RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/putins-ruthless-power-an-ex-kgb-agent-on-the-glazov-gang/print/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ex-KGB Agent Konstantin Preobraszhensky who discussed, The Tragic Fate of American POWs in Russia, unveiling a disturbing tale of how Putin blocked the search for U.S. prisoners of war in Russia under the guise of cooperation with the American government. [Starts at the 9:40 mark].

[For more info, see Frontpage’s Symposiums: Why We Left Our POWs Behind and The POWs the Communists Kept.]

Preobraszhensky also shed light on Putin’s Ruthless Power and The Dismal State of Freedom in Russia:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-much-hatred-of-israel-is-too-much/

The Israelophobic left is a spectrum of hatred that stretches from the commonplace mainstream media basher who pounds out innumerable columns blaming Israel for everything wrong with the Middle East to the Gilad Atzmons and Israel Shamirs who claim that Israel is evil because the Jews are the devil.

Within that spectrum, everyone agrees that Israel is really bad and more responsible for international Muslim terrorism than the Muslim terrorists who are actually carrying it out. But that catechism of Israelophobic progressives is only a surface rationalization for the underlying hatred.

Opposition to Israel has never been rational or objective. It has always been emotional and subjective.

The left’s opposition to Zionism began as a toxic mixture of bigotry and self-hatred; influenced by everything from Karl Marx’s declaration that Jews were the embodiment of capitalism to Lenin’s denunciation of the illegitimacy of Jewish nationhood.

The left’s antipathy to Jews was always entangled with its antipathy to Israel. That is why there is no “New Anti-Semitism”. The virulent hatred of the left for Israel and the Jews is not a new phenomenon. And like all hatred, it has no bottoming out point.

Reasonable opposition has a natural limit. Emotional hatred has none. Opposition to Israel has no end point and few objectives except the ultimate expression of its hatred.

West must stop appeasing efforts to ban criticism of Islam

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4345/west_must_stop_appeasing_efforts_to_ban_criticism_of_islam

It is no accident that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It is also no accident that there is no such absolute provision in the Arab and Islamic world.

On the contrary, for at least fifteen years a concerted effort has been made by Islamic organizations, particularly the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.

This effort of the OIC has led to calls for controls of free speech in democratic countries as well as implementation of repression in its own member states. Although this OIC objective and its consequences have become familiar, it is puzzling that the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, did not resist it but rather seemed to compromise with it.

It should have been obvious that major international organs have been manipulated by the OIC to suppress speech. Each year from 1999 until 2010, one of the countries of the 57 member-state OIC, often Pakistan, has proposed resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) outlawing “defamation of religions.”

Rather than protection of religions in general, the intent of all the resolutions that have been passed is to declare criticism of Islam illegal and therefore punishable. More recently, OIC-inspired resolutions have condemned and called for penalization of what they term “Islamophobia.”

However, the number of states approving such resolutions has been declining. The OIC is aware of the fact that democratic countries have become alert to the fact that infringements of free speech result from any implementation of supposed “defamation” resolutions.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4346/totalitarianism_is_back_in_fashion

With the terrifying tenacity of a cancer once thought cured that will never go away, totalitarianism is back in fashion. The “crisis of capitalism”, to use the deluded vocabulary of the latest generation of totalitarians, once again makes Marx “relevant”.

For those influenced by Karl Popper’s magnificent tour de force The Open Society and its Enemies, it will be no suprise that a new wave of people and movements against the free society has emerged, and is fired up with a new confidence. Popper’s argument was that, going back to Plato, we are engaged in a world-historic philosophical struggle between the supporters and the opponents of a freedom oriented political society.

The struggle does not end.

This is but a short missive, which will be followed up later. Consider, for now, an offering from Britain’s leading leftist political magazine, the New Statesman, which (online at least) we regard as now superior in its content and influence to the increasingly life-style oriented Guardian’s Comment is free.

The piece in question is about the “radicalisation” — get the vocab? — of Leftists in the United States. Authored by Max Strasser, here are the central points of the piece, with our queries:

1. (via the summary) “Every time I’ve come home to the US from my home abroad over the past four years, I notice a trend among people of my demographic: they have become increasingly politicised – and increasingly radical.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 and has been trying very hard to demonstrate the threat of a dangerous human influence on climate due to the emission of greenhouse gases. This is in line with their Charter, which directs the IPCC to assemble reports in support of the Global Climate Treaty — the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) of Rio de Janeiro.

It is interesting that IPCC “evidence” was based on peer-reviewed publications – but (reluctantly) abandoned only after protracted critiques from outside scientists. E-mails among members of the IPCC team, revealed in the 2009 ‘Climategate’ leak, describe their strenuous efforts to silence such critiques, often using unethical methods.

I will show here that the first three IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an argument that seems to be circular and does not support their conclusion. Australian Prof. “Bob” Carter, marine geologist and paleo-climatologist, refers to IPCC as using “hocus-pocus” science. He is a co-author of the latest (2013) NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) report “Climate Change Reconsidered-II” www.climatechangereconsidereed.org . We also co-authored a critique of the 2013 IPCC-AR5 Summary

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6283

Who would have thought it would come to this — the Frenchinterceding to block a giveaway deal to Iran on its nuclear weapons program, a deal advanced enthusiastically by the United States? On the other hand, the Obama administration’s rapture for a deal that would involve empty Iranian promises in exchange for real hard cash to be released to the mullahs with sanctions relief, is not at all surprising.

As Daniel Pipes argued, a second term for U.S. President Barack Obama was bound to lead to this:

“I wrote before the last presidential election that Israel’s troubles will really begin should Obama win a second term. At Obama’s second inauguration, I predicted that he, freed from re-election constraints, can finally express his early anti-Zionist views after a decade of political positioning. Watch for a markedly worse tone from the second Obama administration toward the third Netanyahu government.”

Obama is now finished with elections, unless he seeks the U.N. secretary-general’s post (for which he is eminently qualified with his anti-Zionism). He is done fundraising from his many liberal Jewish “friends” in Hollywood and Wall Street, who always cared a lot more for his policies on abortion, or for business favors he could deliver, or ambassadorships, than they did about Israel, assuming they cared about Israel at all.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/11/10/who-said-this-about-jews-the-way-they-talk-walk-the-way-they-greet-each-other-there-is-a-vulgarity-of-character-that-is-bone-deep-and-structural-to-the-skeletal-vertebrae-of-its-culture/
“The way they talk, walk, the way they greet each other, there is a vulgarity of character that is bone deep and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture”
HINT: It wasn’t Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden. It is an Iranian-American professor at Columbia University, Hamid Dabashi, Chairman of the Department of Middle East Languages and Cultures.

Professor Hamid Dabashi is a Columbia department chairman, who calls supporters of Israel “Gestapo apparatchiks” and wanted to sue CNN for biased coverage of 9/11. Hamid Dabashi, the head of Middle East Languages and Cultures, was accused of, among other things, canceling classes to attend, and to permit his students to attend, a pro-Palestinian rally on campus that featured a call for Israel’s destruction. In his own public statements and writings, however, Dabashi has concocted a scenario of the Middle East in which Israel not only has no legitimate place but can hardly be said to exist, except as an unnamed Dark Force.

Among Dabashi’s notorious opinions: From NY Daily News (h/t Gary)
” The Jewish homeland is “nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States.
” It’s a capital of “thuggery” – a “ghastly state of racism and apartheid” – and it “must be dismantled.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=3005ff3b85&e=552053f981

As delegates were flying in from all over the world to attend COP 19, the years most important UN climate summit in Warsaw, CFACT delivered the keynote addresses at a European climate conference with a different twist.

Co-hosted by the Polish Globalization Institute, Solidarity and other Polish NGOs and joined by groups from several other countries, the conference took aim at the UN’s version of global warming science, economics and politics.

The UN made a mistake when it chose Poland for COP 19. I’ve now had the chance to speak intimately about this issue with scores of concerned Poles and to address hundreds more at the conference. The majority of Polish citizens feel that a UN climate treaty threatens their hard-won independence and economic future.

Poles have a great deal to teach about the kind of common sense UN members should apply to global warming. The Poles have lived under repressive socialist control and never want to go back. When they hear citizens from rich western nations extolling the virtues of redistribution and government control, the laugh, sigh and remind them that “nobody really understands good sense, unless they were occupied by the Soviets.”

After numerous presentations on climate science and politics, the highlight of the conference was the signing of the Warsaw Declaration by representatives of Poland, Italy, France, Hungary, Sweden, Germany, the U.K., the U.S. and others. After numerous recitations of the facts, the Declaration states clearly that the UN should not adopt any climate treaty considering the many failures of climate models and the IPCC’s highly politicized science.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/print/obamas-iranian-deal-is-a-new-disaster

The headline of the lead, page one article in The Wall Street Journal on Friday, November 8 was “U.S., Iran Close In on Nuclear Deal” with a sub-headline “West Set to Ease Some Financial Sanctions in Exchange for Tehran Freezing Most Advance Work.’ Secretary of State John Kerry cut short a visit to Middle East states, including Israel, returning to Geneva where the deal was reportedly close to being signed.

We now know that Obama began to ease financial sanctions before the latest negotiations began. He did so secretly.

Shades of “Munich” and the infamous 1938 deal with the Nazi regime that a British Prime Minister promised would bring “peace in our time.” That level of naiveté resulted in World War Two which began a year later when Germany invaded Poland after negotiating a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union that was itself later invaded.

You don’t make deals with rogue nations. They never keep their word. One example is North Korea, a nuclear nation. Another is Iran that intends to be a nuclear nation.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/us-iran-deal-on-nuclear-weapons?f=puball

A presumptive deal between the United States and Iran to curb the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions is regarded in the White House as a breakthrough, cutting the Gordian knot between intractability and persistence. Yet before the acclamation begins a cautionary note is warranted.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said, “I believe that adopting them [the deal proposals] is a mistake of historic proportions.” There is much to suggest that he is right.

For one thing, perhaps most notably, Iran retains the capability of making nuclear weapons. The deal – described as unfolding – merely freezes the most advanced aspects of its nuclear program, including the production of near-weapons-grade fuel. With uranium enriched at the twenty-percent level as is presently the case, Iran can probably produce six Hiroshima like atom bombs today. Moreover, it possesses the missiles to deliver them over a 1000 kilometer distance.

Second, Iranian leaders have been known to lie. The assurances offered in the past have disappeared like soap bubbles. After all, negotiations of one kind or another have been going on for decades. Prime Minister Rouhani, in his previous role, was the chief Iranian negotiator at a diplomatic table with American and European representatives. Despite his pleasant smile and moderate demeanor, he is a jihadist who is eager to promote Iran’s imperial agenda and that political position is enhanced by the possession of nuclear weapons.

Third, although this deal is the first phase in what is presumed to be a step-by-step process, verification procedures are obscure. It has been established from Intelligence sources that Iran has several projects deeply hidden underground on heavy-water nuclear production and centrifuges. Even if one or two are “frozen” to satisfy IAEA inspectors, how can one be sure other facilities aren’t operating at full tilt?