RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/30/sharia-in-moscow/

Sharia in MoscowPosted By Daniel Greenfield

“You think that we are coming here as foreigners, but we believe that we are at home here and maybe you are the foreigners. We will make those laws that suit us, whether you like it or not, and any attempts to change that will lead to spilled blood. There will be a second dead sea here and we will drown the city in blood.”

Those were not the words of some back alley preacher, but of noted Moscow lawyer, Dagir Khasavov, giving an interview to a television station about his proposal to implement Sharia courts in Russia. Interspersed with footage of death sentences being executed, Khasavov spoke about his new organization that would protect Muslim rights and claimed that his proposal was only the beginning of a worldwide expansion.

“We are going to expand this net, we will begin in Russia, first Asia, and then everything will be encompassed, as it was in the Caliphate,” Khasavov said. According to Khasavov, Russian security services already unofficially refer cases involving Muslims back to Sharia courts and his proposal to officially establish such courts would only legitimize the parallel justice system that already exists for the millions of Muslims who now live in Moscow and other cities.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/lessons_from_the_fall_of_saigon.html

The 37th anniversary of the fall of Saigon today is a good time to review the utility of American security promises — including those purchased with American blood — to countries fighting ideologically based insurgencies.

There were 540,000 Americans in Vietnam at the peak of the U.S. part of the war in January 1969. Precisely four years later, in January 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed, and the U.S. promised continuing support to South Vietnam, where nearly 2.6 million Americans had served and more than 58,000 had died. Eight months later, Congress voted to halt all combat operations, and by December, only 50 American military personnel were left in the South. President Nixon resigned in July 1974, and two weeks later Congress reduced aid to South Vietnam by one third. In late December, the North attacked positions in the South. In January 1975, the cross-border invasion began. The North Vietnamese military expected the war to take two years. On 21 January, President Ford told a press conference the U.S. was unwilling to re-enter the war. Three months and nine days later, Saigon fell.

Phuoc Long in January; An Loc, Ban Me Thuot, Quang Tri, Tam Ky, Hue, Chu Lai, and Danang in March; Qui Nhon, Tuy Hoa and Nha Trang on April 1; Xuan Loc held out almost two weeks; Saigon was encircled on the 27th, and three days later, the war was over. For the South Vietnamese, there was much more horror to come as they fell into the clutches of people who despised their beliefs and their way of life — into the clutches of violent ideological communists. An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges, 165,000 died in “re-education camps,” and 2 million impoverished and miserable people fled the country.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

DO LEFTIST FOLLIES GET YOU DOWN? DO YOU WORRY ABOUT DANGER TO ISRAEL AND THE WEST?DO YOU SEE THE THREAT OF RESURGENT ISLAM? ARE THE WARMISTS MAKING YOU HOT UNDER THE COLLAR?

GO TO THIS FABULOUS SITE AND SUPPORT THEIR WORK NOW.

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/forget-homeland-security-now-its-about-environmental-justice#ixzz1tW9iOqn4 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution   It is the nature of any government to seek to expand its authority. The Founding Fathers knew this and gifted Americans with a Constitution that limits authority devolving it to the states and to “the people.” Read the Tenth Amendment. It isn’t working. […]

Billions to Terror, But It’s For Your Safety

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/billions-to-terror-but-its-for-your-safety#ixzz1tW8AEAZd

The AFP reported on Friday,

President Barack Obama has signed a waiver to remove curbs on funding to the Palestinian Authority, declaring the aid to be “important to the security interests of the United States.”

We need first to understand that the US Congress froze a $192 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority last September after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas defied the US and sought to attain UN endorsement of Palestinian statehood.

The Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 states under section 7040 (a) PROHIBITION OF FUNDS,

None of the funds appropriated by this Act. may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.

Section 7040 (b) WAIVER states,

The prohibition included in subsection (a) shall not apply if the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations that waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.

In simple English, section ‘a’, “no funds to the Palestinian Authority” may be ‘waived’ according to section ‘b’ if “it is important to the national security interests of the United States.”

Obama has now signed a waiver and instructed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to inform Congress accordingly.

By citing section ‘b’ the ‘waiver’ Obama signed circumvents Congress and releases all funds immediately,

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7040(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division I, Public Law 112-74) (the “Act”), I hereby certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of section 7040(a) of the Act, in order to provide funds appropriated to carry out Chapter 4 of Part II of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to the Palestinian Authority.

BARACK OBAMA

Iranian naval admiral: ‘If needed, we can move to within three miles of New York’

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/iranian-naval-admiral-if-needed-we-can-move-to-within-three-miles-of-new-york?f=must_reads#ixzz1tW7Rvhf8

The Islamic Republic of Iran said Tuesday that it has the ability to position a naval vessel within three miles of the East Coast of the United States.

“The power of our naval forces is such that we have a presence in all the waters of the world and, if needed, we can move to within three miles of New York,” Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi said Tuesday during a speech to the students of the University of Yazd in Iran. His remarks were quoted by an Iranian student news agency.

This naval saber rattling represents a stark escalation in Iran’s war rhetoric, as the West weighs the question of whether to impose new economic sanctions or directly attack the Islamic regime’s illicit nuclear facilities.

“The Americans’ only tool to rule the world is their naval dominance of the Persian Gulf,” Fadavi added, “and they will face any other power that threatens their status.”

The admiral was speaking on the anniversary of a failed April 24, 1980 U.S. military operation – dubbed “Operation Eagle Claw” – that sought to rescue American hostages held captive at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

A Pentagon official responded to Fadavi’s claim on Friday. “You should ask the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps what their plans are,” the official told The Daily Caller. “We support freedom of the seas and encourage all countries to follow international laws.”

But on Friday, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iran’s top air force commander, told the Fars New Agency that the Islamic republic’s military is also capable of crippling or disabling U.S. aircraft carriers.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ Controlling a large number of people isn’t easy. The United States alone consists of 312 million people spread out across nearly 4 million square miles. Add on nearly 500 million for the population of the European Union and another nearly 4 million square miles of territory. Then pile on Canada with 34 million people […]

http://www.romirowsky.com/11621/peace-process

THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY FOR ANY ARAB SOVEREIGNTY BETWEEN THE PRE 1967 LINES AND THE JORDAN RIVER….PERIOD….RSK

Something has gone horribly wrong with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s recent decision not to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is only the latest example and reason for the widespread pessimism about its trajectory.

The so-called Middle East conflict has grown more rather than less intractable since Palestinian and Israeli leaders began their efforts to resolve it through negotiations. Indeed, almost two decades of negotiations have failed to convince Palestinian and Israeli leaders of a way to share the land and its resources. And in fact the core of the conflict is more about co-existing on the same land than just dividing it.

Perhaps the realization of how many dreams would remain unfulfilled if the compromises necessary for an agreement were struck convinced politicians on both sides that resolving the dispute would be more costly and unpopular than perpetuating it.

Perhaps, both sides have clung more tightly to their national narratives than to proposals to be exchanged for concessions because discussions, themselves, disclosed the gap, not so much between the two sets of negotiators, but rather between reality and the dreams ordinary Palestinians and Israelis have been encouraged to imagine of the final resolution.

At the very least, national narratives give Israelis and Palestinians a clear definition of their collective identities even if they lock them into their confrontation.

For Palestinians, a narrative etched in the injustices of exile and oppression is preferred to the founding of a state that leaves behind too many refugees stuck in the same camps created for what was believed a temporary displacement. For Israelis, whose national story is woven around the survival of the Jewish people, it is preferable to retain control over territories serving as staging ground for attacks – even though the patrols, checkpoints, and the separation barrier are often described as marks of oppression – than surrendering the land without a clear Palestinian commitment to stop their wars and end their grievances against the Jewish state.

So, the conflict persists; the negotiations are deadlocked and the calls by the international community through the Quartet for compromise and negotiations seem more akin to linguistic rituals than to imperatives for action.

Thus, a peace process cannot be successful unless the tight grip of narratives sustaining the conflict is dislodged. And they can only start to loosen if both Palestinians and Israelis begin to have different experiences of one another and of the two states a solution is expected to produce.
Focus on state building

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/three_murderous_ideologies_nazism_communism_and_militant_islam.html Militant Islam has far more in common with Nazism and Communism than it does with any genuine religious faith. All three have two common elements: (1) the openly stated intention to rule the entire world and (2) a claim to the right to deport, oppress, re-educate, or exterminate those who do not fit into […]

By: Amil Imani with James H. Hyde

http://amilimani.com/2012/04/the-biggest-cover-up-in-american-history/

In our previous article, “Exonerating President Obama”, we noted that the only Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution appears to be the Judge Harlan dissent in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. In collaboration with a constitutional attorney, we have examined the subject matter further.

We believe that to understand the complexity of this issue it will be essential to have an understanding of the place that the concepts of “Natural Law” and the book titled Law of Nations had obtained in the run up to the War of Independence with Great Britain. These concepts of natural law were commonly used throughout the colonies to explain, defend and justify the colonists’ contentions in our dispute with Great Britain. Our investigation leaves no doubt that the Founding Fathers of our nation clearly understood the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and its relation to Natural Law and Law of Nations. When you have finished studying our research you will also understand that these terms were used in the Declaration of Independence as well as in our Constitution and in the constitutions of a large number of states written at the same time as the Constitutional Convention was in session.

This background understanding will clarify why the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention elected to include “natural born Citizen” in the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President of our nation and what it truly means.

In this article we will prove beyond all doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and is thus ineligible to be President of the United States.

Citations following the textual part of this article are not simply to provide you the references that support our assertions. They also provide you citations to reading material that will help you understand the 1770 period in our History. To understand our reasoning, it is important that the reader understands the Colonial people, and especially the Founders with their educational backgrounds, their political fears and the nation’s interrelationship with other nations at the time leading up to the War of Independence. In this short article we could not provide all those dimensions, but we hope the reader will study the references to fully understand the time period during which these things took place. Unfortunately there are citations to books which are not available to download online, so to get the whole picture, the reader will need to find a library to borrow the needed materials.

1. In the time frame of 1740—1790, “Natural Law” had grown from the 17th century studies of the early enlightenment philosophers (Grotius, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, de Wolf) into a reason-based concept that was based on the fact that all humans have inherent animal qualities that contribute to laws worldwide that are essentially the same.

2. Emer de Vattel, a Swiss scholar, published a now world famous work titled Law of Nations in French in 1758. The Vattel work built upon the earlier philosophy of Natural Law, especially that of de Wolf. But what made Vattel’s work so famous was his adoption of a more modern and easier-to-understand format, which was written like a scientific thesis. It started out with definitions that were worked into the initial textual material in a manner very different from the heavy, incomprehensible writing style of the earlier philosophers. His work is written like a modern do-it-yourself project where he captured the entire history and essence of Natural Law but mixed it into a means to build a new nation based on a new type of constitution or a way of establishing an acceptable set of rules for running a nation in a common sense manner based on the experience of political science as it developed over the centuries.