RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_wilders_is_wrong_explain_this_conference/

“But for me there are even bigger questions. Why are politicians, journalists and Jewish leaders now demonising Geert Wilders for warning against exactly the ideology of Islam as preached by many speakers at this conference?Why do they pretend Wilders has misrepresented Islam when the very things he describes are preached openly?”

Geert Wilders, the Dutch political leader now on a speaking tour of Australia, has not only had his speeches blockaded by violent demonstrators trying to stop Australians from hearing him.

He has not only been vilified in the media for trying to warn that Islam as an ideology is a menace to Western values and freedoms – from the freedom to speak to even identify as gay.

Depressingly, he has even been shunned by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Jewish community leaders. It seems to me that political or community advantage is being put before principle – and fear is preventing a rational discussion of Wilders’ message.

It’s driven Abbott, even Abbott, to misrepresent what Wilders is in fact saying and play blind to the issue he actually raises – which is about the nature of Islam, not its followers:

Mr Abbott said Wilders’ was “substantially” wrong about Islam and the preparedness of Muslims living in Australia to integrate.

“He is entitled to his view but I think that the Muslims in this country see themselves rightly as fair dinkum, dinky-di Australians, just as the Catholics and the Jews and Protestants and the atheists, we see ourselves as Australians,” Mr Abbott told host Neil Mitchell.

This hypocrisy and fear is exposed best by what is misleadingly called a ”Peace Conference and Exhibition” being organised in Melbourne in March.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2827/once_and_for_all_the_leftist_origins_of_national_socialism
THE EFFORT TO LINK CONSERVATIVES WITH FASCISTS KEEPS BUBBLING UP IN “LIBERAL” DISCOURSE…..JONAH GOLDBERG’S BOOK “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” is an excellent treatment of this subject……rsk
The debate about where Nazism should be placed on the political spectrum has enjoyed a renaissance of late. The answer is so obvious that we really needn’t have bothered

Okay, let’s pause for a minute, note the above title, and have a collective ‘face palm’ over how absurd it is that this article even needs to be written in the first place. But it does.

This debate has never gone away of course; but recent weeks have been something of a renaissance – largely thanks to the bizarre suspension (and eventual – and sensible – reinstatement) of Dr. Rachel Frosh from the Conservative Party candidate list due to a retweet linking Nazism to socialism.

This rather embarrassing affair is in fact a sad and clear indictment that the words ‘never again’ are little more than a hollow slogan. For if we refuse to accept, and more importantly challenge, the ideological origins of a movement that culminated in the systematic murder of millions of innocent human beings, there is absolutely no way we can prevent the same from happening again.

The easiest way of proving that the origins of Nazism are in no way remotely conservative is to start by looking at some defining features of conservatism itself, specifically the European variety.

These include: the belief that a society rooted in monarchy and aristocracy is preferable to mass democracy; that there is a transcendental moral order (what Kirk called the Permanent Things) which in Western Civilization has been preserved and passed down through the Christian Church; that property rights are the very foundation of ordered liberty; and, of course, the universal conservative belief that any necessary societal change must occur slowly and without structural damage to ancient and proven institutions – that problems in society come not from broken traditions and institutions but from broken men and morals.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2839/deny_deny_deny

Chavez isn’t dead, they profess. So where is he then?

After a flurry of rumour over the past few days, the Chavistas are out in force again, proclaiming for all to hear, “Chavez isn’t dead!”

So where is he then?

It was reported that Chavez recently returned to Venezuela, wherein he resumed normal Twitter activity. No, seriously.

This, apparently, is proof enough for a man to remain President, even though he hasn’t been sworn in again since he recent re-election. Opposition figures (naturally, you might add) have raised questions over the constitutionality of the matter.

But Reuters reports that Chavez’s henchmen are ‘mocking’ the reports of his demise, a statement that in fact came from the reliable, former ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), Guillermo Cochez.

Never, of course, would I callously wish death upon anyone who had not brought it upon themselves (clarifying, for those of you who’ll no doubt critique my defence of tackling terrorism) – but at the same time, it strikes me that Venezuela as a democratic state has been under assault for very many years by Chavez and his thugs, and the demise of even a pretence of democracy is upon us in the country.

It’s a shame that at such a critical time, all Chavez’s yes-men can do is “mock” those concerned for Venezuela.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2830/huffington_post_uk_political_editor_bottles_debate_at_cambridge

It was reported yesterday how the ‘shouty triumvirate’ of Mehdi Hasan, Seumus Milne and Jeremy Corbyn MP were tag-teaming up for a debate at the Cambridge Union entitled, “This House Regrets the Consequences of U.S. Dominance”.

But in an apparently not unpredictable turn of events, Mehdi Hasan, Political Editor for the Huffington Post UK site who is famed for his disparaging comments about non-Muslims and atheists, failed to show.

When quizzed by The Commentator’s Executive Editor on Twitter, Hasan wasted no time jumping into insults, proclaiming, “Some trolls want to know why I wasn’t at Cambridge union tonight. Simple answer: I never agreed to do it. Union made mistake in term card.”

Sources at the Cambridge Union Society however, beg to differ. In fact, it is particularly unlike the Cambridge Union, the oldest and arguably most august student debating institution in the country, to make a ‘mistake’ in the term card.

Sources tell The Commentator that it is apparently not the first time that Hasan has failed to show for a debate at Cambridge.

Hasan’s reported refusal to debate makes him the second prominent Left-wing figure in just one week to avoid a public debate, coming hot on the heels of George Galloway’s hasty exit from Oxford University last week.

Hasan remains on the term card at the time of publication.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/detail/dr-ben-carson-rails-against-political-correctness-and-opens-up-about-his-worldview-with-glenn-beck-part-1

Dr. Ben Carson Rails against ‘Political Correctness’ and Opens up about his Worldview with Glenn Beck – Part 1 – See more at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/detail/dr-ben-carson-rails-against-political-correctness-and-opens-up-about-his-worldview-with-glenn-beck-part-1#sthash.kLRlTguf.dpuf

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/detail/dr-ben-carson-rails-against-political-correctness-and-opens-up-about-his-worldview-with-glenn-beck-part-2

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/detail/dr-ben-carson-rails-against-political-correctness-and-opens-up-about-his-worldview-with-glenn-beck-part-3

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/28/john-kerry-kyrzakhstan-and-palestine/ On John Kerry’s first international trip as U.S. Secretary of State he made a gaffe worthy of Joe Biden. The headline of London’s Telegraph read “John Kerry invents country of Kyrzakhstan” and the Daily Mail asked “Where’s that exactly, Mr Secretary of State? John Kerry makes up new country ‘Kyrzakhstan.” But more than just […]

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/47831 AQAP’s English Language Inspire on-line Magazine, Issue X, was reviewed by MEMRI. See Special Report, here. The MEMRI headline was. Inspire X “Open Source Jihad” Calls To Assassinate Top U.S., British, And French Heads Of State And Politicians”. This edition of Inspire introduced a new section, “You Ask and We Provide the Answers”. As […]

EVERYBODY IS HAVING A LAUGH ABOUT JOHN KERRY:

JOHN KERRY GIVES THE AYATOLLAH A DEMOCRACY UPGRADE

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323978104578330551630532848.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTT

op ‘Iran has a government that was elected and that sits in the United Nations.” So said John Kerry in Paris on Wednesday, on his first tour of Europe since becoming Secretary of State. The former Senator was answering a reporter who asked why he had publicly applauded the French for refusing to negotiate with […]

BUT HERE IS WHAT BILL CLINTON SAID IN 2005:

Clinton: …” Iran’s a whole different kettle of fish—but it’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back in—] and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government, because he was in Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the ’50s; at least, that is my belief.I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it’s true and I apologized when President Khatami was elected. I publicly acknowledged that the United States had actively overthrown Mossadegh and I apologized for it, and I hope that we could have some rapprochement with Iran. I think basically the Europeans’ initiative to Iran to try to figure out a way to defuse the nuclear crisis is a good one.”

And then he continued with this one:

But Iran is the most perplexing problem … we face, for the following reasons: It is the only country in the world with two governments, and the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami. [It is] the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: two for President; two for the parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralities.

In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.

I GUESS AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE JEWELS….RSK

http://bit.ly/YG7lm2

On the eve of President Obama’s visit to the Middle East, he should examine the damage, to vital US economic and national security interests, caused by benevolent ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism – judging other cultures by one’s own standards – is morally wrong, especially when motivated by superiority complex or racism.

Benevolent ethnocentrism – the assumption that other cultures are ready to embrace one’s own standards and worldview – is morally flawed and strategically self-destructive. This reflects a superficial view of global complexity and undermines one’s posture of deterrence in a world of intensifying disorder, and increasing hostility towards Western values, in spite of President Obama’s outreach campaign since 2009.

The tectonic history of international relations, from time immemorial. attests that Free World leaders – who represent a global minority – should avoid the delusion that most non-democratic societies would depart from their centuries-old values, preferring engagement to confrontation, peace over war, tolerance over fanaticism and freedom over oppression, if offered adequate diplomatic and economic incentives.

Free World leaders should not assume that cardinal democratic values such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, peaceful coexistence, and the belief that all men are created equal, could be adopted by most non-democratic cultures. Most non-democracies consider these values a lethal threat. One should not ignore the drastic and endemic historical, ideological, religious, cultural and educational differences, as well as conflicting interests and visions, which separate the global democratic minority from the tyrannical majority. They should avoid oversimplification and over-globalization in a highly diversified, conflict ridden world, which has been afflicted for millennia by insoluble conflicts, unpredictability, instability, shifty policies and violent intolerance.

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/341894 In our grubby, unhelpful political lexicon, certain words exist solely to end conversations. The most prominent such word is “racist.” Less popular, but by no means less potent, are “democracy” and “rights.” When welded together as “democratic rights,” the pair becomes all-powerful — strong enough to send grown men spinning for the exits and […]