RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/disgraced-lib-journo-teaches-media-bias-at-georgetown Disgraced journalist David Chalian has been hired as the new Vice President for Video Programming at Politico, despite being fired by Yahoo! News for making a vicious “joke” accusing the Romneys of hating black people. A quick look at the syllabus for the course he is teaching at Georgetown University may explain why. His […]

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/a-review-of-to-hell-in-a-handbasket-carter-obama-and-the-arab-spring-by-ruthie-blum?f=must_reads

Ruthie Blum’s essential book “To Hell in a Handbasket- Carter, Obama and the Arab Spring” offers irrefutable evidence that misguided foreign policy with respect to popular uprisings against tyrants often creates worse problems than those it seeks to alleviate.

While most commentators and pundits stress the present crisis with a nuclear Iran, they fail to see the overthrow of Iran’s Shah and the subsequent hostage crisis of 1979 as prologue and lesson for today.

Blum revisits that event and succinctly states in the opening pages: “It is the story of how a short sighted leader of the Free World, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with-rather than defeat- the forces that would see him and it destroyed, enabled the rise and spread of a pernicious form of radicalism that threatens the globe to this day.” That leader was Jimmy Carter but the words could easily apply to the present occupant of the White House, whose obsequiousness to the Moslem world and feeble responses to direct aggression against the United States encourage our enemies and discourage our allies.

Blum sets the timetable and sequence of those events which led to Iran’s overthrow of the Shah, Carter’s muddled response, and the advice of “experts” such as George Ball who headed the White House task force on Iran, Professor Richard Cottam, a scholar of Iranian politics, Henry Precht who headed the Iran desk at the State Department, and Ambassador to Iran William Sullivan who reassured the President that a more moderate and democratic regime would replace the Shah.

Princeton Professor Richard Falk, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, National Council of Churches offshoot “Clergy and Laity Concerned” all cooed about the Ayatollah’s “integrity and honesty. ” Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young declared that Islam is ” a vibrant cultural force in today’s world”….and added for good measure that “Khomeini will be somewhat of a saint when we get over the panic.”

In short, we could anticipate another Gandhi without the loincloth.

In addition to the ignorant advice of the foregoing, Carter was preoccupied with other affairs of state.

In a particulaly pithy statement here is how Ruthie Blum describes Carter’s reaction to the impending overthrow of the Shah:”…..the President had his plate full of other concerns at home and abroad…These included creating departments of energy and education; bailing out the Chrysler corporation; trying to reform healthcare; pressuring Israel during its negotiations with Egypt; negotiating SALT with the Soviet Union; making a deal with China; helping the (communist)Sandinistas in Nicaragua overthrow Somoza; relinquishing control of the Panama Canal; and last but not least trying to ensure his reelection…..”

It is worth noting that Carter had also been preoccupied that year in “nation building” in Africa where he facilitated the takeover of British ruled Rhodesia which became Zimbabwe and deliberately schemed against the elected Bishop Bishop Abel Muzorewa to install Mugabe a Marxist who has ruled and ruined that once prosperous state.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3402/dual-loyalty We are informed on a regular basis that people who are citizens of countries such as Britain or the US are citizens – whatever their religion or ethnic origin – and that being a good British or American citizen does not require either any giving up of other identities, nor any contradiction among these […]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3403/salam-al-marayati-human-rights-conference In the non-Muslim world, “human rights” refers to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which affirms that all people – men and women — are guaranteed individual rights. By contrast, the Muslim world defines “human rights” according to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which holds that men […]

by Jamie Glazov
Is the president’s foreign policy catastrophe a result of naiveté or an urge for destruction?
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/obamas-designs-on-america-on-the-glazov-gang/

Click here: Hypocrisy Among Pro-BDS Professors – Maggie’s Farm
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/20793-Hypocrisy-Among-Pro-BDS-Professors.html

The actual respect held by an organization of anti-Israel California professors who want to Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) toward academic freedom and open exchange of views is contradicted by their actual activities and speech. On November 6, the electorate of California will vote on whether to increase their taxes, against the threat by Governor Brown that the state’s severe deficits will otherwise have to be made up by cuts to education funding. The letter from California Scholars For Academic Freedom and the facts behind it do not argue for taxpayers increasing their taxes in order to fund abusers and deniers of academic freedom.
Thirty-five of the 134 California Scholars For Academic Freedom (CSAF) wrote to each member of the California State Assembly denouncing their unanimous passing of House Resolution 35. As they say:

HR 35 does not create new law, but it calls upon university administrators to deny First Amendment rights to students and faculty. The Assembly resolution states,”[university] leadership from the top remains an important priority so that no administrator, faculty, or student group can be in any doubt that anti-Semitic activity will not be tolerated in the classroom or on campus, and that no public resources will be allowed to be used for anti-Semitic or any intolerant agitation.” In a strange twist of illogic, they assert: “HR-35 itself is fundamentally anti-semitic because it associates and conflates with Judaism an unending list of well-documented racist policies and crimes against humanity committed by the state of Israel.

The actual respect held for academic freedom is exhibited by one of the 35 signers, Jess Grannam, a Palestinian clinical professor and the Chief of Medical Psychology at the University of California, San Francisco. He was taped and quoted at a March 2010 meeting enthusiastic about the students who interrupted the Israel Ambassador’s talk at University of California, Irvine:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=288264&utm_source=Jerusalem+Post&utm_campaign=me+and+mitt&utm_medium=email For some time now some liberal friends, and even my own daughters, have been pestering me with the same question. Why, they ask, are you supporting Mitt Romney? Indeed, what propelled you, more than a year ago, to give up the comforts of home and move to Boston to work day and night for […]

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/333917.php
October 17, 2012

CBS Poll: Romney Wins 65-34 on Economy;
CNN Poll: Romney Wins 54-40 on Economy,
49-46 on Health Care,
51-44 on Taxes,
59-36 on Deficit,
49-46 on Leadership,
All in Favor of Romney

You now, as far as “Debate Winner” it’s pretty close with those registered voters. CBS gives it to Obama, among registered voters 37-30. CNN’s registered voters gives it to Obama 46-39.

But on actual issues — the ones that will determine this election — Romney destroyed him.

CNN’s focus group claimed they thought Obama “won.” They had it something like 14 for Obama, 15 draw, 6 Romney.

But even that group said this– on the question of “Who offers a better vision for the future?,” Romney edged Obama 18-17.

Now that’s very slim. I wouldn’t read too much into that.

But consider: More people think Romney presents a better vision for the future — the quickest possible shorthand for “who should be President?” — and yet he didn’t “win” the debate?

You always have to question what the criteria people are employing when you ask them who “won.” I think people are rating the performance. And narrowly saying, on performance, it was a close thing, but edge to Obama.

But ask about who actually reached them on the most important issues, and it’s Romney, all the way.

So they seem to be distinguishing between performance and substance.

Romney wins the substance, pretty clearly.

I’ll take it. And give Obama his charity performance points.

More: Foreign policy, Obama edges 49-47.

But this is amazing: Did Obama offer a clear vision for solving the country’s problems?

38% Yes

61% No

61% No. Wow.

How about that asked about Romney?

49% Yes

50% No

A Specatator Culture: Americans have gotten pretty sophisticated about judging performance, especially after 10 years of American Idol.

We shouldn’t assume that when people answer the question “Who won the debate?” they confuse that question with “Who did you find more persuasive?”

They might actually be offering a sophisticated analysis: “I think this guy won on debate performance points.”

But then ask them “Who actually persuaded you?,” and they might answer a completely different way.

It certainly appears that’s what happened here tonight.

More: NumbersMuncher has even more of the below-the-topline polling questions.

Romney wins.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Crowley-interrupts-28-times-Romney
Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

In the Vice-Presidential debate, Martha Raddatz, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five.

Crowley made Raddatz look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect:

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2702

Obama’s record is not debatable

One comment repeated by different analysts following Tuesday night’s second presidential debate was that “Barack Obama at least showed up this time.” Indeed, his figurative failure to do so in the first round against Republican contender Mitt Romney caused everybody to wonder whether the president was actually capable of appearing on any show other than “The View” or “Letterman” without his teleprompter in tow.

Undoubtedly, his campaign managers and advisers went into overdrive to put such speculation to rest. They probably coached him as long and as hard as they could, the same way they had to coach Vice President Joe Biden to prepare him for his debate against Paul Ryan last week. Having the wisdom of hindsight — having seen Biden follow their script pretty well, but bomb by behaving abominably — they now had two challenges. The first was to teach Obama what to say. The second was to caution him against appearing too arrogant.

Still, Obama is nothing if not a quick study when it comes to putting on an act. Let us not forget that four years ago he made a surprise entrance on the scene, swiftly side-swiping Hillary Clinton, and becoming the Democratic nominee for president before the former first lady had time to change her hair style and makeup.

This was not merely because Obama is black and beautiful, though that definitely gave him an edge — even over a woman, and a Clinton, to boot. Democrats were thrilled to be able to elect a young minority member promising “hope and change.” Furthermore, Obama was so skilled at playing the role of messiah that he managed to camouflage, if not hide, his truly radical roots from the general public.

Of course, he was aided and abetted in this ruse by the sycophantic mainstream media. Nevertheless, credit should be given where it is due. Even a “Manchurian Candidate” has to present himself as someone who fits the bill. And voters did put him in the White House by a distinct margin, after all. So, getting him to memorize his lines and strut his stuff in the lead-up to the debate was probably not as tough a task as some Romney supporters, including myself, might have hoped it would be.