RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/andrew-harrod/the-united-kingdoms-continuing-koran-censorship/print/

Mark Stephenson confessed at a February 28, 2014, United Kingdom trial “threatening behavior” while watching a December 7, 2013, Birmingham soccer game. Stephenson’s behavior involved Koran desecration, merely the latest case demonstrating deferential British censorship with respect to Islam’s holy book.

According to one news account, a woman gave pages of a Koran taken from her handbag to Stephenson and about 20 other soccer fans during the game. Stephenson ripped the pages and pretended to burn them with a lighter while saying to a stadium worker that he had the “Muslim bible, we hate Muslims.” Another worker overheard fans shouting “Koran, Muslims and burning.”

Stephenson received a £235 fine for a “religiously-aggravated public order offence,” a British hate crime that, among things, encompasses “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behavior.” “We hope that in the future you will not ever, ever participate in any such incident,” Judge Ronald Healey declared in sentencing Stephenson. It is “considered extremely offensive to some members of the community.”

“It’s disgraceful to allow pure hatred to come to an area like” Birmingham “with a high Muslim population,” Muslim Member of Parliament Khalid Mahmood had said of the incident in his hometown in December. The “culprits should be dealt with severely and be charged with incitement,” he demanded. A Middlesbrough Football Club spokesperson also condemned the incident involving the club’s Koran-desecrating fans as violating a desire to “eradicate racism in all its forms.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/from-maoism-and-the-black-panthers-to-conservatism-on-the-glazov-gang/print/

This week’s Glazov Gang episode was joined by John Duffy, a film producer from the Bronx. He joined the Gang to discuss his journey from Maoism and venerating the Black Panthers to conservatism:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/israels-worst-enemy-lies-and-myths/print/

The Washington Post reports that some members of Secretary of State John Kerry’s senior staff think it’s time to say “enough” of Kerry’s futile and delusional attempts to broker peace between the Israelis and Arabs and implement the “two-state solution.” That’s a revelation one would think the chief diplomat of the greatest power in history would have experienced decades ago. Since the failed 1993 Oslo Accords, it has been obvious to all except the duplicitous, the ignorant, and the Jew-hater that the Arabs do not want a “Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Israel,” something they could have had many times in the past. On the contrary, as they serially prove in word and deed, they want Israel destroyed.

As Caroline Glick documents in her new book The Israeli Solution, the “two-state solution” is a diplomatic chimera for the West, and a tactic for revanchist Arabs who cannot achieve their eliminationist aims by military means. But the “Palestinian state” is merely one of many myths, half-truths, and outright lies that befuddle Western diplomats and leaders, and put the security and possibly the existence of Israel at risk.

First there is the canard that Israel is somehow an illegitimate state, a neo-imperialist outpost that Westerners created to protect their economic and geopolitical interests. In this popular myth, invading Jewish colonists “stole” the land and ethnically cleansed the region of its true possessors, the indigenous “Palestinian people.” This crime was repeated after 1967 Six Day War, when Israel seized the “West Bank,” occupying it as a colonial power and subjecting its inhabitants to a brutally discriminatory regime. The continuing power of this lie can be seen in the frequent comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa. And this false historical analogy in turn drives the “Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions” movement, which is attempting to make Israel even more of a pariah state in order to duplicate the success of those tactics in dismantling white rule in South Africa.

Every dimension of this narrative is false. The state of Israel came into being by the same legitimate process that created the other new states in the region, the consequence of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Consistent with the traditional practice of victorious states, the Allied powers France and England created Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, and of course Israel, to consolidate and protect their national interests. This legitimate right to rewrite the map may have been badly done and shortsighted––regions containing many different sects and ethnic groups were bad candidates for becoming a nation-state, as the history of Iraq and Lebanon proves, while prime candidates for nationhood like the Kurds were left out. But the right to do so was bestowed by the Allied victory and the Central Powers’ loss, the time-honored wages of starting a war and losing it. Likewise in Europe, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled, and the new states of Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia were created. And arch-aggressor Germany was punished with a substantial loss of territory, leaving some 10 million Germans stranded outside the fatherland. Israel’s title to its country is as legitimate as Jordan’s, Syria’s and Lebanon’s.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/375215/print

It was not difficult to define American geopolitical strategy over the seven decades following World War II — at least until 2009. It was largely bipartisan advocacy, most ambitiously, for nations to have the freedom of adopting constitutional governments that respected human rights, favored free markets, and abided by the rule of law. And at the least, we sought a world in which states could have any odious ideology they wished as long as they kept it within their own borders. There were several general strategic goals as we calculated our specific aims, both utopian and realistic.

(1) The strategic cornerstone was the protection of a small group of allies that, as we did, embraced consensual government and free markets, and were more likely to avoid human-rights abuses. That eventually meant partnerships with Western and later parts of Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and much of its former Empire, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In Asia, the American focus was on Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. military essentially guaranteed the security of these Asian nations, and they developed safely, shielded from Soviet or Chinese Communist aggression, and more recently from Russian or Chinese provocations.

(2) The U.S. also sought a stable, globalized world, predicated on free commerce, communications, and travel. This commitment on occasion involved ostracism of, or outright military action against, rogue regimes of the sort run by thugs like Moammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Manuel Noriega, or the Taliban. There was no predictable rule about what offenses would earn U.S. intervention, and there was plenty of argument domestically over what should properly prompt such action. Perhaps a general observation was that rogue dictatorships that began killing Americans or lots of their own people, or that invaded their neighbors or threatened U.S. interests were most likely to be targeted.

(3) The U.S. tried to combat terrorism, whether, as in the past, Communist-inspired or, more recently, prompted by radical Islam. In the latter regard, the U.S. sought to make the world unsafe for al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and various terrorist groups funded by Iran and, more stealthily, by opulent Persian Gulf autocracies and rogue Middle East regimes like that of the Assads in Syria. Without the American war on terror, the world would have been an even more dangerous place.

Sure, some illegal immigrants are acting out of love. So what?
Will the GOP please whack Bush aspirations to the White House?….rsk

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/375230/print

You’d think that someone who put his name on a book about immigration would at least know a little bit about it. I’m afraid that may not be the case, if Jeb Bush’s recent comments on illegal immigration are any indication.

His “act of love” comment is what’s gotten everyone’s attention, and I agree with Ramesh’s take on the Corner to the extent that there’s some truth to what Jeb said:

Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony; it’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that this is a different kind of crime.

The problem is that doesn’t tell us very much. Bernie Madoff and Vito Corleone were devoted to their wives and children too.

And he should know perfectly well that jumping the border is a misdemeanor on the first offense, and overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense at all, only a civil one (at least for now). It’s a felony only if you sneak back in after having been deported. Also, identity theft can be a felony; likewise with tax fraud, Social Security fraud, perjury, and the many other offenses committed by “otherwise law-abiding” illegal aliens. Should all those crimes be ignored as well? Are they “different kinds of crimes” too?

That comparison to Madoff or the Godfather isn’t really fair, of course, because Jeb was claiming illegal aliens are forced to come here to feed their families: “The dad who loved their children was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table.” Okay, but aren’t there shoplifters, car thieves, and welfare cheats in the same position? Are those “different kinds of crime” because of the use the proceeds of the crime would be put to?

Jeb’s unspoken assumption is that people in the United States who can’t lawfully feed their children can rely on welfare, rather than shoplifting and car theft. Mexico, by his telling, is such a dysfunctional hellhole that even hard-working people can’t find honest work and will go hungry as a result. Prospective illegal aliens find themselves in a “Les Misérables” situation, stealing bread — i.e., jobs in the United States — to feed starving children.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/367786/print

‘In America,” Oscar Wilde quipped, “the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.” And they often do it in the pages of Rolling Stone.

Last week, the magazine posted a mini-manifesto titled “Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For.” After confirming that it wasn’t a parody, conservative critics launched a brutal assault on its author, Jesse A. Myerson.

Myerson’s essay captures nearly everything the unconverted despise about left-wing youth culture, starting with the assumption that being authentically young requires being theatrically left-wing.

Writing with unearned familiarity and embarrassingly glib confidence in the rightness of his positions, Myerson prattles on about how “unemployment blows” and therefore we need “guaranteed work for everybody.” He proceeds to report that jobs “blow” too, so we need guaranteed universal income. He has the same disdain for landlords, who “don’t really do anything to earn their money.” Which is why, Myerson writes, we need communal ownership of land, or something.

One wonders why he bothered to single out landlords, since he calls for the state appropriation of, well, everything. Why? Because “hoarders blow,” and he doesn’t mean folks who refuse to throw away their Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets and old Sharper Image catalogs. He means successful people who “hoard” the wealth that rightly belongs to all of us.

Apparently “blowing” is an open warrant to undo the entire constitutional order. If only someone had told the Founders.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/07/harry-reid-republicans-should-wear-koch-stickers/
Harry Reid: Republicans Should Wear ‘Koch Stickers’

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has carried his Koch obsession into another week. Earlier today, the stalkerish senator suggested that Republicans should walk around bearing a mark noting some sort of connection to the Koch brothers.

Reid said, “Mr. President, NASCAR fans can easily find their favorite drivers by simply looking at the cars as they fly because there are corporate emblems on the hood of the car. In fact, they’re all over the in fact, they’re all over the car. For our clothing here in the for our clothing here in the Senate we don’t bear commercial. Many Republican senators might as well wear Koch industries insignias. But as members of the members of the United States Senate there should never be any any doubt as to our sponsors, the American people. We’re here in the Senate for one reason: To give Americans a fair shot at providing for their families and having their voices families and having their voices heard. But Republicans seem willing to identify themselves willing to identify themselves with their billionaire sponsors. While they don’t wear Koch while they don’t wear Koch industries ties and jackets, they display their sponsors proudly through their actions proudly through their actions here in the United States Senate. So it comes as no surprise that Republican senators stood here on the Senate floor and voiced their support for Charles and David Koch.”

You first, senator. Stick a sticker with George Soros’ mug on your jacket.

http://americanthinker.com/assets/3rd_party/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/the_dangerous_naivety_of_american_foreign_policy.html

Jonathan Rosenblum, director of Jewish Media Resources, wrote in the Jerusalem Post (April 4, 2014) that the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is tainted by “narcissism and naivety.”

There appears to be an inability to grasp that other nations have a different set of values that are irreconcilable with those of the U.S. and the West. They cannot accept that there are leaders and regimes with completely different political and religious motivations from progressive liberal, or even democratic philosophies.

Obama/Clinton/Kerry have operated as if all they have to do is smile and sing “All we need is love” to persuade ideologies to adapt and embrace a compliant America. It really doesn’t work that way, and now we are being to see the evidence of that. Just look at how they assessed rogue leaders.

Hillary Clinton, during her reign as Secretary of State, called Bashar Assad a “reformer.” Just look at how he is “reforming” Syria. President Obama called Putin his “partner.” How that partnership is working out can be seen in the Crimea and in how Russia is allied with Iran. About the Ukraine, John Kerry’s telling response to Russia’s capture of the Crimea was, “In the 21st century you just don’t behave in 19th century fashion.” Really? Putin just did!

Obama’s “reset” button with Russia seems to have set the world back to the Cold War era. According to the Obama/Clinton, she of the “global village” geopolitics/ Kerry political theory, the world is too “interdependent” for errant behavior that does not comply with an American vision of a better planet. As Rosenblum pointed out, it never occurred to them that interdependence cuts more ways than one. Interdependence means that Ukraine is dependent on Russian oil and gas so that, when Obama says he’s going to loan Kiev a billion dollars Putin raises the price of their energy supplies to the Ukraine and pockets Obama’s dollars. Interdependence means that Europe is also in the pocket of the Russians for their energy needs. It would be fine if Obama had opened up the American oil and gas fields to offer an alternative source but he didn’t, refusing also to sign a deal with Canada for the Keystone pipeline. So much for “reset” and “interdependence.”

Bowing to the Saudi king and apologizing to the Muslim world may have won Obama the Nobel Peace prize, but it didn’t win America any kudos or brownie points with the Islamic world.

http://www.steynonline.com/6244/one-way-discovery-channel

More back-and-forth over Mozilla’s termination with extreme prejudice of its insufficiently gay-affirming CEO. Over at Skeptic Ink, the Prussian quotes a colleague…

What has anything about Eich’s story to do with laws or the constitution? Either Eich chose to resign because of negative PR, or was fired. Both are private actions made freely by people or entities who have the right to do that. What happened was an expression of freedom, not a curtailment.

…and begs to differ:

Imagine the counter-case. You’re broadly supportive of gay marriage and you make a minor donation to a pro-gay marriage cause. Next week, you are hauled up in front of your boss, a conservative Christian, and told, “Sorry, we can’t have chaps who promote degeneracy around here” and promptly sacked.

Sound good? Would you say “Oh, that’s just an expression of his freedom”?

I don’t think analogies like that work with the left any more. As they see it, the difference between firing an anti-gay guy and firing a pro-gay guy is that the anti-gay guy is bad and deserves to be fired whereas the pro-gay guy isn’t and doesn’t. You could complicate it for them – the pro-gay guy is fired by a Muslim. But, until that starts happening on a regular basis, the western left is increasingly comfortable with the notion that core western liberties have to take a back seat to more fashionable rights, like anti-racism or “marriage equality”.

The top-paying job for grads last year: petroleum engineer, at $97,000. Yet most colleges seem oddly uninterested.

How Climate Change Conquered the American Campus

Here is a college quiz. While many parts of the U.S. economy struggle to recover from the Great Recession of 2008-09, one domestic industry is experiencing a technology-driven expansion in which American innovations have led to countless new company startups, a surge in hiring and some of the highest-paying entry-level jobs for graduating college seniors.

How are the nation’s universities responding so students might prepare for a promising career in this growing and intellectually challenging field? By largely ignoring it. Why? Because the industry is oil and gas.

This fact may surprise the casual campus observer, since almost every U.S. college these days seems to have an energy research institute. Most of these energy think-tanks, however, are run by academic advocates of theories about global warming and man-made climate change, most of whom view energy through green-colored lenses. The research focus is more on promoting the clean, sustainable, renewable, non-CO2-emitting energy of the future, as opposed to studying and analyzing the hydrocarbon resources of the here and now.