RUTHFULLY YOURS

Rob Astorino is a decent, intelligent man who would make a great governor for New York State. He is running against a political pitbull Andrew Cuomo and deserves to win…..rsk
Residents of the northern New York City suburbs were recently treated to a TV ad invoking images of the Jim Crow South and claiming that Westchester County executive Rob Astorino has “repeatedly violated anti-discrimination laws for years.” None of the ad is true, but it does reveal some important political news with national implications.

To wit, Mr. Astorino is resisting the Obama Administration’s attempt to rewrite local zoning laws by federal fiat, and as the Republican candidate for Governor of New York he has a better chance to beat incumbent Andrew Cuomo than the conventional wisdom believes.

On the credibility of the discrimination charge, consider that Al Sharpton, the racial provocateur, recently made a trip to Westchester to deplore making race a political issue. He was sent by Mr. Cuomo specifically to make race a political issue.

New York state gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino Associated Press

The facts are that Mr. Astorino took office in 2010 in the heavily Democratic county and inherited a 2009 housing settlement with the federal government signed by his Democratic predecessor. The deputy county executive at the time the original lawsuit was filed was none other than Larry Schwartz, who is now Mr. Cuomo’s chief of staff. In 2007 the county executive’s chief adviser, Susan Tolchin, called the lawsuit “garbage.”

The suit was always dubious given the lack of evidence of discriminatory practices. Between 2000 and 2010, the numbers of blacks and Hispanics living in Westchester’s mostly white neighborhoods increased by 56%. The county is the fourth-most diverse in the state and rivals Manhattan in the number of black and Hispanic residents.

If British politicians are serious about putting a stop to the misuse of charity for pro-terror purposes, lawmakers could propose legislation that removes the effective immunity of charitable trusts from liability when their trustees are found to have used funds for terrorist or other unlawful activities.

Two British Cabinet Ministers are “at war” over the growth of Islamist extremism in public institutions, The Times reported this month.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has blamed the Home Office, according to The Times, for the increasing influence of extremist groups, citing recent attempts by “hardline Islamists” to infiltrate British schools.

A source at the Department for Education stated that the failure to tackle extremism has resulted in schools being targeted by “a group of people who are ideologically Islamist” and “extreme without being violent.” Gove, The Times reported, believes that the Home Office displays a “reluctance…to confront extremism unless it develops into terrorism,” and that “a robust response is needed to ‘drain the swamp’.”

Gove has a point. While thousands of hours of Parliamentary debate and countless pieces of new legislation have introduced extraordinary powers for the government, the police and the security services to tackle acts of terrorism, little work has been done either to define “extremism” or curb its influence. Previous attempts to combat extremism have mostly entailed throwing taxpayers’ money at self-proclaimed “moderate” groups, some of which were later revealed to be run by Islamist agitators – as Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged during his 2011 Munich speech.

Although “non-violent” Islamists play a central role in the radicalization of those who later become convicted terrorists, as repeatedly discussed, their influence over sections of the public sector is rarely challenged or even properly scrutinized.

The authorities’ attempts to battle terrorism are often framed as a struggle for balance between liberty and security. Similarly, politicians attempting to tackle the spread of extremist ideology understandably need to be mindful of threats to free speech. There is, however, legislation the government could easily introduce to promote accountability and curb extremist activity without compromising freedom of expression or other liberties.
1) Stopping Terror Subsidy

“When it becomes serious, you have to lie.” — Jean-Claude Juncker.

“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” — Jean-Claude Juncker.

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to bring attention to that?” — Jean-Claude Juncker.

“I am for secret, dark debates.” — Jean-Claude Juncker.

Juncker has been an unabashed advocate for expanding the powers of the EU. Critics say that the new system for naming the Commission president amounts to an “institutional coup” because it severs any remaining direct connection with the democratic process at the national level.

European leaders in Brussels have nominated Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg, to be the next president of the European Commission, the powerful bureaucratic arm of the European Union.

Juncker, a European federalist, is well known for his commitment to further expanding the power of the European Union. His nomination—expected to be easily approved by the European Parliament on July 16—sends a clear signal that the European establishment has no intention of slowing the relentless march towards a United States of Europe, despite the surge of anti-EU sentiment across Europe.

Jean-Claude Juncker (r), the president-designate of the European Commission, poses with his predecessor, EC President José Manuel Barroso. (Image source: Council of the European Union)

British Prime Minister David Cameron and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban were the only two leaders of the 28-member bloc to vote against Juncker during a special meeting held in Brussels on June 27.

Cameron said he was opposed not only to Juncker as a candidate, but also to the way in which his candidacy was put forward.

Previously, the president of the European Commission was selected by European leaders on the basis of consensus.

The jihad terror organization Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) formally declared a “re-creation” of Islam’s traditional solidary religio-political entity, the “Caliphate” in a pronouncement issued June 29, 2014.

Here the flag of the Islamic State, the flag of tawhīd (monotheism), rises and flutters. Its shade covers land from Aleppo to Diyala.

ISIL’s rhetoric extolled its triumph over all infidels, with a particular emphasis on non-Muslims, and the attempted imposition of the totalitarian Sharia, in all its liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing barbarity. The jihad terror organization also claimed ISIL’s rule was restoring not only Sharia-mandated Islamic “justice” (for example, the destruction of Christian crosses, and extraction of the humiliating jizya, per Koran 9:29), but also local “stability,” and Islamic pride.

The Muslims are honored. The kuffār (infidels) are disgraced. Ahlus-Sunnah (the Sunnis) are masters and are esteemed. The people of bid’ah (heresy) are humiliated. The hudūd (Sharia penalties) are implemented – the hudūd of Allah – all of them. The frontlines are defended. Crosses and graves are demolished.

The people in the lands of the State move about for their livelihood and journeys, feeling safe regarding their lives and wealth. Wulāt (plural of wālī or “governors”) and judges have been appointed. Jizyah (a tax imposed on kuffār) has been enforced. Fay’ (money taken from the kuffār without battle) and zakat (obligatory alms) have been collected. Courts have been established to resolve disputes and complaints. Evil has been removed. Lessons and classes have been held in the masājid (plural of masjid) and, by the grace of Allah, the religion has become completely for Allah. There only remained one matter, a wājib kifā’ī (collective obligation) that the ummah sins by abandoning. It is a forgotten obligation. The ummah has not tasted honor since they lost it. It is a dream that lives in the depths of every Muslim believer. It is a hope that flutters in the heart of every mujāhid muwahhid (monotheist). It is the khilāfah (caliphate). It is the khilāfah – the abandoned obligation of the era.

Despite subsequent dissatisfaction with ISIL, and its newly minted “Caliphate”—already emerging just 3-weeks after the regular Iraqi army and police forces of the al-Maliki central government were crushed, or fled—in the immediate aftermath of the Sunni takeover, 81.5% of Mosul’s predominantly Sunni residents felt more secure after the Sunni insurgents seized control of the city.

Hollow proclamations have followed suit from Muslim leaders claiming ISIL’s Caliphate “vision” somehow distorted this idyllic historical Islamic institution. Sheikh Khaldoun Oraymet, secretary-general of Lebanon’s Supreme Islamic Council opined,

What ISIL is doing is in complete contradiction of the principles of the Islamic caliphate: a righteous caliphate which preserves the rights of all people, and respects all people and the opinions of others who are of different faiths, race, time and place.

Even the Jordanian jihad ideologist Issam Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdessi, claimed on jihadist websites, that ISIL’s leaders evidenced, “no manners,” voicing his main concern, “What would the fate be of other Islamist fighters in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere?”, before adding the obligatory disclaimer, that ISIL was “distorting religion.” Previously, ahistorical drivel from the Western Muslim “advocacy” group the Muslim Association of Britain, lionized both the Caliphate, and the corollary implementation of Sharia, as promulgators of “a peaceful and just society.” Moreover, Egypt’s current President al-Sisi—recently elected in a landslide victory—extolled the Caliphate in his 2006 U.S. Army War College “mini-thesis” as “the ideal form of government,” broadly

…recognized as the goal for any new form of government very much in the manner that the U.S. pursued the ideals of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” From the Middle Eastern perspective, the defining words governing their form of democracy [emphasis added] would likely reflect “fairness, justice, equality, unity and charity.”

Such warped apologetics are reminiscent of the equivalent protestations made to advance destructive Communist totalitarianism, “Communists, what have you made of communism?”

The prototypical Caliphate under Umar Ibn al-Khattab (d. 644), the second “rightly guided” caliph of Islam, merits summary examination. During his reign, which lasted for a decade (634-644), Syria, Iraq and Egypt were conquered, and Umar was thus responsible for organizing the early Islamic Caliphate. Alfred von Kremer, the great 19th century German scholar of Islam, described the “central idea” of Umar’s regime, as being the furtherance of “…the religious-military development of Islam at the expense of the conquered nations.” The predictable and historically verifiable consequence of this guiding principle was a legacy of harsh inequality, intolerance, and injustice towards non-Muslims observed by von Kremer in 1868 (and still evident in Islamic societies to this day, nearly 150 years later):

It was the basis of its severe directives regarding Christians and those of other faiths, that they be reduced to the status of pariahs, forbidden from having anything in common with the ruling nation; it was even the basis for his decision to purify the Arabian Peninsula of the unbelievers, when he presented all the inhabitants of the peninsula who had not yet accepted Islam with the choice: to emigrate or deny the religion of their ancestors. The industrious and wealthy Christians of Najran, who maintained their Christian faith, emigrated as a result of this decision from the peninsula, to the land of the Euphrates, and ‘Umar also deported the Jews of Khaybar. In this way ‘Umar based that fanatical and intolerant approach that was an essential characteristic of Islam, now extant for over a thousand years, until this day [i.e., written in 1868]. It was this spirit, a severe and steely one, that incorporated scorn and contempt for the non-Muslims, that was characteristic of ‘Umar, and instilled by ‘Umar into Islam; this spirit continued for many centuries, to be Islam’s driving force and vital principle….With a strong hand, he held the reins of spiritual and worldly power, commanded with unlimited full authority over the political and religious activities of Muslims, already many millions in number. Under him, the conquest of Syria was completed, Iraq and Persia were conquered as far as the Oxus and the borders of Hindustan, while in the west, Egypt obeyed him…

The jihad campaigns waged in the era of Umar’s Caliphate, consistent with nascent Islamic Law (Sharia), spared neither cities nor monasteries if they resisted. Accordingly, when the Greek garrison of Gaza refused to submit and convert to Islam, all were put to death. In the year 640, sixty Greek soldiers who refused to apostatize became martyrs, while in the same year (i.e., 638) that Caesarea, Tripolis and Tyre fell to the Muslims, hundreds of thousands of Christians converted to Islam, predominantly out of fear.

Altruism, or the sacrifice of values for lesser ones, or for none at all, has sired many of the most horrendous, treacherous crimes in history, committed in the name of a “greater” good. But, that is the nature of altruism: If values exist, altruism requires that they be sacrificed, destroyed, or discarded. Altruism, practiced consistently, is essentially nihilistic in nature.

I grew tired very early on listening to the repeated, self-righteous nonsense that Americans have sacrificed their lives to fight for their country or to advance democracy in the world. Frankly, I am not interested in advancing “democracy” anywhere, in any country, not if it means the literal sacrifice of American lives and treasure. But if by chance Americans have lost their lives in such a “moral adventure” (a Progressive/Wilsonian term, and Woodrow Wilson was nothing if not a willing sacrificer), and if such a project were then abandoned (as Obama has abandoned Iraq), then, indeed those lives were sacrificed. An American fighting for his own country is not “sacrificing” anything. He is fighting to preserve a value, and putting his life at risk doing so.

President Barack Obama is in competition with himself to see how malicious and destructive he can be. One is hard pressed to fashion a chart of every evil, consciously malign, deliberately pernicious action he has taken since assuming office six grueling years ago. The chart and accompanying list would be revealing and several pages long without annotations. Readers of my columns know that list all too well.

However, if one wanted evidence of just how racist Obama is, all one need to is examine his policy of encouraging tens of thousands of Mexicans to enter the country illegally, and add to that violation of his oath of office his ancillary policy of encouraging the bussing of thousands of ignorant, disease-ridden Hondurans and other Central Americans into the country, with plans to resettle them in selected towns and cities across the country.

The shocking revelation – a revelation made under duress and in the face of threats of arrest of journalists and medical staff by the federal government – that the overwhelming number of Central Americans carry communicable diseases, diseases once eradicated or in decline this in this country, but now reappearing or on the rise again, should be enough to raise the hackles of anyone who values this country’s future. Todd Starnes of Fox News reported on July 2nd on the conditions inside a “camp” at Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio. A nurse said:

… children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.
“It was not a good atmosphere in terms of health,” she said. “I would be talking to children and lice would just be climbing down their hair.”
A former nurse at the camp told me she was horrified by what she saw.
“We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness – all this stuff coming into the country,” she said. “We were very concerned at one point about strep going around the base.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-28198622

Graphic images are being shared on social media to show how people have been affected by the renewed tensions between Israel and the Palestinians.

Over the past week the hashtag #GazaUnderAttack has been used hundreds of thousands of times, often to distribute pictures claiming to show the effects of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza.

A #BBCtrending investigation has found that many of these images are not from the latest conflict and not even from Gaza. Some date as far back as 2009 and others are from conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

Produced by Neil Meads

This is a treat for those of us who relish Ed Cline’s pithy, erudite and informative columns on politics, culture and history….rsk
Available in print and Kindle

The Pickwick Affair: A Detective Novel of 1930 (The Cyrus Skeen Mystery Series Book 7) by Edward Cline (Jul 3, 2014)

http://www.amazon.com/Pickwick-Affair-Detective-Novel-Cyrus/dp/1500217166/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404575147&sr=1-2&keywords=the+pickwick+affair+edward+cline

Mr. Obama came to the Presidency five and a half years ago with the promise for great expectations. He thrilled his followers with his siren call for fairness, of cleansing the atmosphere, beautifying the earth and rolling back the seas. He would bring peace and goodwill to all mankind…and he would provide free contraception for women, whether they wanted it or not. His message was one of unifying a people grown divided by seven years of a war against terrorism that many felt, including most of the media, had been waged based on lies told by the Bush Administration. Then, the Bush years ended with the near-collapse of the financial system, conveniently and comfortably nestling into Mr. Obama’s ideology that sees capitalism as evil and government as good.

People saw an intelligent, articulate, good-looking young man who exuded confidence, and who bore a hint of the exotic in both his name and heritage. They saw what they wanted to see, and the media was circumspect in terms of not delving too deeply into his past. Truth be told, no one really knew the man we would elect to become President.

Now, five and a half years on, we are more polarized than ever. Negativism fills the air. The economy, instead of rebounding from a steep recession, has swum haltingly back. Despite recent robust employment numbers, the civilian labor force participation rate, at 62.8%, remains at record lows. In spite of promises to end wars and renew bonds with the Muslim world, the world has become more dangerous. Yet, we have scaled back our overseas military commitments and watched our enemies become bolder. The consequence is a reinvigorated Russia, a more aggressive China and total mayhem in the Middle East, with Syria in civil war and Iraq likely to collapse.

The Executive branch has assumed (or is attempting to assume) unprecedented powers, especially the EPA, IRS and HHS. Fortunately, we live in a country in which government is comprised of three equal branches. In its ruling last week, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Mr. Obama had overstepped his legal authority. It was at least the 4th time the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled against the Administration. While he has unilaterally promised to fix immigration, a recent Gallup Poll found 69% of the people disapprove of his approach, including 40% of Democrats. Given his arrogance, his preference for expensive vacations and the company of sports and entertainment celebrities rather than political friends or foes, it is unsurprising that a recent Quinnipiac poll found Mr. Obama to be the worst President in the post-War years – worse than Nixon, Carter or George W. Bush! That is an incredible finding for a sitting President – a stunning condemnation of a man once adulated by his followers. Remember the New Jersey elementary school teacher who had instructed her young charges to sing paeans of praise to Barack Hussein Obama?

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/politics-a-two-headed-rattlesnake?f=puball

I used to believe we had a two-party political system. I was delusional. I got a good smack of reality on September 4, 2012, as I stood in front of a Republican judge in a rural county of Ohio. The treatment would have been no different with a Democrat on the bench. I was there because I had filed a lawsuit against the Republican Ohio Secretary of State, John Husted, in an effort to keep Barack Obama off the ballot in November 2012. http://www.scribd.com/doc/122020325/

There is a good reason why I filed it.

I believe that Barack Obama is a fraud and a liar. I am neither. I discovered the truth about Obama five years ago as I was investigating his questionable background for a client. I am a licensed private investigator in Ohio and have been for more than twenty years. Of the approximately eight hundred investigative companies here, a couple dozen are owned by women. I belong to that small group.

I also belong to the subsets that include widows, septuagenarians, mothers of seven, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, holders of master’s degrees, paralegals, notary publics, those of Irish ancestry and my favorite of all: certified write-in candidates for President of the United States. But I digress.

As a licensed investigator I have access to information that others don’t. As I began my investigation into the background of Barack Obama, I expected to find nothing. After all, he was already installed as president, even though never vetted by anyone.

His rush to spend our money didn’t sit well with me, and I pushed on after encountering multiple dead ends. Suddenly, there it was! A social security number (SSN), assigned to Obama, popped up which I immediately recognized as fraudulent. It was a number issued in 1977 in Connecticut and could not be Obama’s.

Until June 2011, SSNs were issued to the address where a person lived when he or she applied for their number and in the state where he or she resided. I have looked at thousands of SSNs, which is why I recognized the discrepancy immediately. I also knew after years of experience how the numbers were distributed across the country.

The first three numbers for social security cards in Connecticut run from 040-049. Hawaii’s numbers, where Obama was living in 1977 when the number was “allegedly” issued to him, was fifteen years old, in high school and hanging around with his dope smoking friends.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2012, the Commander General of Ft. Sill US Army Base, Major General John Rossi, Fires Center and Commanding General, published a PR blurb on their official “Centers of Excellence” webpage, with a picture (http://sill-www.army.mil/) of the General having lunch with Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.). They were having a pleasant lunch and discussing a range of topics before the Congressman was announced as departing to visit Health and Human Services (HHS).

He may have departed to visit HHS but it was a “facility” on a US Army Base. A US Congressman, the people’s Representative, has every right to engage actively with all non-classified activities on Ft Sill. It is understandable that provisions always have to be made for classified visits, but as our representative, under our Constitution, Representative Bridenstine was well within the scope of his responsibilities:

Taken from the Oversight and Government Reform committee:

“We start with several basic premises on which there is general agreement. The power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in the social, economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the federal government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.” – Chief Justice Warren for the Majority,Watkins v. United States

But the Congressman’s HHS visit to their “facility” on Ft. Sill did not occur. As the Congressman stated in his Press Release:

“There is no excuse for denying a Federal Representative from Oklahoma access to a federal facility in Oklahoma where unaccompanied children are being held. Any Member of Congress should have the legal authority to visit a federal youth detention facility without waiting three weeks.”