RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46588

In 1960, as a young wife living with my husband on his Ivy League campus, I had a front-row seat when the Feminist Movement made its debut. I was doing nothing, according to Obama mouthpiece Hilary Rosen, because, after all, caring for our infant son, taking care of our home, and supporting the efforts of my equally hard-working husband Steve, was—ala Rosen’s characterization of worthy activity—the very definition of sloth.

After all, if Ann Romney, raising five sons, “never worked a day in her life,” as Ms. Rosen recently told a panel of slavering Obama acolytes on CNN, then my friends and I were certainly sleep-walking through our days.

Rosen’s remark was as repulsive to me as it was to most people. But it wasn’t surprising, any more than, say, watching a rhinoceros at the Bronx Zoo roll around in the mud, or a predatory scorpion spew lethal toxins into its prey. That is simply what those species do, just as the leftist species to which Rosen clearly belongs routinely engage in mean-spirited insults—particularly toward attractive, accomplished, and happily married Republican women. They truly can’t help themselves. Like Pavlov’s dogs, the Rosen species has a visceral, Tourette’s-like response that is usually delivered with a patronizing smirk, the better to conceal the near-hysteria they feel at the threat the Ann Romneys of the world represent to their very being.

But where did this species come from? Rosen is only the latest in a long line of angry lefties who, for the most part, have contaminated the public discourse. You have to go back 50 years to fully grasp the genesis of Rosen’s fuming, intolerant, envious brand of leftism.

1960, significantly, was the year that the Food and Drug Administration approved the birth-control pill developed by Harvard’s Dr. John Rock. For the first time in human history, women had just about foolproof control over reproduction. In America, this was celebrated by the women who would come to be known as feminists as the opportunity to be as promiscuous as the men they resented but secretly envied.

Watch video: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-turned-filmmaker-david-mamet-from-brain-dead-liberal-to-conservative/
GBTV What Turned Filmmaker David Mamet From ‘Brain Dead Liberal’ to Conservative?

Appearing on The Glenn Beck Program Wednesday evening, award-winning author, producer and director David Mamet discussed his latest book, “The Secret Knowledge” with guest host Andrew Wilkow. The work chronicles Mamet‘s transition from liberal to conservative and explains the reasons for the famed writer’s awakening.

Mamet solidified his place in American film and theater with such works as Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict, Wag the Dog, and The Untouchables and had frequently included typical liberal themes throughout his screenplays — that is until he made the conversion.

In a now-infamous op-ed for The Village Voice in 2008, “Why I am no Longer a Brain Dead Liberal,’” Mamet revealed that essentially, he had been living a lie for most of his life, as the liberal beliefs he held fast to in his mind were not actually reflected in his day-to-day words and deeds. He wrote that after being prompted by his rabbi to engage in dialogue with those who sit on the opposite side of the ideological aisle, he recognized that he held two opposite views of America: One of a state “where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).” After this revelation, Mamet realized that the time had come to acknowledge he was in fact part of the latter version of America.

After reading the works of economists Thomas Sowell, who he called “our greatest contemporary philosopher,” and Milton Friedman among others, Mamet found that he “agreed with them.”

http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/polanski-dreyfuss.php
WHO WILL PLAY THEODOR HERZL WHOSE DETERMINATION TO REVIVE ISRAEL WAS FUELED BY HIS PRESENCE AT THE DREYFUSS TRIAL?….RSK

One of the most tragic injustices in modern Jewish history is about to become a major motion picture, to be directed by acclaimed and controversial director Roman Polanski.

Alfred Dreyfus, a late 19th century French military officer, was a model of assimilation for the French Jewish community until he was framed for treason and sent to Devil’s Island.
For over a decade, the Dreyfus family and a growing body of supporters expoused the officer’s innocence and fought for his release. The most famous of them was Emile Zola, whose legendary polemic “J’Accuse” became a landmark in the battle against European antisemitism.

After 12 years of campaigning, Dreyfus’s innocence was finally proven and he was released. But the case had already split France down the middle, becoming a flashpoint for the battle between the political left and right, reactionaries and revolutionaries, liberals and conservatives, militarists and their opponents; and, most of all, between antisemites and those who fought for equal rights and tolerance.

At the same time, the Dreyfus case sparked the modern Zionist movement. Theodore Herzl was a young Viennese journalist who covered the Dreyfus case, and the ferocious antisemitism he witnessed in a country that was ostensibly a model of modernity and tolerance led him to write the seminal text of political Zionism, Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”).

Polanski, a secular Jew, may be the perfect director for such a story, as he has been a victim of an antisemitism perhaps even more virulent than that faced by Dreyfus. During World War II, he survived the Krakow Ghetto by living as a street child, scavenging food and shelter while dodging the German soldiers who used him for target practice. His mother was murdered in Auschwitz.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304451104577387870788041912.html

The U.S. leads the world in medical technology. A punitive new excise levy jeopardizes jobs and innovation.

Much of the political conversation in Washington these days concerns innovation, job creation and competitiveness. But talk is cheap, and elected officials must enact policies that enhance economic activity and job creation. The medical device industry is an example of Washington doing exactly the opposite.

Medical device manufacturing is one of the nation’s most dynamic and vibrant industries. The United States is the global leader in medical technology innovation, and it is one of the few major industries with a net trade surplus. This industry is responsible for more than 400,000 American jobs—and is indirectly responsible for almost two million more that supply and support this highly skilled workforce. Most important, its products are essential elements of modern medical care. They include everything from CT scanners and pacemakers to blood pressure cuffs and robots used by surgeons.

Yet instead of protecting this paragon of American ingenuity and innovation, the Obama administration and Congress have viewed the industry as a cash cow from which they could milk profits to help pay for the president’s health law. So they added to the Affordable Care Act a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices that will take effect at the beginning of 2013.

http://www.prudenpolitics.com/index.php/pruden/full_column/creepy_crawlies_for_the_evolved_obama Barack Obama, now fully evolved, is once more the rage of the demimonde. All it took was for him to man up, to acknowledge what everyone already knows the president thinks about “gay sex.” This is “sex” loosely defined, of course, since most people do not associate the terminus of the alimentary canal with […]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4227636,00.html

Special: The war on Israel, Irish-styleSpecial report: Irish journalist slams silence of politicians in face of ‘group anti-Semitism’ mindset; says that in Ireland either one obeys anti-Israel orders of left-wing mind-thugs, or one is lynched

The most serious event of the past week wasn’t related to Prime Time’s libel of Father Kevin Reynolds, and it wasn’t what Cardinal Sean Brady did or didn’t do nearly 40 years ago. Far more serious than either for the health of this Republic – though connected to both by a sanctimonious tissue of lethal intolerance – was the intimidation of the band Dervish into cancelling a tour of Israel. Dervish’s website was hit by venomous abuse from anti-Israeli activists, on the instructions of the Irish Palestinian Solidarity Group. Every bit as sinister as this has been the silence from politicians and “civil liberties groups”: the exception, of course, being Alan Shatter, who is Jewish. It was as if the intellectual thugs of the IPSG were trying to vindicate my recent suggestion that the largest threat to personal freedom these days comes not from government, but from single-interest pressure groups.

Tactics and techniques that would be called fascist by liberals if used against them were at the heart of the campaign against Dervish. For in the left-liberal culture, certain subjects are beyond the usual courtesies of a tolerant civilization, and instead may be subjected to outright bigotry and bullying. The legitimate targets for this salon-terrorism are the Catholic Church, American Republicans, and of course Israel.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/05/bowing_to_islamic_supremacy.html

Resplendent in her royal blue hijab for an official appearance in Bangladesh on Sunday, Hillary Clinton proclaimed that she was deeply hurt by charges brought forth at a public forum that the United States was biased against Muslims.

“It hurts me so much,” Clinton lamented. “It’s a painful perception to hear about, and I deeply regret that anyone believes that or propagates it.”

Even for a woman who had no trouble during her husband’s tenure as president consorting with the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat and his wife, Suha — recipient of the famous Clinton kiss — it is a remarkable statement. Hillary Clinton voiced no public distress over the findings of the last FBI report on religious hate crimes in the United States, which revealed that the overwhelming majority of hate crimes — 72% — target Jews, compared to just 8.4% for Muslims and 6.4% for Christians. Meanwhile, in the Indian subcontinent, Mrs. Clinton also failed to address the decades of oppression and massacres suffered by the Hindus of Bangladesh at the hands of Muslims and the abject discrimination, extortion, and threats that remain rampant today.

Instead, under the guise freedom of religion, Clinton held a summit last December — the “Istanbul Process” — that actually promotes the global blasphemy law relentlessly pushed for over a decade by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation to combat “defamation of Islam.” Ironically, in the United States, a country with an exemplary record of upholding freedom of religion and little evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination, Clinton chooses to advocate on behalf of Islam.

Clinton is not alone in her deference to Islam. This bending over backwards to appease and accommodate Muslims has been blatantly displayed throughout the recent arraignment of 9/11 terrorists at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO). What should have been a straightforward presentation of charges was instead a showcase for how we are compromising our rules and values in the face of the Islamic threat.

Defense attorney Cheryl Bormann, sporting a black hijab and abaya in court, audaciously requested that the prosecution’s female paralegals and FBI agents dress with cultural sensitivity for enemy detainee defendants. Perhaps she was unaware that her call for respect is directed toward followers of a doctrine which commands men to beat wives who fail to meet their husbands’ sexual demands, mandates gender apartheid, allows men to enslave infidel women, sanctions female genital mutilation, allows a husband coital relations with his wife up to six hours following her death, demands the stoning of women suspected of adultery, and requires four male witnesses to corroborate a woman’s accusation of rape.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/05/learn_from_elizabeth_warren.html

I think the attacks against Elizabeth Warren, who pretended to be an American Indian to advance her career, are wrong. To the contrary, she simply did what we all should be doing! She sabotaged America’s racist affirmative action regime, or — the term I prefer to call it — America’s affirmative apartheid.

She should be our role model. We should all do the same thing she did and proclaim ourselves members of whichever fashionable list of preferred “minorities” the racists administering affirmative apartheid happen to be promoting this week.

There are lots of ways we can do so. First, anthropologists believe that the human species originated on the African continent. So, by my reckoning, that makes us all African-Americans. Why can’t we proclaim ourselves such on the “race identification forms” used for hiring and college admissions?

In addition, I have always had a special sense of repulsion at the Ivy League institutions implementing affirmative apartheid. Just consider this: until the 1960s, American Ivy League universities openly and unabashedly had quotas designed to keep out Jews. Until the 1960s they did not hide this and proudly admitted to the quotas. And then, a few years later, the very same institutions were again discriminating against Jews because Jews had been defined as part of the “white” ethnicity against which their affirmative apartheid programs were discriminating. Remember when the liberuhs used to pretend that affirmative action preferences were needed to compensate members of groups who had in the past been victims of discrimination? Well, Harvard and its sisters today proudly discriminate against the very same Jews against whom they proudly discriminated in the past and for which discriminative affirmative action is supposed to be the remedy.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/10/netanyahu%e2%80%99s-new-mega-coalition/print/

So Israel has a new mega-coalition of 94 out of 120 Knesset members. The news early Tuesday morning stunned a country that was already in elections mode for a presumed September 4 contest. No pundit foresaw the mega-coalition or had an inside track on it.

For both of the main protagonists in the deal—Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Kadima Party leader Shaul Mofaz—it makes eminent sense. While all polls showed Netanyahu easily emerging triumphant again from the putative elections, the deal saves him—and the country—the trouble and debilities of having to prepare for them, not to mention prolonged coalition negotiations once the results would have been in.

As for Mofaz—who wrested leadership of Kadima from Tzipi Livni in a primary less than two months ago—the polls showed his party plummeting, had elections been held, from its current 28 seats to about a dozen. While Kadima’s fate in the October 2013 (when Netanyahu’s four-year term runs out) elections will not necessarily be better, Mofaz—whom the deal makes deputy prime minister and member of the Forum of Eight (now nine) ministers, Israel’s highest policymaking body—gets a chance to make more of an impact on a public never particularly impressed with him.

But apart from Netanyahu and Mofaz, the deal—by creating a massive coalition immune to extortionate pressures by small parties—holds great potential for the country.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/
Wilders: Islamization of Europe Can Happen in America

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been labeled “Islam’s public enemy number one.” Consequently, he lives every day under a death sentence from Islamic jihadist groups like al Qaeda. Wilders never walks the streets without a security detail and he and his wife must live in safe houses across the Netherlands. It’s the price he pays for speaking out against the Islamization of Europe. “I don’t want to live – and my children to live – in a country based on Sharia law,” Wilders told CBN News. “It’s the worst thing that could happen. Democracy would end the day after Sharia was implemented.”
Rep. Terry Gowdy gets Passionate on the House floor against DOJ over Fast and Furious

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/#ixzz1uSXvcsWZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/#ixzz1uSXjCzdu
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Occupier Thanks Former Soviet Citizen for ‘Converting’ Him to Capitalism, Pro-Israel, Pro-USA

A man who was born and lived for decades in the Soviet Union successfully converts an Occupier to Capitalism, to understand Israel’s side of the Middle East conflict, and to pro-American ideals all within a 15 minute time frame. He even thanks the man afterwards.

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/#ixzz1uSYEY6Vj
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution