RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/which_is_worse_leaking_classified_information_or_destroying_it.html

SEN. FEINSTEIN FIRST ACCUSED THE WHITE HOUSE OF LEAKING INFORMATION AND THEN SLITHERED BACKWARDS AND WALKED AWAY FROM THE ACCUSATION…ANOTHER SPAGHETTI SPINE DEMOCRAT…..RSK

The discovery of leaks of sensitive or classified information has startled the American people and many politicians alike. Recent leaks have jeopardized US national security causing unprecedented concern for America’s best and brightest operators working inside the Defense Department and our spy agencies. But what is more damaging — leaking classified information or destroying it?

Leaking classified information is irresponsible and damaging but so can the destruction of information.

Just this week, two reports have unfolded proving some Department of Defense leaders are actually destroying sensitive information for selfish reasons. These acts of betrayal can actually cost the lives of America’s greatest assets — our warriors.

The Washington Times released an article titled Army destroyed report that favored software that detected buried bombs. The article explains how military leaders and their civilian counterparts actually destroyed information in an attempt to protect one of their own babies, an intelligence tool known as the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS).

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/07/should_we_ban_farm_tools.html

Mayor of Chicago and former Obama hatchet-man Rahm Emanuel famously said “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And when it comes to the Aurora, Colorado massacre last Friday, the left certainly hasn’t let The Godfather down. Of course, people on both sides of the aisle quickly stated that it’s inappropriate to politicize a tragedy, but those with the loudest voices have done their best to make sure that the twelve killed in Colorado while enjoying a night at the movies died for the cause of gun control.

Hollywood notables Michael Moore, Cher, Jason Alexander, Rob Schneider, Piers Morgan, John Leguizamo, Russell Simmons, D.L. Hughley, Martha Stewart, Henry Winkler, and Bette Midler quickly blamed the firearms. As did politicians like Jan Schakowsky and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. Longtime journalist and former White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers called Americans “bloodthirsty,” “violent,” and “inept.” But it was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was the biggest demagogue of them all. He raised the specter of pulling the police officers off the streets of New York if Americans didn’t renounce their guns.

Bloomberg’s comments speak to the heart of the matter, which is the battle between tyranny and freedom. Bloomberg is a collectivist at heart, and firearm ownership promotes (and protects) individualism. Like a tyrant, he threatened civilians with the idea of taking away what little protection the state offers its citizens if they dare attempt to protect themselves.

So, as has become customary in this country, the discussion quickly turned to “who is to blame?” If the left wants to have that discussion, conservatives should welcome it, since the arguments are on our side. If one is persuaded by anecdotes, like our pals in Hollywood, here are a couple: First, we just passed the one year anniversary of when Anders Brevik killed 77 people in Norway — the vast majority with his firearm — in the country that has what may be the strictest gun control laws in the Western world. What was Hollywood’s response then?

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1454/is_appeasement_of_hezbollah_now_eu_policy_ In the wake of last week’s terror attack against Israeli civilians in Bulgaria, the European Union has refused Israel’s request to blacklist Hezbollah as a terror group, citing a lack of “tangible evidence” it was engaged in terrorism. The attack, which claimed the lives of five Israelis and a local Bulgarian man, has been […]

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1457/an_olympic_insult_to_israel_s_murdered_athletes “You didn’t hear the voice of the world,“ the two ladies exclaimed. “’Yes, I did,” he replied. That, according to the Jewish Chronicle, was the exchange of words at a meeting earlier this week between two Munich massacre widows and the president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, who refused their request for […]

http://melaniephillips.com/syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal There is a degree of panic, and rightly so, over whether the Syrian tyrant Basher al Assad will use chemical weapons against either his own people or foreign attackers. His regime has this week threatened to do the latter, thus finally confirming what was long suspected but never openly admitted, that Syria possesses chemical […]

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/07/26/a-morsi-napolitano-jihadist-pipeline-to-america/

A Morsi-Napolitano Jihadist Pipeline to America?

Team Obama saw fit to delay [2] construction of the desperately needed Keystone pipeline—jeopardizing US energy security by extending our unnecessary reliance on fossil fuels from Muslim countries which use their profits from this trade to foment and actively fund jihadism.

Now it seems the Muslim Brotherhood [3] (and its even more overtly bloody offshoot)-supporting [4] Team Obama policymakers are creating another variety of “pipeline,” compatible with their repeatedly [5] ludicrous [6], see-no-jihad ideological predilections.

Here is the depressingly plausible scenario by which such a dangerous travesty could unfold.

Governor Romney is about to visit Israel during the increasing heat of this summer’s presidential election season.

While running for office, almost all candidates say what they feel the voters want to hear. Yet that’s not always the case…unless you also believe that you can get away with doing the opposite–for one reason or another.

Case in point…

Among the biggest headaches Israel has with President Obama is his insistence that Israel return to its 1949, U.N.-imposed armistice lines which made it a mere 9 to 15 miles wide at its waist, where most of its population and infrastructure are located. Most folks have to travel farther than that just to go to work or to the shopping mall. Israel existed this way until the June 1967 Six Day War (started when Arabs blockaded it at the Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Aqaba –a casus belli–and other hostile acts), and those lines did nothing but constantly tempt Israel’s enemies to sever it in half.

In the wake of that war, as many have frequently noted, Israel was promised by the architects of the final draft of the main official guide for peacemaking, UNSC Resolution 242, that it would never have to return to those vulnerable armistice lines. Since I’ve written extensively about this myself, I won’t pursue this further here. Nothing more really needs to be added, so please check, for example, http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/6/article142.htm to fill in the details.

Besides Israel and the Jewish people’s several thousand year connections (including land ownership right into the 20th century) to the disputed territories such as Judea and Samaria (called that for millennia before British imperialism also named them the “West Bank” after World War I), Israel had been promised, via 242, more secure, defensible, and real borders to replace its previous Auschwitz/armistice lines. And, again, this is what the nastiness between Israel, Obama, and the ever-hostile State Department (which fought President Truman over Israel’s very resurrection in the first place in 1948) is largely all about.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-nice-jewish-boy-from-planet-krypton/ A nice Jewish boy from planet Krypton The three legs of the Superman myth — truth, justice and the American way — are straight out of the Mishna, says ‘Superman’ author Larry TyeBy It was in 1938 that Jor-El and Lara placed their infant son Kal-El into a rocket ship headed towards Earth. At […]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=279075

Why is the Obama administration shunning potential allies and empowering enemies? Why has the administration gotten it wrong everywhere?

On Wednesday, John Brennan, US President Barack Obama’s assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, made a quick trip to Israel to discuss Hezbollah’s massacre of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria last week.

Hopefully it was an instructive meeting for the senior US official, although his Israeli interlocutors were undoubtedly dumbstruck by how difficult it was to communicate with him. Unlike previous US counterterror officials, Brennan does not share Israel’s understanding of Middle Eastern terrorism.Brennan’s outlook on this subject was revealed in a speech he gave two years ago in Washington. In that talk, Brennan spoke dreamily about Hezbollah. As he put it, “Hezbollah is a very interesting organization.”
He claimed it had evolved from a “purely terrorist organization” to a militia and then into an organization with members in Lebanon’s parliament and serving in Lebanon’s cabinet.
Brennan continued, “There are certainly elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern for us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/26/settler-leader-wrongheaded-proposal/
TO USE GAZA AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW REMOVAL OF SETTLERS IS POSSIBLE IS LUDICROUS….THE REMOVAL OF THE JEWISH PRESENCE THERE RESULTED IN HAMAS AND ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL; SECOND, TO CLAIM THAT DAYAN’S GOAL IS DETRIMENTAL TO AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND “STEADFAST SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL” IS EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS. ….HE GIVES TOKEN ADMISSION OF ARAB INTRANSIGENCE AND THE THREAT OF HAMAS, BUT THEN, IN A DISPLAY OF UBER STUPIDITY, HE WANT ISRAEL TO MAKE IT “WORKABLE.”….RSK

Yesha Chairman Dani Dayan’s New York Times op-ed is sure to rankle Mideast watchers on both sides of the issue. Dayan writes that not only is the two-state solution dead, but it should be declared so and the settlement movement should be free to expand throughout the West Bank. Although Dayan makes a couple of important points about the weakness of the current push for a two-state solution, he ignores both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people, and two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel.

First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point. So Dayan need not appeal to readers of the New York Times; he is far from convincing his own countrymen to join him. It is much easier to understand why the Times chose to publish the op-ed: the American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. With regard to Dayan, there are three questions he should be asked after writing this op-ed.