RUTHFULLY YOURS

What is the real agenda of the Climateers? Read:Roosters of the Apocalypse: How the Junk Science of Global Warming is Bankrupting the Western World (New, Revised and Expanded Edition)By Rael Jean Isaac

Limiting carbon emissions won’t work. Better to begin adjusting to a warmer world.

The Obama administration is instituting a variety of far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Are any of these capable of making a difference? Simple arithmetic suggests not. Given this reality, we would be wise to consider strategies that complement and may be more effective than mitigation—namely, adaptation.

According to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, in 2012 the world emitted a little over 31 gigatons of carbon dioxide. China was the No. 1 emitter, accounting for more than one-fourth of the carbon produced. The U.S. was second, emitting about one-sixth.

China and India, among other developing countries, argue that they should be allowed to increase carbon emissions. They’re still developing and require higher rates of economic growth. Moreover, they aren’t responsible for previous emissions, and on a per capita basis U.S. emissions are much higher.

These arguments have merit but must be measured against the reality of carbon growth. Consider China: Its carbon emissions increased by an average 8.6% a year between 2002 and 2012. Were China to continue at this pace for 27 years until it reaches today’s U.S. GDP per capita, it would emit 99 gigatons of carbon in 2041 alone, or three times the world’s current emissions.

This scenario is too pessimistic. As countries develop, they become more efficient in energy use. But even if China tapered its emissions growth from 8.6% to zero over the same 27 years, it would still emit as much carbon in 2041 as the entire world does today. And that’s not including emissions growth from India, Africa and South America.

Perfect storms don’t come much more perfect than the Rotherham child-abuse revelations currently rocking the U.K. Everything modern that Britain is famous for fretting over—from class to race, pedophiles to official incompetence—is implicated in this sordid story of abuse in and around a northern English town once known for producing steel.

All eyes have been on Rotherham since a report into child sexual abuse there was published on Tuesday last week. Commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, the report makes grim reading. It says that from 1997 to 2013, 1,400 children and teenagers were subjected to “appalling abuse” by gangs of older men. Some of the victims, almost all of them girls, were trafficked around Britain to be sexually abused. They were often threatened with violence against their families to stop them from seeking help.

The report, by public-policy professor and former social worker Alexis Jay, says a key reason the abuse went on for so long was because of the “collective failures” of the local authorities, including police. Despite being presented with what Ms. Jay calls stark evidence that abuse was taking place, the Rotherham authorities underplayed the problem. The institutions charged by modern society with protecting the vulnerable from the malevolent through their inaction allowed the abuse to continue.

It took the press, one of the most maligned institutions in Britain, to do what reporters are so often criticized for doing—digging dirt—for the Rotherham abuse to become a national story. Dogged reporters at the Times of London, owned by the same company as this newspaper, played a central role in exposing child abuse in towns like Rotherham and forcing an investigation.

Why were officials so unwilling to poke their noses where they most certainly did belong? Because of the race and class of the perpetrators and victims, according to the Jay report. The vast majority of the abusers were of Pakistani and Muslim origin; the vast majority of their victims were white and working class.

Ms. Jay’s report finds that fear of appearing racist held back Rotherham’s officials from giving the case the attention it so obviously deserved. Many of those interviewed by Ms. Jay talked about their “nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist.”

Arguably the UK’s most successful domestically produced export to Israel has been parliamentary democracy. Arguably its most successful domestically produced export to the Arab world has been the anti-Semitic blood libel, the claim that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to bake their Passover matzah or for other ritual purposes. What is curious is that there are so many in Britain for whom the latter “achievement” resonates more and finds expression in new domestic iterations of this hoary, murderous British creation.

The blood libel first appeared in Norwich, England in 1144. A subsequent libel in the same vein, concerning the death of a boy in Lincoln in 1255, was immortalized by Chaucer’s reference to it in “The Prioress’s Tale” in The Canterbury Tales. At least into the early twentieth century, versions of the libel could be found in collections and recordings of British ballads.

The anti-Semitic libel enjoyed wide popularity across Europe throughout the Middle Ages and blood libel accusations were often accompanied by the mass murder of Jewish communities. Versions of the libel have persisted in Europe into the present century.

In the Arab world, evidence of successful European introduction of the blood libel can be traced at least as far back as the Damascus blood libel in 1840. But it is particularly in recent decades that the blood libel has won almost ubiquitous currency among Arabs. Former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass published The Matzah of Zion in 1986, promoting the blood libel as fact, and the book gained a very wide audience and has gone through many reprints . There have been a number of Arab television dramatizations of the blood libel and myriad assertions of the libel’s veracity by Arab religious and political leaders.

In April 2013, the Palestinian non-profit MIFTAH, founded by Hanan Ashrawi and funded in part by the British Council, took President Obama to task for hosting a seder at the White House. MIFTAH complained: “Does Obama in fact know the relationship, for example, between ‘Passover’ and ‘Christian blood’..?! Or ‘Passover’ and ‘Jewish blood rituals?!’ Much of the chatter and gossip about historical Jewish blood rituals in Europe are real and not fake as they claim; the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.”

During the recent Israeli-Hamas fighting, Hamas official Osama Hamdan declared (translation by MEMRI): “We all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians, in order to mix their blood in their holy matzos. This is not a figment of imagination or something taken from a film. It is a fact, acknowledged by their own books and by historical evidence.”

Israel was told not to take down Arafat or Hamas would take over. Now Israel is being warned that if it destroys Hamas, ISIS will take over.

The distinction between Hamas and ISIS is obvious. One is a violent Islamic terrorist group that is determined to destroy Israel. And the other is a violent Islamic terrorist group determined to destroy Israel. Hamas is funded by Qatar. So is ISIS. Hamas likes to wear green. ISIS sticks to black and white.

If you have to choose between genocidal Islamic terrorist groups, go with the one that has a wider range of color in its wardrobe. Your civilians will regret it, but at least their killers will look fabulous.

Also ISIS hates Shiites while Hamas accepts Iranian weapons.

Clearly Hamas is moderate and ISIS is extremist. Maybe if ISIS also agrees to accept Iranian weapons with which to kill Jews, we will all be able to breathe a sigh of relief at its new moderate attitude.

The good news is that in the last few months Al Qaeda also became moderate. Numerous news stories tell us that Al Qaeda thinks that ISIS is “crazy”. Al Qaeda has less to say about it than the Western pundits speaking on its behalf, but it’s rumored that Zawahiri beheaded a Western aid worker without inviting Baghdadi which is considered a major snub in the high society codes of top terror groups.

That raises the question, should we have destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Wouldn’t it have been better to leave it intact to prevent ISIS from taking over? Indeed didn’t weakening Al Qaeda make it possible for ISIS to emerge as a dominant global Jihadist force? Look for this to become a major theme of mainstream media foreign policy commentary and of Obama’s new Iraq strategy.

The only way to defeat terrorists is by not fighting them. Only by doing nothing can we hope to prevail.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/allah-as-deceiver-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Nonie Darwish and joined by Dr. Jim Tolle, the Senior Pastor at El Camino Metro Church in Los Angeles.

Pastor Tolle joined the show to discuss Allah as Deceiver, analyzing the justification of lies in Islam — in contrast to Christianity’s emphasis on truthfulness.

The discussion also focused on The Notion of “Sin” in Islam and Christianity, crystallizing how the stark contrast in two religions’ values fosters peace and forgiveness in one — and violence and killing in the other:

A video, entitled “A Second Message to America,” was released on September 2nd purporting to show the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff by an ISIS jihadist. The Obama administration could not immediately verify the authenticity of the video.

Meanwhile, as strange as it may seem, ISIS itself decried the early release of the video “before the official time,” but did not deny responsibility for the barbaric act. Apparently, ISIS not only combines its medieval barbarism with 21st century social media technology, but also wants to time the marketing of its barbarism for maximum prime time effect.

Mr. Sotloff was reportedly executed in the same manner as the journalist James Foley was two weeks ago. The chilling voice in the video, which appeared to be same voice with a British accent that was heard on the video of Mr. Foley’s execution, uttered these taunting words directed at President Obama:

I’m back, Obama, and I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State, because of your insistence on continuing your bombings and … on Mosul Dam, despite our serious warnings. You Obama, have but to gain from your actions but another American citizen. So just as your missiles continue to strike out people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.

We take this opportunity to warn those governments that enter this evil alliance of America against the Islamic State to back off and leave our people alone.

President Obama himself did not have any immediate comment. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, upon learning about the beheading while speaking to reporters at the daily White House press briefing, said that he was not then in a position to confirm the authenticity of the video, but said: “Our thoughts and prayers, first and foremost, are with Mr. Sotloff and Mr. Sotloff’s family and those who worked with him. The United States, as you know, has dedicated significant time and resources to try and rescue Mr. Sotloff.”

Whether the Obama administration did everything it could to rescue Steven Sotloff and James Foley is in question. The White House is said to have delayed a decision on whether to launch a rescue operation for at least 30 days, according to a report in The Sunday Times of London. That could well have made the difference between success and failure.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/hijab-rising-on-santa-monicas-3rd-street-promenade-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Nonie Darwish and joined by Samira Tamer, L.A. ACT Chapter Leader, who joined the show to discuss Hijab Rising on Santa Monica’s 3rd Street Promenade, shedding a disturbing light on Islamic Supremacism’s totalitarian presence on the streets of L.A.:

Hamas would likely resort to violence to thwart any attempts to disarm the group. It is therefore highly unlikely the Europeans would confront Hamas in any meaningful way.

Spanish intelligence agents met secretly with Hezbollah operatives, who agreed to provide “escorts” to protect Spanish UNIFIL patrols. The quid pro quo was that Spanish troops would look the other way while Hezbollah was allowed to rearm for its next war with Israel. Hezbollah’s message to Spain was: mind your own business.

If the European experience with Hezbollah in Lebanon is any indication, not only will Hamas not be disarmed, it will be rearmed as European monitors look on and do nothing.

What is clear is that European leaders have never been committed to honoring either the letter or the spirit of UN Resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701, all of which were aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rearming.

European leaders are calling for a greater European role in enforcing the cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. They say their focus should be not only on rebuilding Gaza, but also on monitoring the demilitarization of Hamas and helping to secure the border crossings between the Gaza and Egypt to ensure that Hamas cannot be rearmed.

But if the European experience with Hezbollah in Lebanon is any indication, not only will Hamas not be disarmed, it will be rearmed as European monitors look on and do nothing.

French President François Holland, in a major foreign policy speech in Paris on August 28, said Europe should play a greater role in Gaza. “Since 2002, Europe has done a lot to rebuild and develop Palestine […] but it cannot simply be a cashier used to heal the wounds after a recurring conflict,” he said.

Referring to a nascent proposal for creating a Gaza observer mission under the auspices of the European Union, Hollande added: “Gaza can no longer be an army base for Hamas, or an open-air prison for its inhabitants. We have to go towards a progressive lifting of the blockade and the demilitarization of the territory.”

The EU observer mission—which is being promoted by Britain, France and Germany and would be established by a United Nations Security Council resolution—would be based at the Rafah border crossing, the main crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. The mission would be charged with preventing the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and ensuring that building supplies such as cement and metal products are used for civilian reconstruction projects and not for building tunnels and rockets.

I attach below a piece that I previously ran on this list at the time it was published, in case you missed it, and for people who are new to this list. Francesca Borri, an Italian freelance journalist reporting from the frontlines of the war in Syria describes in graphic terms what we knew already: that war is hell – and that the Syrian war is particularly difficult to report on, partly because of some seemingly heartless news editors in the West who have done little to help or protect journalists covering the war.

I also attach a piece by The Guardian’s courageous reporter Martin Chulov, written after James Foley’s murder two weeks ago, in which he writes that Foley and fellow freelancers were “exploited by pared-back media outlets. In this new age of journalism, publishers should not abdicate responsibility by hiding behind low budgets.”

If only the media spent even a fraction of the budget they allocate to Gaza, and offer bodyguards and other protection to journalists trying to report on the absolutely appalling atrocities continuing daily in Syria – the rapes, the beheadings, the crucifixions, the starvation, the continued use of poisoned gasses, the selling of children as sex slaves…

Yesterday, as I am sure you all know by now, ISIS released a video showing the beheading of freelance journalist Steven Sotloff.

Steven Sotloff was the grandson of Holocaust survivors. The fact that he was Jewish was suppressed by media that knew (including myself) while he was alive in order to prevent further torture by his captors. He had also written for the Jerusalem Post about the Holocaust and about the small Jewish community that still exists in Vienna.

The New York Times mentioned his being Jewish online briefly but it was quickly taken off their website after they were asked by the state department to do so. Other major papers were wise enough not to mention it in the first place, in light of the additional torture that beheaded Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl was subjected to.

Incidentally, as is the case with Foley, and apparently with Sotloff, one of Pearl’s killers also had a British connection and had studied at the London School of Economics.

Those of you who visit the Voltaire Press Facebook site should be advised that I have been permanently blocked from leaving comments on it that contradict the premises, assumptions, and conclusions of the pro-open borders and pro-open immigration narrative, and, indeed, from even visiting the Voltaire Press Facebook site.

Also, the new manager of Voltaire Press remains anonymous, and has refused multiple times to identify himself. It is certainly not Gary Hull, who has vanished, but who would never upbraid me for providing links to news stories that contradict that narrative (I am aware of the particulars of his status, as some of you might be).

Most of the patrons who do leave posts on the Voltaire Press page are what I call rationalizing, picayune “bean counters” and dabblers trying to reconcile Objectivism, a philosophy of reason, with a variety of straw men issues, and who deny the perils of an Obama-staged invasion of illegals, not only from Mexico and Central America, but now, it has been reported by Texas and the FBI, by Islamic jihadists from the Mideast and Africa. This is aside from their erroneous premise that the U.S. it not at war with Islam (contrary to what President Obama said in Cairo and elsewhere, Islam is at war with us), and so immigration restrictions of potentially hostile immigrants are not morally justified. This is tantamount to residents of a burning building discussing the nature of fire, about who might or might not be the arsonist, and having a coffee klatch to discuss shades of meaning, instead of escaping from the conflagration or attempting to put out the flames.

It’s the caliber of intellectual discussion that gives intellectual discussion a bad name.

Anyway, visit Voltaire Press on Facebook and see for yourself the character of the discussion. I’m done with Voltaire Press, and it with me. I’ll continue to fight the battles that need to be fought, and Voltaire Press can go on bean-counting and erecting scarecrows.

Another person’s posts whose arguments against the unrealistic policies of open borders and open immigration were also deleted. I do not know if he has been banned, as well.