RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mayor-365812-menino-gay.html

To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but aldermanic power corrupts all der more manically. Proco “Joe” Moreno is Alderman of the First Ward of Chicago, and last week, in a city with an Aurora-size body count every weekend, his priority was to take the municipal tire-iron to the owners of a chain of fast-food restaurants. “Because of this man’s ignorance,” said Alderman Moreno, “I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward.”

“This man’s ignorance”? You mean, of the City of Chicago permit process? Zoning regulations? Health and safety ordinances? No, Alderman Moreno means “this man’s ignorance” of the approved position on same-sex marriage. “This man” is Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A, and a few days earlier he had remarked that “we are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives” – which last part suggests he is as antipathetic to no-fault divorce and other heterosexual assaults on matrimony as he is to more recent novelties such as gay marriage. But no matter. Alderman Moreno does not allege that Chick-fil-A discriminates in its hiring practices or in its customer service. Nor does he argue that business owners should not be entitled to hold opinions: The Muppets, for example, have reacted to Mr. Cathy’s observations by announcing that they’re severing all ties with Chick-fil-A. Did you know that the Muppet Corporation has a position on gay marriage? Well, they do. But Miss Piggy and the Swedish Chef would be permitted to open a business in the First Ward of Chicago because their opinion on gay marriage happens to coincide with Alderman Moreno’s. It’s his ward, you just live in it. When it comes to lunch options, he’s the chicken supremo, and don’t you forget it.

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/muslim-mob-rule-in-marseilles-police.html
THE NATIONAL HYMN OF FRANCE IS “LA MARSEILLAISE” …..WILL THEY CHANGE THE LYRICS?…”LE JOUR D’ALLAH EST ARRIVE?”

Muslim Mob Rule in Marseilles: Police Attacked While Doing Burka Check, Attackers Released Without Charge

There have been a few attacks on police in France and Belgium while they were conducting burka checks. But this is the first time the state has taken the side of the attackers. With a 40% Muslim demographic in Marseilles and 93% of Muslims voting Socialist, the police can expect a lot more betrayal from Socialist politicians, including the new Hollande government.

In the restive port city of Marseille, police fear that the release of four people arrested for allegedly attacking officers during an ID check on a woman wearing an Islamic veil will undermine their fight against violent crime in the city.

By FRANCE 24 (text)

Marseille police say three of its officers were injured in the early hours of July 25 when a mob of some 50 people tried to prevent them from checking the identity of a woman who was wearing a full Islamic veil.

Under a controversial law passed in 2010, wearing a full veil or covering one’s face in a public place is illegal in France and offenders must submit to ID checks.

According to the police, the woman was stopped just after midnight near a city mosque and refused to cooperate with the officers.

A man accompanying her as well as a large group of bystanders came to her aid and three officers were “lightly injured” in a scuffle.

After police reinforcements arrived, four people, including the 18-year-old woman named only as “Louise-Marie”, were arrested for allegedly assaulting the officers – but were promptly released with a warning on the orders of the city prosecutor.

According to an AFP source, the decision was “a gesture of appeasement during the holy [Islamic] month of Ramadan.”

‘Astonished’

“What kind of message does this send out?” asked David-Olivier Reverdy, head of the Alliance police union. “We are absolutely astonished.”

He told FRANCE 24 the prosecutor’s decision would have “heavy consequences” in a city where “gun crime and ultra-violence is common” and where relations between city residents and local law enforcement are “particularly tense”.

“The prosecutor has given carte blanche to criminals in Marseille,” he said. “The message is that they can behave with impunity. It is extremely worrying.”

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3212/bbc-olympics-israel It is ironic that the BBC should be aware of this Palestinian declaration, which has never been implemented — a 1988 claim to Jerusalem — but unaware of the 3000 years of Jewish history, in which Jerusalem has been the cardinal and capital feature politically, religiously and historically. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has […]

http://www.sdjewishworld.com/2012/07/26/uc-reports-clarify-cloud-campus-controversies-over-middle-east/

ENCINITAS, California — When students return to University of California classes in the Fall, those who are involved in or interested in the debates about Israel or Palestinians will have two new reports to chew on. Similarly, faculty who may be affected by the reports will have to face tensions between their own career interests and ideological leanings. The two reports offer quite a contrast.

On July 9, the University of California Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion issued its reports on matters affecting Jewish and Muslim students. The Advisory Council was established in June 2010 by UC President Mark Yudoff following a number of incidents at UC campuses of harassment of Jewish students and speakers and castigation of Israel by pro-Palestinian campus groups. Following a progress report, it was decided by the Council to also do a report on the position of Muslim students.

There are no reports of a split among the Advisory Council members, indeed none may be characterized as conservative. However, the composition of the subgroups that issued the two reports indicates a notable difference in degrees of expertise and objectivity. Similarly, the fact that there are two reports issued by two subgroups of the Advisory Council, rather than one signed by all, does not lead me to see unanimity of interests. That may be just that different Council members did different tasks, but a unified report would lead to less contention about the recommendations.

The report on Jewish students is by the president of the California NAACP, Alice Huffman, and a renowned attorney who is also a national leader of the Anti-Defamation League, Rick Barton. The report on Muslim students was compiled by two Muslims, Jihad Turk, Director of Religious Affairs of the Islamic Council of Southern California, and Armaan Rowther, an undergrad Public Health student at UC Irvine; Nan Senzaki, a Japanese-American clinical social worker at UC Davis with professional interests in diversity issues; and Tyrone Howard, an education professor at UCLA and director of the Black Male Institute.

The report on Jewish students http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/documents/campus_climate_jewish.pdf states: “The anti-Zionism and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movements and other manifestations of anti-Israel sentiment and activity create significant issues through themes and language which portray Israel and, many times, Jews in ways which project hostility, engender a feeling of isolation, and undermine Jewish students’ sense of belonging and engagement with outside communities….What came through in our discussions, however, was a sense from Jewish students and others of a double standard when it comes to the themes and language used by those protesting Israel and its policies. Specifically, Jewish students described the use of language and imagery which they believe would not be tolerated by faculty and administration, or would at least be denounced with more force, if similar themes and language were directed at other groups on campus.”

Although Jewish students are diverse in their views, including of Israel, prominent on many campuses, and active on social justice issues, “Jewish students detailed how being a supporter of Israel can limit those opportunities. Many described being denied access to work with organizations dedicated to issues of social justice specifically because of the stance those non-Jewish student organizations have taken regarding Israel.” Particularly, Jewish students pointed out “fear and intimidation were an annual occurrence” with regard to “a movement which targets Israel and Zionism through an ongoing campaign of protests, anti-Israel/anti-Zionism “weeks,” and, on some campuses, the use of the academic platforms to denounce the Jewish state and Jewish nationalist aspirations….On every campus pro-Zionist Jewish students described an environment in which they feel isolated and many times harassed and intimidated by students, faculty and outsiders who participate in these activities. Most often students expressed the perception of a double standard, insensitivity, and a lack of understanding on the part of faculty and administrators regarding the depth of what Jewish students experience as a result of a movement that is directed at the Jewish state using imagery and accusations evocative of historical campaigns against Jews.” Specific instances are cited.

Faculty and administrators come in for criticism as adding to the problem: “Students also described encounters with faculty in class and outside which they believe raise serious questions regarding faculty members’ objectivity regarding the conflict in the Middle East. They described instances of overt hostility toward Jewish or other students who try to express contrary viewpoints on the subject. Students questioned how these activities can be reconciled with the desire of the universities to promote scholarship and Principles of Community.

One of the most significant issues expressed by Jewish students, faculty and community members is their difficulty with sponsorship by university departments, campus organizations and others of events which are very clearly designed to promote themes which are biased and unbalanced in their portrayal of Zionism and Israel. The students indicated that University administrative offices, such as multicultural or cross cultural centers, sponsor student organization events that are dominated by groups adopting anti-Zionist platforms.”

The report states that Jewish students do distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, and are respectful of First Amendment freedoms of speech. “Notwithstanding, pro-Zionist Jewish students and faculty perceive a difference in how the movement against Israel and Zionism is viewed and addressed by those in faculty and administration responsible for dealing with campus climate. There is a perceived gap in the level of appreciation by administrators for how the Jewish community sees these protests. That is reflected in the absence of Jewish student representation on the most of the individual campus Climate Councils.” The report concludes on this, “The Principles of Community operate under the assumption that not all speech is protected. Words and accusations which at their core demean, defame and degrade must be addressed and denounced.”

The report’s recommendations include a suggestion that the University of California should review its policies on university sponsorship of “biased events”; “UC should push its current harassment and nondiscrimination provisions further, clearly define hate speech in its guidelines, and seek opportunities to prohibit hate speech on campus;” and most importantly as a recognition of how far many pro-Palestinians on campuses have strayed from civil discourse, “UC should adopt a UC definition of anti-Semitism and provide model protocol for campuses to identify contemporary incidents of anti-Semitism, which may be sanctioned by University non-discrimination or anti-harassment policies.” The report offered, for example, the European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism.

Ken Marcus, president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, who when at the US Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division extended Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students from harassment on campus, in a Jerusalem Post op-ed http://brandeiscenter.com/index.php?/publications/research_opinion_full/fighting_anti_semitism_at_the_u_of_california called it a “remarkable report.” Marcus commented, “For a university to solve its anti-Semitism problem, it needs to acknowledge that it has a problem, and doing so means adopting a clear definition which describes the situations that may properly be called anti-Semitic. These are important, long overdue reforms.”

The report on Muslim and Arab students http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/documents/campus_climate_muslim-arab.pdf takes a – to say the least – a different tack. It begins with a broad-brush assertion that sets the tone: “Islamophobia and xenophobia seemingly have since [9/11] become commonplace in American society. This is a national context that does not stop at the boundaries of a college campus.”

This contradicts FBI statistics http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/27/99767/hate-crimes-against-muslims-rare.html of hate crimes which show a relatively small incidence against Muslims, and a disproportionately high incidence against Jews.

The report singles out several severe critics of Islam or Islamists, as if indicative of all, and, thereby ignores the preponderance of commenters, who are moderate in their analyses, such as this article in the influential libertarian Reason magazine. http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/18/fear-of-a-muslim-america

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11968#.UBLd2aPl3_Z

“Western governments have yet to learn that the more they appease Islamist regimes, the weaker they appear to them, the less they fear us, and the more dangerous they become.”

When Samuel Huntington wrote his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, politicians considered it to be off the wall – that is, until a beautiful Tuesday morning in New York City on September 11, 2001. They didn’t understand it then, and they still don’t.

We in the West know what we desire, so we project that desire onto others who come from an entirely different culture and mindset – and to make matters worse, we develop policies based on these delusionary paradigms. That’s what we’ve done vis-à-vis the Arab world, and especially the so-called “Arab Spring”.

As products of the European Renaissance, we assumed that the vast majority of the Arab world wanted liberal democracy, free enterprise and all the benefits that come with it like freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, gender equality, and the like. The reality however is quite different.

Today, the greatest threat facing world peace is the enormous cultural abyss that separates the Islamic world from the Western world. So vast are the cultural and societal differences that separate us, that Western leaders should not have been surprised when the Arab Spring turned out to be an Arab Winter.

Elections, for better or for worse, are determined by demographics and in Egypt, the demographics and popular thinking were clear long before its parliamentary and presidential elections. Either we just weren’t listening or, if we were, we drew the wrong conclusions.

Take for example two Gallup polls conducted in Egypt back in 2008 and again in 2010 …. 95% of Egyptians want Islam to have greater influence in politics; 64% want Islamic Sharia law to be the basis for legislation; 54% support the separation of men and women in public places; 82% support the stoning of women as punishment for adultery, and 84% endorse the death penalty for apostates who leave Islam.

It is attitudes such as these that have now delivered Egypt into the arms of Islam, or, more specifically, into the arms of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, who, in the space of a few years, will begin introducing Sharia into the daily lives of almost 90 million Egyptians.

A fundamental aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy speaks of restoring its ancient Islamic Caliphate most notably in Southern Spain, but the irony is that it can’t possibly do so without opening Egyptian society to new ideas and fostering an Islamic Renaissance – something both the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist supporters are ideologically and religiously opposed to and fundamentally incapable of doing in any event.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=279083 Reinventing America or uninventing America: That is how the choice between Romney and Obama ought to be presented. Photo: Brian Snyder / Reuters A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always […]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-signs-israel-military-aid-bill-eve-romney-165237880.html

On the eve of Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel, President Barack Obama signed into law a military aid bill for that staunch American ally at a much-publicized White House ceremony that highlighted the political advantages of incumbency.

“What this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really, at an unprecedented level between our two countries that underscore our unshakable commitment to Israel security,” Obama said as he signed the measure at his desk in the Oval Office.

The president also announced he would speed another $70 million to Israel to advance the so-called “Iron Dome” short-range missile defense system, a response to sustained rocket fire from Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

“This is a program that has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for the Israeli families,” he said. “We are standing by our friends in Israel when it comes to these kinds of attacks.”

The signing ceremony, a relatively uncommon event in the Obama White House, fit a pattern this week of the administration trumpeting relations with Britain, Israel and Poland—the three countries on Romney’s trip overseas to polish his diplomatic credentials.

“I hope that, as I sign as this bill, once again everybody understands how committed all of us are—Republicans and Democrats—as Americans to our friends in making sure that Israel is safe and secure,” said Obama.

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/27/huma-abedins-brotherhood-ties-are-not-just-a-family-affair/?print=1

Senator John McCain’s claim that concerns about Huma Abedin are a smear based on “a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations” proves more embarrassing by the day. In fact, to the extent it addressed Ms. Abedin, the letter sent to the State Department’s inspector general by five House conservatives actually understated the case.

The letter averred that Abedin “has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” It turns out, however, that Abedin herself is directly connected to Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda. Abedin worked for a number of years at the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs as assistant editor of its journal. The IMMA was founded by Naseef, who remained active in it for decades, overlapping for several years with Abedin. Naseef was also secretary general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world. In that connection, he founded the Rabita Trust, which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda.

You ought to be able to stop right there.

A person is not required to have done anything wrong to be denied a high-ranking government position, or more immediately, the security clearance allowing access to classified information that is necessary to function in such a job. There simply need be associations, allegiances, or interests that establish a potential conflict of interest.

Government jobs and access to the nation’s secrets are privileges, not rights. That is why the potential conflict needn’t stem from one’s own associations with hostile foreign countries, organizations, or persons. Vicarious associations, such as one’s parents’ connections to troublesome persons and organizations, are sufficient to create a potential conflict.

In this instance, however, before you even start probing the extensive, disturbing Brotherhood ties of her family members, Huma Abedin should have been ineligible for any significant government position based on her own personal and longstanding connection to Naseef’s organization.

Specifically, Ms. Abedeen was affiliated with the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, where she was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

The IMMA was founded in the late 1970s by Abdullah Omar Naseef, who was then the vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The IMMA’s chief product was to be its journal. For the important position of managing editor, Naseef recruited his fellow academic Zyed Abedin, who had been a visiting professor at the university in the early 1970s.

To join the IMMA, Dr. Abedin moved his family, including infant daughter Huma (born in 1976), to Saudi Arabia from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Zyed’s wife, Saleha Mahmood Abedin (Huma’s mother), is also an academic and worked for the journal from its inception. She would eventually take it over after her husband died in 1993, and she remains its editor to this day. Huma Abedin’s brother Hassan, another academic, is an associate editor at the journal.

The journal began publishing in 1979. For its initial edition, Abdullah Omar Naseef — identified in the masthead as “Chairman, Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs” — penned a brief introduction relating the IMMA’s vision for the journal. Zyed Abedin appeared as managing editor in the journal’s second edition in 1979, proclaiming in a short introduction his “deep appreciation to H.E. Dr. Abdullah O. Naseef, President, King Abdulaziz University, for his continued guidance, support, and encouragement.” (I am indebted to the Center for Security Policy, which obtained some copies of the journal, going back many years.)

Not long after the journal started, Naseef became the secretary general of the Muslim World League, the Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.

We are not talking here about some random imam in the dizzying alphabet soup of Islamist entities. In the pantheon of Islamic supremacism, there are few positions more critical than secretary general of the Muslim World League. In fact, one of the MWL’s founders was Sa’id Ramadan, the right-hand and son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s legendary founder.

The MWL manages the “civilization jihad” — the Brotherhood’s commitment to destroy the West from within, and to “conquer” it by sharia proselytism (or dawa), as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s top sharia jurist, puts it.
Nevertheless, the MWL has a long history of deep involvement in violent jihad as well.

It was under MWL auspices in 1988 that Naseef created a “charity” called the Rabita Trust. The scare-quotes around “charity” are intentional. To direct the Rabita Trust, Naseef selected Wael Hamza Jalaidan. A few years earlier, Jalaidan had joined with Osama bin Laden to form al-Qaeda.

This would surprise you only if you waste your time listening to John McCain, Version 2012 — as opposed to John McCain, Version 2011, who professed himself “unalterably opposed” to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Under the Brotherhood’s interpretation of sharia, which is explained in such works as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, all Muslims are supposed to donate a portion of their income. This obligation, known as zakat, is usually referred to as “charity” by Islamists and their Western pom-pom waivers. But it is not charity; it is fortification of the ummah – the notional global community of Muslims.

Klein: Obama plans mass amnesty in second term
FoxNews.com
Friday, July 27, 2012
Commentary

Among President Obama’s second-term plans: An expansive, de facto amnesty program for illegal aliens via both executive order and interagency directives linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol. Read more…
Romney: Israel deserves better than Obama
Israel National News
Friday, July 27, 2012
News

Israel deserves better treatment than it has received from President Obama, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz21q8J6Le9
Lebanese judo team won’t practice next to Israelis
The Times of Israel
Friday, July 27, 2012
News
Lebanese judo team won’t practice next to Israelis

The Lebanese judo team at the 2012 London Olympics refused to practice next to the Israeli one on Friday afternoon, and a makeshift barrier was erected to split their gym into two halves. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz21qFRSp5m

http://times247.com/articles/25the-islamist-in-the-white-house6 The Muslim Brotherhood is on the rise. The Islamist group is spreading across the Middle East. The question is whether it has infiltrated the Obama administration, especially the State Department. Led by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a band of House Republican conservatives is investigating the reach of the Muslim Brotherhood. For this, they […]