RUTHFULLY YOURS

It seems that the leftist media and Obama’s supporters in the United States, Europe, and Israel have decided that the only way they can defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli elections is through personal attacks to humiliate and ridicule him as well as by arguing that his allegedly offensive and embarrassing behavior will have harsh consequences for Israel.

Attacking the messenger instead of the message is an easy strategy when the left lacks any credible alternative message or leader and is still perceived by most Israelis as too weak on security and too apologetic and appeasing on foreign affairs. While most French Jews were cheering and chanting Bibi’s name in the Paris synagogue during his visit following the supermarket terrorist attack, the left began criticizing his so called “shameless” behavior in Paris. When he received the great honor of being invited a third time to speak in front of an adoring U.S. Congress, and was personally criticized by the shameless Obama administration, the left was eager to join in the attacks.

The month began on January 1st with the college football playoffs. Oregon beat Florida State and Ohio State defeated Alabama. The ‘Buckeyes’ then won the national championship twelve days later. The month ended on the eve of the Super Bowl, which pitted the New England Patriots – they of ‘deflategate’ fame – against the Seattle Seahawks. (New England won.) While fans get excited and Super Bowl parties are the rage, the event serves also as a reminder of the need for tax reform. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars professional football garners, under the U.S. tax code the NFL is a 501(c) 6 organization, a tax-exempt enterprise.

But much more than football was packed into those thirty-one days. The President gave his State of the Union message, an upbeat message that seemed to have little relationship with the world as it is. Apart from multiple veto threats, it was, as Daniel Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal, a Peter Pan message – the world will be just fine “if only we think lovely thoughts.” Reality is quite different. Despite the President bragging he had concluded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism persists. ISIS is undaunted in Iraq and Syria, continuing to behead prisoners. Four Parisians, trained by al Qaeda in Yemen, killed twelve staff members of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and four others at a kosher market. The Islamic group Boko Haram killed 2,000 people in Bara, Nigeria. Yemen, an alleged ally in the fight against al Qaeda, imploded with President Hadi and his cabinet resigning their posts, as Houthi rebels, another Islamic extremist organization, took over the capital city of Sana’a. Two Israeli soldiers were killed by Hezbollah, an Islamic group operating on the Lebanon border. Yet the Administration in Washington continues to have a hard time using the qualifier “Islamist” when talking about Islamic terrorism.

Iran Invades the ‘Forgotten Continent’ By Greg Jones

In terms of U.S. foreign policy priorities the label fits nicely; our gaze tends towards the Middle East and Asia. Besides the occasional trip to sign a trade agreement, the world’s fifth largest landmass is generally absent in the annals of American diplomacy.

That might be changing, however. The recent “suicide” of an Argentinian prosecutor by the name of Alberto Nisman should give us pause when considering the importance, or lack thereof, of our oft-overlooked Latin neighbor.

Nisman was shot point-blank in the forehead one day before he was due to testify to the Argentinian National Congress on the results of a decade-long investigation into the deadliest terror attack in that country’s history.

Yeah, it’s a big joke!

The most amateurish hacks performing as government spokesmen, whether it is an arrogant but totally incompetent campaign apparatchik at the State Department, the White House’s befuddled spokesmen, or the embarrassed uniformed presenter at The Pentagon, we have public figures stumbling all over themselves. They are trying to follow President Barak Hussein Obama’s dictum that there is no relationship between Islam and terrorism — and even if there were, it shouldn’t be named. Furthermore, the Administration insists the war on terrorism is winding down because of precipitant withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. And, anyway, the world situation is better than the President found it six years ago. So there!

When ISIS beheaded British hostage David Haines, last September, the White House released a statement by President Obama that the U.S. “strongly condemns the barbaric murder,” and — with reference to Britain — “stands shoulder to shoulder [1] tonight with our close friend and ally in grief and resolve.”

When ISIS beheaded British hostage Alan Henning last October, the White House released a statement by President Obama that the U.S. “strongly condemns the brutal murder” and –with reference to American hostages Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff beheaded by ISIS — “standing together [2]with our UK friends and allies, we will work to bring the perpetrators of Alan’s murder — as well as the murders of Jim Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines — to justice.”

The president has long been criticized for his lack of strategic vision. But what if a strategy, centered around Iran, has been in place from the start and consistently followed to this day?

President Barack Obama wishes the Islamic Republic of Iran every success. Its leaders, he explained in a recent interview, stand at a crossroads. They can choose to press ahead with their nuclear program, thereby continuing to flout the will of the international community and further isolate their country; or they can accept limitations on their nuclear ambitions and enter an era of harmonious relations with the rest of the world. “They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it,” the president urged—because “if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication . . . inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power.”

How eager is the president to see Iran break through its isolation and become a very successful regional power? Very eager. A year ago, Benjamin Rhodes, deputy national-security adviser for strategic communication and a key member of the president’s inner circle, shared some good news with a friendly group of Democratic-party activists. The November 2013 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the “P5+1”—the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany—represented, he said, not only “the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian [nuclear] issue,” but “probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy.” For the administration, Rhodes emphasized, “this is healthcare . . . , just to put it in context.” Unaware that he was being recorded, he then confided to his guests that Obama was planning to keep Congress in the dark and out of the picture: “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away.”

Many groups presented by the media as “representatives of British Muslims” are actually part of established British Islamist networks with a long history of promoting extremism.

Although the government claimed to terminate its relationship with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, successive government departments have continued to collaborate with them.

Ninety-four percent of British Muslims do not, in fact, believe that the Muslim Council of Britain represents their views, as revealed in a 2007 survey.

Perhaps the media could abstain from describing such groups as “disappointing,” and instead just dismiss them as ill-disposed extremists, whose comments serve no one but the Islamist preachers and the lobby groups they represent.

Muslim community groups have responded angrily to a government letter that urged British Imams and mosque officials to challenge “men of hate” who preach extremism.

The letter — written by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and Lord Tariq Ahmad — was sent to mosques all over the country:

It soon appeared that Mona Sahlin seemed more concerned with the well-being of the jihadis than with that of the country’s peaceful majority.

“If you want to increase recruitment for the IS, it’s a fantastic idea. The message is that it’s okay to behave like his and when you come back, we’ll fix you up with jobs, housing and therapy.” — Magnus Norell, terrorism expert, Aftonbladet newspaper.

“In a few months, I’m back in Sweden after being deployed in Afghanistan… There is no permanent job waiting for me when I come home.” — Frederick Brandberg, Swedish soldier.

What will Sahlin think of next: Compensate terrorists for lost income?

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Michael Loftus, host of The Flipside With Michael Loftus, Morgan Brittany, a conservative TV and movie star, and Tommi Trudeau, host of Politics Tonight With Tommi Trudeau.

The Gang discussed Michelle Obama’s “No” to Hijab in Riyadh, analyzing the significance of the First Lady taking a pass on Islamic head-covering in Saudi Arabia. The guests also focused on Hijab Day at NP3 High School, Islam — A House of Cards?, A Day in the Life of Sharyl Attkisson and much more.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/michelle-obamas-no-to-hijab-in-riyadh-on-the-glazov-gang/

Last week, confirmation hearings were conducted for Loretta Lynch, the person who would replace the current Attorney General, Eric Holder. When asked about her views concerning the Obama administration’s policies on immigration, her responses where apparently contradictory.

Before we go further, it is of the utmost importance to understand that with all of the pressing issues that our government needs to address, immigration, unlike most other issues, is not a single issue, but a singular issue because immigration impacts virtually every other challenge and threat America and Americans face in this particularly dangerous and difficult era.

Here is how a Yahoo/AP news report, “Attorney General nominee defends Obama immigration changes,” covered the exchanges Lynch engaged in to discuss the administration’s immigration’s policies:

Lynch said she had no involvement in drafting the measures but called them “a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem” of illegal immigration. She said the Homeland Security Department was focusing on removals of “the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us.”

Pressed by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading immigration hard-liner, she said citizenship was not a right for people in the country illegally but rather a privilege that must be earned. However, when Sessions asked whether individuals in the country legally or those who are here unlawfully have more of a right to a job, Lynch replied, “The right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.”

Sessions quickly issued a news release to highlight that response. Under later questioning by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, Lynch clarified it, stating there is no right to work for an immigrant who has no lawful status.

It is disconcerting to consider that what was being discussed was not a matter of opinion or politics but of law.