RUTHFULLY YOURS

Huma Abedin Revealed — on The Jamie Glazov, Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 8-9 pm Pacific Show
by Frontpagemag.com
Walid Shoebat takes your calls for the full hour about the damning news he discovered about the Adedin-Islamist connection.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/huma-abedin-revealed-on-the-jamie-glazov-tuesday-august-14-2012-8-9-pm-pacific-show/
Huma Abedin and The Saudi King’s Manifesto
by Jamie Glazov
Walid Shoebat uncovers new explosive material about the disturbing connections of Hillary’s top aide and her family.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/huma-abedin-and-the-saudi-king%E2%80%99s-manifesto/

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3272/muslim-forced-marriages-spain

Children, on their own initiative, have even approached the police for help. As forced marriage is not an offense under the Spanish Criminal Code, police have been trying to use other legal avenues such gender violence and kidnapping, but as often happens in Spain, the judge orders the man released from jail.

Police in the northeastern Spanish region of Catalonia have intervened to prevent the forced marriage of a 13-year-old girl belonging to a Muslim immigrant family from Morocco.

The girl was one of nine reported victims of forced marriage in Catalonia during the first six months of 2012. Seven of the reported cases involved minors, but in several instances when police were alerted, they were unable to intervene in time to prevent the marriages from taking place.

Catalan police, known locally as Mossos d’Esquadra, have reported a cumulative total of more than 50 forced marriages involving minors since the regional government began compiling official data in 2009. Police, however, say this figure represents only “the tip of the iceberg”; many victims are unaware of their rights and most of the cases go unreported.

The issue of forced marriage is especially acute in Catalonia, where the Muslim population has skyrocketed in recent years. Catalonia, a region with 7.5 million inhabitants, is now home to an estimated 400,000 Muslims, up from 30,000 in the 1980s.

http://www.amazon.com/Sharia-versus-Freedom-Islamic-Totalitarianism/dp/1616146664/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344860920&sr=8-1&keywords=Sharia+Versus+Freedom

Shows indisputably the incompatibility of Sharia with universal human rights

Author Andrew G. Bostom expands upon his two previous groundbreaking compendia, The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, with this collection of his own recent essays on Sharia—Islamic law. The book elucidates, unapologetically, Sharia’s defining Islamic religious principles and the consequences of its application across space and time, focusing upon contemporary illustrations.

A wealth of unambiguous evidence is marshaled, distilled, and analyzed, including: objective, erudite studies of Sharia by leading scholars of Islam; the acknowledgment of Sharia’s global “resurgence,” even by contemporary academic apologists for Islam; an abundance of recent polling data from Muslim nations and Muslim immigrant communities in the West confirming the ongoing, widespread adherence to Sharia’s tenets; the plaintive warnings and admonitions of contemporary Muslim intellectuals—freethinkers and believers, alike—about the incompatibility of Sharia with modern, Western-derived conceptions of universal human rights; and the overt promulgation by authoritative, mainstream international and North American Islamic religious and political organizations of traditional, Sharia-based Muslim legal systems as an integrated whole (i.e., extending well beyond mere “family-law aspects” of Sharia)
Editorial Reviews
Review

“No one writes with greater authority about the totalitarian current that is inseparable from Islam than Andrew Bostom. Accommodationists will not like what he says because it violates the liberal narrative according to which Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’ Would that it were so. That fantasy cannot survive exposure to the historical record, which Bostom has plumbed with relentless intelligence and unswerving commitment to the truth. This is an uncomfortable but necessary book. The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging that there is a problem. Sharia Versus Freedom is an indispensable aid to that remedial enlightenment.” –Roger Kimball, author of Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Higher Education, and The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia

“This is damn powerful stuff and needs to be read by anyone who still believes that a rapprochement with religio-political Islam is possible. Readers will be in for a few surprises, too, as some heretofore immaculate scholarly figures come in for their lumps. It is no blurb-like cliché to say that Sharia versus Freedom is a work of critical importance in today’s turbulent political climate and goes a long way toward dispelling the myopia with which the Sharia is generally viewed. With this, his third book in an ‘encylopedic’ series, Bostom has taken his place beside such major scholars of Islam as Ibn Warraq, Robert Irwin, and Bat Ye’or.” –David Solway, poet, literary critic and author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity

“Regarding the subject of Islam, apologists frequently vilify and marginalize truth seekers. Yet Dr. Andrew Bostom is fearless and now provides a third scholarly historical compendium of valuable articles on Islam’s totalitarian nature and its harsh Sharia—all of which unfortunately validate my life experience as a Muslim growing up in a Muslim country. With undeniable chronological data, Bostom covers much of what too many Western leaders and journalists willfully ignore: from the dhimmi status of non-Muslims to the combined effects of jihadism, and the Antisemitic Islamic motifs, all distressing realities with which I am, through life experiences, intimately familiar. Those who dodge Islam’s intolerable and discriminatory doctrine—whether for political reasons, professional expediency or naked fear—also choose, to their own detriment, to facilitate the decline of Western civilization.” –Wafa Sultan, author of A God Who Hates

“It would be a source of great joy if some of the reports on the contemporary application of the Sharia, Islamic law, Dr. Andrew Bostom describes in this book, are inaccurate. His meticulous documentation of this phenomenon, however, will prove sobering to even staunch optimists—and should be obligatory reading for all who care about Western freedom, and Western understanding of the rule of law.” –Johannes J. G. Jansen, Houtsma Professor for Contemporary Islamic Thought Emeritus, Utrecht University, and author of The Dual Nature of Islamic Fundamentalism

“Indefatigable Andrew Bostom ventures anew into the field of Islam, in which he is supposedly not a specialist, only to accomplish what devoted and committed lifetime professionals did not. After Jihad and Antisemitism in Islam, which have engendered the international terrorism of the past two decades, Bostom now finds that the issue most urgently provocative to deal with is the challenge that Sharia Law has been posing to the countries in the West where Muslim minorities have taken asylum, and where their demands have been ever pressing to adopt the Sharia on a par with the local legal systems. Everyone understands, perhaps save the Archbishop of Canterbury, what a subversive and destructive effect this might have on the legal traditions of those host societies which have accorded the Muslims shelter out of human compassion, and are now asked pitilessly and arrogantly to forego their own civilization in order to accommodate that of their guest.” –Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern, and Chinese Studies Emeritus, and author of Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology, and Muslim Minorities in Modern States: The Challenge of Assimilation

“In his new book, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, Andrew Bostom has once again given us an impeccably researched, authoritative study of the impact of Islam on the non-Islamic world. Instead of the misleading assurances of Islam’s peaceful nature, Bostom has demonstrated how, from its inception, Islam has used both subversion and conquest to achieve its goal of universal global dominion and the humiliating subordination of those non-Muslims who surrendered to it. This book is indispensable reading for all leaders, both public and private, committed to the survival of Western civilization.” –Richard Rubenstein, Lawton Distinguished Professor of Religion Emeritus, Florida State University, and author of The Cunning of History, and Jihad and Genocide

“Andrew Bostom has already edited two highly valuable, extended anthologies on Islam. This new monumental collection of his own essays, Sharia versus Freedom, boldly addresses the most important topic of the twenty-first century, and should be widely read, and heeded.” –Bat Ye’or, author of The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis

“It is a sine qua non of good medical practice that unpleasant symptoms must first be acknowledged and brought into the light before an effective treatment plan can be developed. In Sharia Versus Freedom, Andrew Bostom exposes to the light the condition known as ‘sharia,’ in all its profuse diversity. This treasure trove is a stirring antidote to the epidemic of ill-founded wishful thinking about Islam that plagues our age. From female genital mutilation to restrictions on freedom of speech, Bostom’s relentless forensic analyses will disturb those whose minds are drugged by the mirage of wishful, eyes-closed thinking. To be real, hope must speak the truth: it is for this reason that Bostom’s collection of essays makes a major contribution to forging a better future for us all.” –Mark Durie, theologian, and author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom

“The brave and stalwart Andrew Bostom will change the way you look at our future. Every citizen interested in Western survival should read this book.” –Giulio Meotti, journalist with Il Foglio, and author of A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism

“Beltway elites, pseudoscholars, and mainstream media mavens would have us believe that Islamic doctrine and Islamic terrorism have no correlation. Andrew Bostom knows better. For the better part of a decade, Bostom has shown, through a series of brilliant essays, that the driving force behind Islamic jihad is not poverty or occupation, but core Islamic teachings. In Sharia versus Freedom, Bostom, a true ‘Watchman on the Wall’, fearlessly dissects the end game after all the terror: the totalitarian system known as Islamic sharia law. America, you ve been warned.” –Erick Stakelbeck, Host, CBN’s Stakelbeck on Terror, and author of The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government Is Deceiving You about the Islamist Threat

“In the years since 9/11, while Islamic Studies professors have continued to whitewash the religion of peace, responsible-minded men and women outside of the Islamic Studies racket have taken up the job of truth-telling, publishing a number of substantial, and in some cases encyclopedic, volumes about Islam. One thinks, for example, of Andrew Bostom, a physician and professor of medicine at Brown University, who in the last few years has somehow found the time to produce massive, definitive books about the history of jihad and the legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.” –Bruce Bawer, author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within, and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom

“This unique collection of essays on Sharia, Islamic Law, contains the most brilliant dissection of exactly what constitutes the meaning and practice of Sharia relative to all previous books written on the same subject. Because of a broad disinformation campaign waged by members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States and abetted by the collusion of the elite leftwing mainstream media, the public is being subjected to a steady diet of deliberate disinformation that Sharia is democratic and nonauthoritarian. As this book so eloquently demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth. As Muslim populations continue to burgeon in Europe and North America, there has been a corresponding effort to get judges and magistrates to allow the application of Sharia in intra-Muslim disputes instead of applying Western democratic law. Already in the United Kingdom, there are some 100 Sharia courts. Sharia versus Freedom exposes in incontrovertible detail the truth about Sharia, a draconian and authoritarian set of Muslim laws that was created following the death of Mohammed by his followers as Islam began to massively expand its domain throughout the world. The true nature of Sharia’s authoritarianism (which allows amputation of limbs, the stoning of women, and the execution of Muslims who convert to another religion) is explained and detailed (with abundant proof) like no other book before. This book is a ‘must-read’ for American policymakers, Congress, local and regional authorities from coast to coast, as well as for any member of the public who truly seeks the truth behind Sharia. It makes for fascinating reading for anyone interested in expanding their knowledge of the history and unfolding of the Islamic legal system. Once you pick up this book, you won’t put it down.” –Steven Emerson, journalist, and author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US
About the Author

ANDREW G. BOSTOM is the editor of the highly acclaimed The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims and of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History. He has published articles and commentary on Islam in the Washington Times, National Review Online, Revue Politique, FrontPageMagazine.com, American Thinker, and other print and online publications. More on Andrew Bostom’s work can be found at andrewbostom.org/blog.

http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/
The tenth of August has given us two more examples of just how miserable the United States Government’s vision for the “war” in Afghanistan is! In what can only be described as an “in-your-face” declaration by the very focused, ideologically motivated forces at work within the borders of Afghanistan, these two incidents, the latest in an ever increasing number of like attacks, once again demonstrate just how wrong our understanding of Afghan culture is.

What is even more troubling is that in the first ambush/attack, the perpetrator was not working alone. He had the help of accomplices, who like him, were declared allies by the United States government. He and his fellow Officers were given unfettered access to our forces and they exploited that weakness in our perception of who these people are and killed according to the doctrines which bind all of Afghan society together.

And why not?

After all, since when are men at war required to do the bidding of their enemy during hostilities? This is where our government has failed and continues to fail in Afghanistan. We refuse to reconsider our original assessment of the whole culture in Afghanistan and as a result, our War Fighters continue to pay the price for the hubris of those whose orders they obey.

With straight faces, the unending queue of government “experts” continues to pedal their well-rehearsed narrative in spite of the increasing mountain of evidence which screams to the contrary. We have gotten to the point that I personally have no desire to continue this “dialogue” with men who have so easily sold their personal souls along with the lives of good men on a fantasy that spins a tale of a peace-loving culture beset by an unwanted, alien force who pervert the doctrines of the “religion of peace”.

The facts of these latest two incidences tell us everything we ever needed to know but several years after we should have learned their lesson! The murderers are of that segment of society that our government has presumed want peace and relief form the “unwanted alien insurgency” and yet, they baited a trap for United States Marines who were under standing orders to trust them.

This happened not once on this single day, but twice! And the result is that 6 good men, United States Marines, will not be going home to rejoin their families.

What is so damnable about these two events and the many others which preceded them is that our government insists on continuing to give these people the benefit-of-the-doubt while placing our own sovereign citizens in their midst like some perverted science experiment even though the evidence clearly indicates these kinds of attacks will continue!

Is this the vision of our Government? Sending men who have voluntarily suspended their rights as American citizens and willingly placed their very futures, trustingly, in the hands of those I tell you are lesser men only to have that trust squandered and their lives wasted? At what point are these euphemistically expressed, “green on blue” incidences going to convince the dead in DC or their surrogates, the media, that the current strategy is yielding nothing more than more dead US Service members, NATO, ISAF and civilian worker deaths and greater alienation from the very people the strategy is supposed to protect?

The Gatestone Institute’s weekly roundtable discussed the Muslim Brotherhood’s move against the Egyptian military and the increasing instability, concluding that the tendency towards regional chaos increased the likelihood of an early Israeli strike against Iran.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/the-gate/
The Call

This week’s call began with our five participants learning that President Morsi of Egypt had just sacked the head of that country’s armed forces, Field Marshal Tantawi. Score: Muslim Brotherhood 1, SCAF 0 (with outflows from Cairo to numbered bank accounts in Zurich, Switzerland increasing by the hour). The news contributed to a general atmosphere of martial headiness that pleasurably affected everyone except Amos Harel, who writes for Ha’aretz, and is therefore more vocationally attuned to guilt than to pleasure, and Pepe Escobar, who was enjoying dim sum in Hong Kong.

The panelists seemed to agree that the fluid and chaotic situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and the rapidly dwindling pre-Islamist-takeover interregnum in Egypt both argued in favor of the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran. The current lack of real equilibrium is favorable for – and even invites — radical game-changing actions. Whatever equilibrium is established in the future (whenever that is) is likely to be much less favorable for Israel and more favorable for Iran, insofar as both Israel and the US will be in weaker positions and their Sunni rivals will be both weaker and poorer.

Our regulars are:

Pepe Escobar — Author of the”Roving Eye”feature for the Asia Times

David Goldman — aka “Spengler”

Amos Harel — military correspondent and defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz

David Samuels — Contributing Editor at Harper’s Magazine

Rotem Sella — a journalist at Ma’ariv, an Israeli daily newspaper

==

THE CALL

David Goldman: All the players in the region with the possible exception of Israel are playing from weakness. Many of the region’s players – Iran, Turkey, and Qatar – are sticking their necks out very visibly.

Do these actions correspond to
1) Deterioration in the Syrian internal situation and positioning for a post-Assad government?
2) Positioning for responses to a possible Israeli strike on Iran?
3) Positioning with respect to the internal standoff in Egypt?

Al-Ahram writes:
“Following the January 25 revolution and the rise of Islamists to positions of power, questions were raised by anti-Brotherhood forces regarding the nature of the relationship between Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Some critics claim that the group received funds from the Gulf state during the presidential race. Morsi was the Brothehood’s candidate, after its first choice Khairat El-Shater was unable to run.

Moreover, other rumours circulated claiming the Brotherhood is planning to rent the Suez Canal to Qatar for ninety-nine years thus undermining Egypt’s sovereignty.

The Brotherhood leadership vehemently denied these accusations.”

In other news, Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator (among other things), turns up in Syria and Lebanon in a a show of support for Assad and Hezbollah. Jalili threatens Turkey, and Erdogan threatens Iran back. Some of the Turkish Islamist media says its time for Turkey to stop running cover for Iran. Syria’s man in Lebanon, Michel Samaha, is busted by Internal Security Force which claims he confessed to smuggling explosives from Syria. What’s up, people?

Amos Harel: I don’t know if you’re all already aware of this, but Morsi just fired Tantawi and the generals. This might be huge.

Rotem Sella: Right — and, the same day, we have the re-opening of Rafah crossing into Sinai, or part-reopening

Pepe Escobar: The Emir of Qatar visits Egypt – and Mosri fires Tantawi.

David G.: The BBC writes: “Under an interim constitutional declaration issued before Mr Mursi was sworn in, the president cannot rule on matters related to the military – including appointing its leaders.”

Amos Harel: Regarding Iran, the leaks from Barak and Co. in Israel are even worse than last week — not that I should complain. I suspect there’s a pattern here: the more difficult it gets for Israel to strike before the US election, the tougher its public stance gets. Still, there are some troubling signs, one of them the delay in the planned change of the head of military operations, which is one of the IDF’s top positions.

Rotem Sella: Also growing stronger are the efforts within all sectors of Israeli bureaucracy to fight against the war campaign of Barak and Bibi. I spoke to someone in the budget office today who told me that Iranian war will be too costly, and cause high unemployment. What does budget office have to do with Iran? But it shows the big battle going on in Israeli government — these guys are trying to undermine the pro-attack approach at every turn.

Amos Harel: Israel’s main goal is maintaining a credible military threat. But Netanyahu and Barak have gotten a bit carried away with their rhetoric, and by now they are so committed to the idea of a strike that it would be hard for them to withdraw. The IDF keeps preparing, because the chiefs can’t tell if the Prime Minister is actually 100% serious.

Pepe: Let’s introduce a little bit of sanity into this madness – courtesy of good ol’ Cold Warrior Yevgeny Primakov telling it like it is. Attack Iran first and THEN they will go for a bomb.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120808/175057044.html

Amos Harel: I think that until November, the three most important factors are: Bibi’s caution (not to say cowardice), Obama’s hinted threats and the IDF-Mossad objection to a strike. End result – and I hope that’s not just wishful thinking – probably no Israeli strike this year.

Rotem Sella: But Bibi-Barak are not even sure things will be better after November. They’ve read the recent polls…

David G.: Returning to Egypt: Reuters says that Morsi consulted with the generals before forcing Tantawi’s retirement. But the Xinhua report suggests a constitutional shift. Any first responses?

Pepe: Constitutional shift. And once again; right after the visit by the Emir of Qatar. I bet a bottle of Margaux that some suggestions were made.

David G.: Regarding Pepe’s Qatar angle: Bloomberg News reports, “Egypt scrapped a sale of nine-month Treasury bills today, its first cancellation of a debt offering in more than three months, after Qatar agreed to deposit funds with the country’s central bank to boost foreign exchange reserves.” That’s pretty big: the Egyptians are saying we’ve got Qatar, we can suspend public funding.

David S.: Ehud Barak’s remaining standing in Israel seems to rest on being able to play the US card. But the American interlocutors I’ve talked to think he’s a weirdo. So Amos, do Israelis believe that Ehud Barak is a reliable interlocutor who is conveying an accurate sense of American intentions, and vice versa?

Amos Harel: David S., everybody finds him baffling. And still, compared to Avigdor Lieberman, he’s considered to be close to the Americans, whatever that means now.

David S.: Right now, the timing for an Israeli strike on Iran — which I thought of up until a few months ago as pure hot air — seems as favorable as it is ever likely to be. The Iranian bloc in Syria and Lebanon is coming apart at the seams. The Syrian Army is in tatters. Hezbollah is in a very weak place. Obama — who Netanyahu seems to see as a strategic enemy on a par with Iran– is at a weak point, the weakest he is likely to be in the next five years, presuming he is re-elected. Morsi isn’t dumb enough to order the Egyptian Army out of their barracks no matter what happens in any back and forth with Hamas in Gaza. Plus, the Gulfies are pushing for a strike, and they own Gaza AND Egypt now.

David G.: After the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstration at the soldiers’ funeral this week, my prior was that the SCAF was the aggressor against Morsi. It may have been entirely the reverse. Morsi might have set up the Sinai incident and the protests at the funeral were a defensive response by the military (ultimately futile). That raises the questions: What are the Saudis thinking? Are they coordinating with the Qataris? Have they cut a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood? A related question is: Is Iran involved?

So a theme that bears investigation is Iran positioning for a post-Israeli strike response.

Pepe: The Saudis are not coordinating with Qataris at all; they are betting on different horses. Iran is not involved in anything in Egypt so far – apart from dragging Morsi or an underling to talks in Tehran during NAM.

David S.: Don’t you people agree that this feels like a uniquely fluid moment?

Amos Harel: David S, to continue with your line of thought: remember the date of “Cast Lead” — December 27, 2008, which fell in between Obama’s victory and inauguration. But as we were told when we were young IDF soldiers: “Every Saturday has a Saturday night”. Translation: Keep in mind there’s a price to pay later, for actions committed while you felt yourself untouchable (in the army, our commanders are not allowed to punish us during the weekend).

Pepe: I’m getting stuff from Tehran around the fact people care extremely worried about the concentration of power in Khamenei’s hands. He decides EVERYTHING – including the response in case of an attack.

Rotem Sella: It definitely seems that the confidence of Muslim Brothers is increasing, the fear of a coup is even less than it was a few days ago.

David S.: The moment things stabilize, they will stabilize in favor of Iran and against Israel. Right now, the Iranians are in trouble. And any major retaliation risks their remaining assets. Iran is weak, and everything they have from their nuclear program to their allies in the region is at risk right now is a way that may not be true a month from now, or two months from now.

Amos Harel: Keep in mind that everybody speaks of the autumn. Why not earlier? (I’m just theorizing here)

David G.: The threat is low everywhere except Egypt. Granting Pepe’s point that Iran’s direct reach into Egypt is de minimus, Qatar’s intervention to undermine SCAF definitely helps Iran — it removes an obstacle to attacks on Israel.

David S.: But if you imagine that the Salafists or the MB will control Egypt in the medium future, then this is the moment of least threat to Egypt from that direction, unless you imagine SCAF can regain solid control of the country under a new Mubarak.

David G.: David S., I agree with you: Tantawi’s departure is one more grain of sand on the scale on the side of an early strike.

David S.: If the MB is strong enough to cut Tantawi’s head off this morning, then SCAF isn’t going to be running Egypt tomorrow.

Amos Harel: There’s unofficial talk of an Obama-Bibi meeting in New York on September 26. This might even make it harder for Israel to strike between the meeting and the elections. Speaking of conspiracy theories, my editor, Aluf Benn, raised the possibility that Obama has in fact already agreed, though not enthusiastically, to an Israeli strike. I doubt this, myself.

Pepe: I read this Aluf Benn article. I’m not convinced.

David S.: Obama is in a harder position than it looks when it comes to dismantling the Israel-US relationship over an Israeli strike. His main foreign policy objective coming into office was nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. Plus, he doesn’t publicly do anything about Syria, so why harsh on Israel for doing something about Iran? Unless, of course, they fuck it up.

David G.: I agree that Obama won’t be able to do much to Israel if they strike, not, at least, before the election.

There has to be more to Egypt’s situation than Qatar: $2 billion is just the reserves they lost last month. Doesn’t last very long. With $30 billion in the bank Qatar can’t carry the burden alone. I wonder if the Obama administration has promised some money to back Morsi.

Pepe: The only “promise” is via the IMF.

David S.: I get the feeling that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Obama’s Mid-East policy. I think he simply decided it was a loser, and his job was to “get the US out of the Middle East.” If I were him I’d rather think about Asia.

Pepe: We could say the same about Obama’s Central Asia policy.

Amos Harel: If David is right and this is the case, it will be a major blow to 40-odd years of Ha’aretz editorials

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/13/romney-ryan-the-turnaround-boy

Who else but Paul Ryan for veep, indeed?

Mitt Romney’s choice of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan as his running mate demonstrates a boldness and strength in Romney that few other actions could have proved. Ryan is the best choice logically, politically, and substantively and, in Ryan, Mr. Romney has chosen a running mate that is his peer, not just a caboose on a long, heavy campaign train.

As I wroteback in April, Ryan is a fact-driven choice that will help Romney among all the key groups — conservatives, moderates, and independents alike — who can now be motivated enough to turn out and vote.

The first fact is that Ryan is Romney’s peer: a man of strong character and political achievements who could be a powerful part of a Romney administration. As the Almanac of American Politics says of Ryan, he is “regarded as an intellectual leader in the GOP for his unrivaled influence on fiscal matters.” That intellectual horsepower is one of the first things that come up whenever you talk to the people who know Ryan best, the House members who have worked with him for years.

One of them is Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), one of the strong conservatives who has been fighting the good fight against Obama’s spending spree. (Pence is running for governor of Indiana this year.) Shortly after Romney and Ryan appeared on Saturday announcing Ryan’s selection, Pence told me, “I have known and worked with Paul Ryan for the past twelve years and count him as a personal friend. Paul has the character, intellect and optimistic vision our next president will need at his side to turn this economy around and put Hoosiers back to work. Paul Ryan also possesses an understanding of the federal budget that our next administration will need to restore fiscal solvency and save future generations from massive deficits and debt.”

Ryan’s intellect is matched by his debating and speaking skills. In February 2010, at Obama’s “summit meeting” on Obamacare, Ryan –politely and firmly — schooled the president on the devastating impact Obamacare will have on the budget, on Medicare, and on our economy. After Joe Biden dissed the Republicans by saying they weren’t qualified to speak for the American people, Ryan told Obama: “…I respectfully disagree with the vice president about what the American people are or are not saying or whether we’re qualified to speak on their behalf. So we are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I’ve got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you’re not listening to them.” (It’s worth watching the whole six-minute video you’ll findhere.)

Ryan is the logical and substantive choice because Obama and congressional Dems have made it clear — by pre-emptively demonizing Ryan’s budget “Roadmap” — that they will make the roadmap a key issue this year. They want to continue demonizing it, making false accusations such as that it won’t cut the deficit and will destroy Medicare. Who better to not only defend it, but to take the fight to Obama and Biden than the man who wrote the Ryan Roadmap?

The latest version of the Ryan plan — which has twice passed the House by large margins — was scored in 2010 by the Congressional Budget Office. On January 27, 2010 CBO reported:

• Federal government debt and spending — on Obama’s course –will reach 223% of the Gross Domestic Product by 2040. Ryan’s plan reduces that to 99%. (That was before Obamacare, which adds –according to the Senate Budget Committee Republicans — about $17 trillion in unfunded debt over the next 75 years.)

Book: Holder pot raids distract from gun scandal
In late 2011, Attorney General Eric …
Read more…
U.S. ignores abuse of Christian women in Egypt
Nadia Ghaly’s cousin disappeared 40 …
Read more…
Obama invited to lunch with Morsi, Ahmadinejad
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi wi…
Read more…
House committee to file Holder contempt charges
CBS News has learned that the House …
Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz23QAvO0Wy
Social Security surplus dwindles as boomers retire
Associated Press
Sunday, August 12, 2012
News
As millions of baby boomers flood Social Security with applications for benefits, the program’s $2.7 trillion surplus is starting to look small. Since 2010, Social Security has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, adding to the urgency for Congress to address the program’s long-term finances. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz23QBL1E8D

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/robert-spencer/christie%e2%80%99s-embrace-of-islamo-fascists/ New Jersey Governor Chris Christie held an Iftar dinner at the Governor’s Mansion in late July. He took the opportunity to declare himself a foursquare tool of jihadists and Islamic supremacists, and even adopted their language in deriding those who have pointed out how he has allowed himself to be compromised by them. Christie […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/humberto-fontova/chick-fil-a-mayor-vernon-gray-and-%e2%80%9chate-speech-%e2%80%9d/print/

For expressing the opinion of the majority of voters in the 31 states where gay marriage was put to a vote, Chick-fil-A’s president Dan Cathy is accused of “hate speech” by D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray. Such is the mayor’s revulsion that he has threatened to mimic Lester Maddox circa 1962 and stand at his city gates wielding an ax handle to bar restaurant Chick-fil-A’s entry into his municipal domain.

Washington D.C’s black mayor is a prominent patron of his hometown restaurant/bookstore Busboys and Poets, billed by its owner as “The Cultural Hub of the Black Community,” and known as “a haven for writers, thinkers and performers from America’s progressive social and political movements.”

This restaurant features posters of Che Guevara on its walls and Che Guevara’s books in its adjoining bookstore. Busboys and Poets also sponsors tours of Cuba in partnership with Castro’s Stalinist regime. Every penny spent by Mayor Gray’s starry-eyed constituents on these Potemkin tours lands in the pockets of the only regime in the Western Hemisphere to herd thousands of men and boys into forced labor camps at Soviet-bayonet point for the crime of fluttering their eyelashes, flapping their hands and talking with a lisp. Every penny spent in Cuba by these progressive writers and artists enriches the only regime in the Western Hemisphere to fuel bonfires with Orwell’s Animal Farm, The UN Declaration of Human Rights and the writings of Martin Luther King Jr.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-thornton/what-the-ryan-choice-means-for-november/

Last week’s poll numbers seemingly confirmed the doubts about democracy’s viability expressed in last week’s column. After a barrage of outrageous smears fired off by the Obama campaign, which accused Romney of killing a woman with cancer and failing to pay any income tax, Obama is leading Romney by 7-9 points. Coming on top of the continuing approval of Obama’s economically disastrous, class-envious assault on the “rich,” the success of patent lies in improving Obama’s numbers makes one think that democracy’s critics may be right: most people lack the ability to see past their selfish, short-term interests and make electoral decisions that benefit the state as a whole.

But let’s not give up on democracy yet. Mitt Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate should give us hope that maybe a critical mass of Americans will rise above petty self-interest and do what must be done to keep the United States from morphing into California on its way to becoming Greece on steroids.

Judged solely on political expediency, Romney’s choice seems a disaster. According to “one of the country’s most prominent and influential conservatives,” as the Huffington Post claims of its anonymous commentator, Ryan is too much like Romney, a wonky white guy too polished and detached from the average American. Ryan, this unknown Solon continues, can’t deliver any electoral votes, is too obsessive about the deficit, has been tarred by his zeal to reform Medicare, and fails the “3 A.M. crisis call” test. No wonder some Democrats are happy about the choice. “Democrats are gleefully united in bashing Rep. Paul Ryan,” Politico’s John Bresnahan writes, “blasting him as the author of the controversial ‘Ryan budget,’ claiming his proposals ‘end Medicare,’ and warning that his policies will return the country to the ‘trickle-down economics’ of the 1980s and the presidency of George W. Bush.”