RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us/politics/in-shariah-gingrich-sees-mortal-threat-to-us.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
In Islamic Law, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to U.S.By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — Long before he announced his presidential run this year, Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that Shariah, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave as or graver than terrorism.

“I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. “I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”

Mr. Gingrich was articulating a much-disputed thesis in vogue with some conservative thinkers but roundly rejected by many American Muslims, scholars of Islam and counterterrorism officials. The anti-Shariah theorists say that just as communism posed an ideological and moral threat to America separate from the menace of Soviet missiles, so today radical Islamists are working to impose Shariah in a “stealth jihad” that is no less dangerous than the violent jihad of Al Qaeda.

“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Mr. Gingrich said in the speech. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Shariah.”

Echoing some Republicans in Congress, Mr. Gingrich blasted the Obama administration’s policy of declining to label terrorism carried out in the name of militant Islam as “Islamic” or “jihadist.” Administration officials say such labels can imply religious justification for a distortion of doctrine that most Muslims abhor, thus smearing an entire faith.

CONTINUE READING AT SITE

http://www.prudenpolitics.com/index.php/pruden/full_column/a_little_humility_at_the_crossroads “Climate research,” the New York Times confidently assures us, “stands at a crossroads.” This means that a lot of research scientists are standing at the crossroads, holding out paper bags like trick-or-treaters on Halloween night, standing in line for taxpayer largesse to fill ‘em up. These specialists in shakedown “science,” who speak only in […]

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/12/netanyahus-misleading-lessons.php Many of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s supporters were stunned last week when IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz announced he was promoting Brig.-Gen. Nitzan Alon to major general and appointing him to serve as the next commander of the Central Command. Alon completed a two-year tour of duty as Judea and Samaria Division […]

Obama’s Steep Uphill Reelection Battle Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought” “Israel Hayom” Newsletter, November 17, 2011 http://www.theettingerreport.com/OpEd/OpEd—Israel-Hayom/Obama-s-Steep-Uphill-Reelection-Battle.aspx Irrespective of the uninspiring slate of Republican presidential candidates, President Obama is facing a steep uphill reelection battle. The predicament of Obama’s presidency was highlighted during its best possible week – following the May 2, 2011 elimination […]

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2699/panetta-friedman-damn-table

Criticism of Leon Panetta’s demand that Israel “return to the damn table,” and Tom Friedman’s lament that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ovation before Congress “was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby” has been broad and deep. Writers from right to center (forget the left, who applauded both) denounced them, parsed them and tried to put them “in context.” It is the context that is worrisome rather than their less-than-lovely language. The context is that if Israel and the Palestinians would both negotiate seriously, they would get to the “Two State Solution” beloved of the US and the Quartet.

Grant Panetta and Friedman the “damn table” and see what happens:

IF Israel sat at the table; IF Netanyahu agreed to a permanent settlement freeze; IF the Palestinians returned to the table; IF the Palestinians came under the “moderate” mandate of Fatah rather than “extremist” mandate of Hamas; IF they started with the 1949 Armistice Lines (the so-called 67 borders); IF they talked themselves blue in the face, they STILL would not get where Panetta, Friedman, et. al. want them to go.

http://michaelcutler.net/ Hi Gang:  Here is my most recent commentary for the CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) website.  As you likely know, I have been intimately involved in the immigration issue for more than four decades.  I entered on duty with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) in October 1971 as an Immigration Inspector.  Four years […]

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1980/Please-Sign-1Lt-Michael-Behennas-Petition-for-Clemency.aspx A November update from Scott and Vicki Behenna (which I missed it when it arrived in my inbox last month): To the thousands of supporters of 1Lt Michael Behenna, It has been awhile since we sent out an update.  Michael’s lawyers have filed the petition to the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces […]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/12/16/newts-unpopular-truth-palestine-wasnt-even-a-country-100-years-ago

Newt’s unpopular truth: Palestine wasn’t even a country 100 years ago

Newt Gingrich got into all sorts of trouble a few days ago when he claimed: “There was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”

Newt, you’re completely correct, and this is one of the bravest and most intellectually informed things any of the Republican candidates have said so far.

Contrary to what you might hear from leftists, labour leaders, students and manipulative Arab activists carefully pulling on the emotional heart-strings of gullible westerners, the Palestinians as an identified group trace their ancestry not — as with the Jews — back thousands of years, but to 1920.

Until then, Arabs living in what we now know as Israel regarded themselves as Muslim or Christians, and not as Palestinians.

For centuries they had been subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and as Arabs did not recognize any particular national boundaries, and felt commonality with Muslims in Algeria or Yemen rather than Christians who lived in the next village.

Ottoman maps and records, and the writings of foreign travellers, do not speak of Palestine or Palestinians.

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/

***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.

First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here .

The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.

Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?

In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100013758/europes-blithering-idiots-and-their-flim-flam-treaty/
Europe’s blithering idiots and their flim-flam treaty

What remarkable petulance and stupidity.

The leaders of France and Germany have more or less bulldozed Britain out of the European Union for the sake of a treaty that offers absolutely no solution to the crisis at hand, or indeed any future crisis. It is EU institutional chair shuffling at its worst, with venom for good measure.

It is risky to reach instant conclusions on a fast-moving story but it looks as if the EU may soon be reduced to a shell, with a new union forming among the core.

Much has been said about whether David Cameron handled this well or badly. I leave that debate to my colleagues. What strikes me as a former EU correspondent is how threatening this is to the EU Project itself.

A country – and a large one – may start to disengage for the first time. The aura of historical inevitability that has swept Europe towards ever closer union for half a century has been punctured. Yes, Croatia will soon join, as Sarkozy chirped triumphantly, but that is not quite the same thing (no offence meant to the South Slavs).

Utter confusion will ensue over the legal structures of the EU. For whom will the European Commission work? For whom the European Court? It will be chaos for a while. This is the nightmare that fonctionnaires have always feared.

And what for? All this upheaval for a mess of pottage, a flim-flam treaty? The deal is not a “lousy compromise”, said Angela Merkel. Well, actually that is exactly what it is for eurozone politicians searching for a breakthrough.

It tarts up the old Stability Pact without changing the substance (although there will be prior vetting of budgets). This “fiscal compact” is not going to make to make the slightest impression on global markets, and they are the judges who matter in this trial by fire.