RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Obama and his media minions are trying hard to sell the public on the administration’s egregiously awful nuclear arms deal that will empower an Islamofascist country whose leaders have never stopped chanting “death to America.”

Under the preliminary so-called framework for an arms control agreement that Western powers reached last week with Iran’s murderous mullahs, the pariah nation reportedly accepted limits on its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the repeal of international sanctions that have hurt its economy. Negotiators have until June 30 to arrive at a final agreement. The speed at which sanctions will be repealed and the scope of inspections have yet to be worked out.

This means the relentless stream of pro-framework propaganda from the administration is just beginning.

A decade after Dan Rather’s career ended over an attempt to pass off forged documents about President Bush’s military service, Robert Redford is working on a movie about the case. The movie is based on CBS producer Mary Mapes’ book “Truth”, which denies the truth that the documents were not written on a 70s typewriter, but in Microsoft Word.

That scandal led to the coining of the phrase, “Fake, but Accurate”. Ten years later, they’re still fake but accurate.

Rathergate has many similarities to the Rolling Stone rape hoax. Both ignored the basic rules of journalism to pursue a narrative. The narrative was so full of holes that bloggers and even casual readers realized that something was wrong and stepped in where the professional journalists had failed.

The difference is that Rolling Stone has even less investment in its journalistic credibility than CBS did. The principals will not be forced out. Their work may have been fake, but it was still accurate.

Modern lefty media journalism is more interested in narratives than in facts. The specific facts of a case may be fake, but that doesn’t matter as long as the narrative is accurate.

It had always felt compellingly true to them that President Bush dodged military service or otherwise benefited from undue influence. It was the perfect finishing touch for their arguments against the Iraq War. It made their position the righteous and patriotic one. It was the perfect note on which to begin the rise of President Kerry. It was so emotionally and ideologically compelling that it had to be true.

The Western world, it seems, is overflowing with peace organizations. Influenced by the rat pack of Galtung [1]-inspired Peace Studies graduates, they consist of left-leaning utopians, Christian “social justice” groups who make forbearing captives when taken hostage by those with whom they commiserate (often to the extent of denouncing their rescuers), and a sorority of bustling middle-class matrons and their snuggy-breasted male consorts, all with too much time on their hands. One of the latest such organizations is a regional klatch of affluent do-gooders by the name of PeaceQuest [2] that describes itself in a slick and unctuous — and comma challenged — pamphlet as:

a new community-based, organization in Eastern Ontario. Committed
and engaged citizens from a variety of backgrounds, for whom peace is a patriotic
value, have come together to invite a community-wide conversation in Kingston
Ontario as we near the 100th anniversary of the “War to end all Wars” and Canada’s
150th anniversary as a nation.

PeaceQuest has presently embarked on a mission to spread its message to other Canadian cities in order to bring all right-thinking people into the camp of self-proclaimed saints. Let us consider its program and rationale.

The First American President to openly sign an “agreement” with the mass-murdering mullahs in Tehran, going along with everything they want, and getting nothing in return

Welcome all you good folks to the Obama Presidency, which came in as a messianic mediagasm six years ago, and which will go out in 22 months as a genuine “first” — the First American President to openly sign an “agreement” with the mass-murdering mullahs in Tehran, going along with everything they want, and getting nothing in return.

This is not a joke, and it is not an exaggeration. It is the sober truth.

As the media keep telling us, America is infested with Islamophobia, which is worse than racism, genderism, anti-gay agenda-ism, and so on.

Well, today we need a whole new word: Genocidophilia: The love of murdering as many people as you can, because they belong to a group other than Islam. That would be JEN-O-CIDE-O-PHILIA. Remember that new word, because you will need it in the future.

Let’s Hit ‘Pause’ Before Altering Humankind

Modern biological research continues to generate new technology at a staggering pace, bringing to society new challenges and new opportunities. A recent appearance is the so-called CRISPR/Cas9 technology for altering genes in the body’s cells, including, most troublingly, early embryonic cells.

To understand the challenge brought by this technology it is important to make a distinction between somatic cells and germ-line cells. Somatic cells are the run-of-the-mill cells of our bodies: muscles, nerves, skin and the like. Germ-line cells are the egg and sperm cells that, when joined, give rise to offspring. Making gene changes in somatic cells can have dramatic effects, but they are not transmitted to the next generation and therefore fall comfortably into the category of pure therapeutics and generate minimal controversy. It is changes in germ-line cells that create heritable alterations.

“Mr. Brennan’s naked public partisanship harms the CIA by making whatever it now says about Iran simply unbelievable.”

The CIA director calls critics of Obama’s Iran policy dishonest.

Remember when the left accused the Bush Administration of politicizing intelligence to justify its invasion of Iraq? It wasn’t true, but someone ought to remind CIA director John Brennan. Because in attacking critics of the President’s Iran policy Tuesday, he sounded more like a White House communications director than a CIA chief.

During remarks at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, Mr. Brennan said anyone who knew the facts and believes the deal with Tehran “provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb” is being “wholly disingenuous.” If we take him at his word, former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, who wrote on our pages Wednesday, must be dishonest in their detailed, careful critique.

Think about that for a moment. A CIA director claims that any disagreement over a highly complicated and controversial deal must come from base motives. Think of the signal that sends to the CIA analysts who will be responsible for monitoring the deal and ascertaining whether Iran is violating it. Better not speak up!

Speak softly and claim to carry a big stick, which you have no intention of ever using.

Last weekend, with the ink on the Iran nuclear deal still being deciphered, the Obama Doctrine fell out of an interview between President Obama and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

“You asked about an Obama doctrine,” Mr. Obama said. “The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”

In nine words, Mr. Obama explained what has been going on the past six years, culminating in what we now see is the nucleus of the Obama worldview, an accommodation with Iran.

Hard to credit are the breadth and depth of this President’s blunders, of which his craven capitulation to Tehran is but the latest. Unlike the mess in Libya, the pointed alienation of Israel and so many other debacles, the consequence of this greatest folly is apt to be measured in megatonnage.

President Obama could be right to believe the promises of the despots in Tehran, but this would be the first time his thinking on the Greater Middle East has worked out. Obama was foolhardy to appoint Turkey’s Erdogan as his point man in the region, misguided to back the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, unfounded in his enthusiasm for the Arab Spring, mistaken describing the Republic of Iraq as “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” in December, 2011, ineffective when fulminating against civil war in Syria, hubristic describing America’s role in Libya as a “model intervention”, erroneous portraying the Islamic State group (ISIS/IS) as a “JV team” (junior varsity team) days after it captured Fallujah, lacking judgement in Yemen and imprudent countenancing Turkish and Qatari assistance to negotiate an end to the 2014 Hamas-Israel conflagration.

The report shows how the increasing influence of Sharia law in Britain today is undermining the fundamental principle that there must be equality for all British citizens under a single law of the land.

“I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.” — Muslim woman interviewed for the report.

The report concludes by calling on the British government to launch a judge-led inquiry to “determine the extent to which discriminatory Sharia law principles are being applied within the UK.”

“The government’s response will be a litmus test of the extent to which it genuinely upholds the principle of equality before the law or is so dominated by the fear of ‘giving offense’ that it will continue to allow these women to suffer in ways which would make our suffragettes turn in their graves.” — Baroness Caroline Cox.

Modern American universities used to assume four goals. First, their general education core taught students how to reason inductively and imparted an aesthetic sense through acquiring knowledge of Michelangelo, the Battle of Gettysburg, “Medea” and “King Lear,” Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” and astronomy and Euclidean geometry.

From cost to employment prospects, the state of American higher education is dismal for students.

Second, campuses encouraged edgy speech and raucous expression — and exposure to all sorts of weird ideas and mostly unpopular thoughts. College talk was never envisioned as boring, politically correct megaphones echoing orthodox pieties.

Third, four years of college trained students for productive careers. Implicit was the university’s assurance that its degree was a wise career investment.

Finally, universities were not monopolistic price gougers. They sought affordability to allow access to a broad middle class that had neither federal subsidies nor lots of money. The American undergraduate university is now failing on all four counts.