it may soon lack the military capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, if that program succeeds in going underground to bunkers that are impenetrable to Israeli bombs. The United States has more time, and a further red line, because it has far greater capacity to destroy even a deeply buried Iranian nuclear weapons program. This difference requires the Israelis to place great trust in President Obama’s promises.

Andrew Breitbart was unique and inimitable. But the light cannot be allowed to die. Joel Pollak, a Ruthfully favorite is the bearer of the torch.

Please read: Andrew Breitbart’s Right-Hand Man: Skokie-Bred Joel Pollak by Carol Feisenthal

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/March-2012/Andrew-Breitbarts-Right-Hand-Man-Skokie-Bred-Joel-Pollak/

As soon as I heard the news this morning of Andrew Breitbart’s sudden death today at age 43, I thought of Joel Pollak, the Harvard College and Law School graduate who left Skokie, where he was raised and attended Niles North, to go to Los Angeles to serve as editor-in-chief and in-house counsel for Breitbart.com.

I wrote about Pollak, 34—he now lives with his wife and baby daughter in Santa Monica—when he was running against Jan Schakowsky for Congress in the 9th District, and I covered a related fundraiser for him at which the guest of honor was his mentor, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.

I asked Pollak, who has become a key player in the Breitbart operation, for details of his boss’s death—the conspiracy theories are brewing—and he said that he couldn’t say much now. We agreed to talk next week: “I don’t want to make the story about myself.” He did say it was “out of the blue,” totally unexpected. When I asked him if the website Breitbart.com would continue, he said, “Yes, yes, it’ll go on in a big way.”

In a conversation last September Pollak told me that Andrew Breitbart had taken note of his campaign for congress, and after a “15 second” conversation in a social setting, Breitbart had contacted him and first asked him to come work for him as in-house counsel. Soon thereafter Pollak took over as editor in chief of Breitbart.com. He oversees the editors, looks at posts that could potentially cause legal problems, and writes several posts a week for the site’s “Big” blogs.

Dozens die as terrorist rivals attack each other in Pakistan AP Friday, March 2, 2012 Breaking_news A suicide bomber killed 23 people, many of them believed to be militants, in an attack Friday on the headquarters of a rival insurgent group in northwest Pakistan, a government official said. A commander of the Pakistani Taliban, which […]

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2012/03/whats-up-doc-anti-israel-bias-of.html

ALSO READ: http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar12feb-02.pdf

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNALS PLAY POLITICS AGAIN

Baroness (“Jihad Jenny”) Tonge, on whom my penultimate post focuses, is, as well-known a doctor of medicine. She’s not the only member of her profession in the UK who’s fanatically anti-Israel.

For a number of years one of Britain’s premier medical periodicals, The Lancet, has (controversially and to the utter chagrin of many doctors) embraced a politicised anti-Israel position, owing to the leanings of its editor, Dr Richard Horton, who in this video from 2006 rants against the War in Iraq using such phrases as “the axis of American imperialism” and “the colonialist arm of this [British] government”.

http://biggovernment.com/ Larry Solov

Andrew passed away unexpectedly from natural causes shortly after midnight this morning in Los Angeles.

We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.

Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love.

Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:

I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.

Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.

Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.11524/pub_detail.asp

Words. Angry words. And objects!
Wilfred Lawson as the butler, Peacock (The Wrong Box, 1966)

The line is from a comedy about plots and mix-ups to collect the proceeds of a tontine. Peacock was describing the farcical altercation between two aged brothers, the last surviving members of the lottery, which was actually a kind of a trust-administered survivorship insurance policy.

Angry words? Offending words? Dangerous words? Impermissible words?

But angry words, offending words, impermissible words, and even unspoken words, when it comes to Islam, Muslims, and politically correct speech and thought, are not the stuff of farce. They can be fatal, fatal to freedom of speech, fatal to its practitioners. And the First Amendment can no longer be relied upon to ensure one’s right to criticize Islam or Muslims or trump politically correct speech.

Readers are probably already familiar with the story in the Daily Telegraph and in other newspapers (and, needless to say, on the Internet). Gatwick Airport “security” guards wanted David Jones, a traveler, to admit he made an “offensive” remark and apologize for it. It is interesting that it was a Muslim “security” guard who demanded an apology for a remark not made to her but to another guard. She was not even present when Jones made it. So, the question also is, aside from the fact that this “security” let a veiled Muslim through without a check: Why wasn’t she “offended” by the person who related the remark to her?

1. Mosques in America nearly double since 9/11
2. U.S. in talks to swap JIHAD TERROR Sheikh Rahman and 49 others for 19 Americans held in Egypt – Whose side are they on?
3. VIDEO: Saudi Scholar: ‘The Freedom Enjoyed in the West Is a Hundred Times Better Than in Islamic Countries’
4. VIDEO: New Voter Fraud Study Shows Problem Much Bigger than the Media Admits – Watch Undercover Reporters Register Tim Tebow and Tom Brady to Vote!
5. Egypt: U.S. to Abide Jihad Ransom for Imprisoned Americans?
6. The Truth About President Kennedy
7. SATIRE VIDEO: NewsBusted (02-28-2012) – President Obama Apologizes For Koran Burnings
8. VIDEO: Jonah Goldberg says U.S. needs to stop doing deals with North Korea like today’s no missile launches for food agreement.
9. VIDEO TRIBUTE: RIP Davy Jones – the lead singer of the pop group The Monkees, died Wednesday at the age of 66.
10. VIDEO: What is Leap Year? Leap Year explained – in the best possible way.

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/4754 I was, yet again, set to write about the reprehensible behavior of the Republican presidential candidates and their enabling by the Republican National Committee when news broke of the passing of Conservative new media publisher and advocate, Andrew Breitbart. To be certain, the loss of Mr. Breitbart, at the incredibly young age of 43, […]

NCJA Demands Clinton Explain US funding of representative Ken Insley
at Arab anti-Israel conference to “combat Judaization of Jerusalem” DATED: March 1, 2012

The National Council on Jewish Affairs calls on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to explain whether United States tax dollars were spent on State Department consultant Kenneth Insley’s blistering attack on America’s ally Israel and his vicious jabs at members of congress, at an Israel-bashing conference held on February 26-27, in Doha, Qatar.

The “International Conference for the Defense of Occupied Jerusalem,” or, as it was referred to in the English-language media, “Conference on Jerusalem,” was created, according to its organizers, the Arab League, to “combat the Judaization of Jerusalem.”

“Why did Ken Insley, whose official conference listing named the US State Department as his place of employment, tell an already hate-filled audience that Americans’ willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel’s ‘shameful treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, and in Jerusalem’ is the cause of Arab enmity towards America, and that unless a Palestinian State is created ‘there will be Armageddon’,” asked Lori Lowenthal Marcus, NCJA executive committee chair. “Further, why did he suggest to them that they should understand ‘U.S. politicians care more about Israel than the foreign policy interests of their own country?’”

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/02/29/act-of-valor-or-a-war-without-a-narrative/

… but with a Chechen-Jewish Drug Smuggler Named Christo
“Hezbollah is all over Latin America; Hamas is showing up there; Iran’s paramilitary Qods force is reported to be operating out of Venezuela; Hezbollah and Somali Islamists have already sneaked illegally across our border from Mexico; the great majority of drug criminals in Latin America are Latin American – yet the production team for Act of Valor decided to make the villains in the movie Chechens, and make the Chechen drug smuggler a Jew. Why in the name of Jumping Jehoshaphat did they do that?”

Let me state up front that I don’t think the filmmakers meant anything by the “Christo” character. I do think they stumbled haplessly on a hornet’s nest of anti-Semitic tropes – and thereby hangs a tale that matters.

Act of Valor is a moving, gripping film, all the more so for being enacted by real Navy SEALs. (Full disclosure: this reviewer is a 20-year Navy veteran, and while definitely not a SEAL was privileged to work with some.) The one major flaw I found with the production, per se, was the rather annoying sound track, which could have dispensed with the hackneyed crescendos at suspenseful moments. What the SEALs do needs no audience-cues or embellishment.

And they do incredible things. The movie conveys well the deceptive simplicity of their narrowly-scoped tactical operations. Naval Special Warfare is the unique funnel through which attack submarines, amphibious assault ships, and special-purpose aircraft are brought to bear on strange, one-off combat problems for which they weren’t necessarily designed. The whole Navy – indeed, all the special ops capabilities the United States has – makes up a big bag of tricks for the SEALs to reach into.