RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/08/06/jamie-glazov-moment-how-leftists-hate-muslims/

In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie discusses “How Leftists Hate Muslims,” building on the first and second episodes titled: “Why I Love Muslims.”

In this segment, he wonders where all the leftists are helping oppressed Muslim women under Islamic gender apartheid.

Don’t miss this special Jamie Glazov Moment:

Covering his betrayal of America with discredited falsehoods.

The president’s speech on the Iranian deal, delivered at American University on Wednesday, was vintage Obama, as in a compendium of demagoguery, historical revisionism and outright lying. Nothing emphasized that more forcefully than the portion of the Obama’s speech addressing the war in Iraq. Obama insisted U.S. involvement there was the result of “a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”

That is litany of falsehoods. First, it was a complete lack of military action against a rapidly metastasizing Islamist terror threat, studiously ignored during the Clinton years, that gave Osama bin Laden the ability to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks from the terrorist sanctuary provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That would be the same Bill Clinton, along with numerous other Democrats, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who provided ample incentive for the invasion of Iraq, characterizing Saddam Hussein and his burgeoning WMD program as a mortal threat to world peace and stability. Moreover, as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in their book “Party of Defeat,” every Democrat who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq—including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer—had access to the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush and Republicans did.

Feminists and other “progressives” in America cry oppression at the mere suggestion that taxpayers shouldn’t be made to subsidize abortion services.

Black (and non-black) American activists scream that “Black Lives Matter” whenever a black criminal suspect dies in an altercation with police.

In the meantime, there is scarcely a peep from either of these sectors when it comes to the unrelenting brutality suffered by women and black Africans in places under the thumb of the Islamic State.

When I noted this selective outrage to a left-leaning colleague of mine, he responded that the one issue didn’t have anything to do with the other. But this response misses the point for two reasons.

The world was outraged when ISIS burned a man in a cage, but Muslim terrorists have been burning Jews alive with little outrage and less attention.

This war, in which cars and buses are torched with families still inside, is not the work of a tiny minority of extremists. Its perpetrators have the support of the Palestinian Authority. Some have been set free from Israeli prisons through the intervention of the PA, Barack Hussein Obama and John Kerry.

This week Inbar, a young mother of three, was burned over 15 percent of her body after a Molotov cocktail was thrown at her car in Jerusalem. Despite her injuries, she was one of the lucky ones.

Last year Ayala Shapira, an 11-year-old girl, was on the way home from math class. Her parents were driving her back to the village of El Matan (God’s Gift) when Muslim terrorists threw firebombs at their car. The bomb smashed through the window and landed on her lap setting her hair and clothes on fire.

The overcard Fox News debate was amusing to watch. Did anyone win? I don’t know. Trump is in the lead in the Drudge poll, but Frank Luntz’s focus group vilified him (not Drudge readers, apparently). They liked Huckabee and Ben Carson, who gave a beguiling closing speech. I suspect the Republican masses may have been turned off by Trump’s refusal to pledge no third-party run, but we’ll need a day or two to find out. I have to confess I am beginning to find him a bit tedious, like a vaudeville act that repeats one too many times.

But who knows how I and anyone else will feel tomorrow? That’s the odd nature of these campaigns. They swing so fast. Your opinions keep changing — especially because the policy distinctions between the many candidates are relatively small. (Marco Rubio said during the debate the Republicans were blessed by God to have so many good candidates while the Democrats didn’t even have one.) Style and feeling count more than we think. Most of our reactions to candidates are instinctual. There’s a great quote reflecting this from Hugo von Hofmannsthal above the desk of my friend writer David Freeman: ”Politics is magic. He who knows how to summon the forces from the deep, him will they follow.”

Several in the media have speculated that Trump is somehow connected to Clinton in his decision to campaign as a Republican.

Now WaPo confirms it:

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.

Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

It all makes sense. Only recently did he self-identify as a Democrat and donate a lot of money to them and contribute around a $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Imagine if Jeb had done that! So why does Trump get away with it? Maybe because he “tells it like it is!” (whatever the two “its” mean), and he’s “refreshing.”

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump stole some of the biggest moments of the night in Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate, but his flap with Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly on insulting women may backfire, political observers say.

In the opening, Kelly repeated comments Trump had made about women: “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals” and asked whether that’s the temperament of a president.

Trump brushed them off, joking they were directed at Rosie O’Donnell.

But when Kelly pushed back that Trump had gone “well beyond” the comedian, he said maybe he shouldn’t treat her so nicely.

“Trump’s spat with Megyn Kelly was stomach turning and will haunt Trump in commercials,” said RC Hammond, former spokesman for Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign. “Start the speculation of what the stage would have been like with Carly Fiorina.”

Katie Packer Gage, Mitt Romney’s former deputy campaign manager, said Trump fell short.

“Trump is Trump,” Gage said. “Bloviating blowhard. He’s on defense and isn’t giving solid answers to back up his ideas. Bluster isn’t a plan.”

Despite the administration’s arrogance and incompetence, we still have options.
In defending his nuclear deal with Iran in his speech at American University on Wednesday, President Obama resorted to a familiar strawman. Congress, he said, is faced with a decision: Either accept the agreement as negotiated, or go to war.

In addition to presenting this false choice, the president personally attacked the motives of anyone who differs with him, and he accompanied the attack with outrageous hyperbole. His description of the Iran accord as “the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated” is not just wrong; it’s demonstrably absurd.

One would have thought the president’s staff would have warned him against stating such an obvious falsehood. Someone in his entourage must be aware of the 2003 agreement with Libya that resulted both in anywhere/anytime inspections and in the total elimination of Qaddafi’s uranium-enrichment program. All associated nuclear equipment, hundreds of metric tons of it, as well as Libya’s longer-range ballistic missiles, were loaded on a ship and taken to the United States. But perhaps President Obama’s staff, which includes many individuals with more experience running political campaigns than dealing with national-security matters, is not aware of the facts — a condition that would help explain many of the other foreign-policy blunders of this administration.

If you want to irritate promoters of the Clean Power Plan, just state the obvious: It’s going to increase electricity prices, and that will be bad for the poor and the middle class.

Last Monday, I made that very point during an interview on KPCC radio in Los Angeles, (“Air Talk with Larry Mantle”). My counterpart was David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a group that has pushed hard for the Clean Power Plan. After I pointed out that electricity prices in Europe had soared due to renewable-energy mandates, Doniger replied with something to the effect that I should not be using “scare stories” that are a “decade old.”

Doniger’s reply was hardly surprising. The claque that’s pushing the Clean Power Plan — the White House, the wind lobby, the solar lobby, NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club — don’t want to admit that it will probably increase costs for the poor and the middle class. On Monday, the White House even published an article on its website that declared, “The most cynical claim is that EPA’s plan will harm minority and low-income communities.”

We’ve been here before.

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said a while ago that an Iran deal would be the health-care bill of President Barack Obama’s second term, and he was right.

Like Obamacare, the Iran deal represents an ideological fixation of the president’s; it is unpopular; and it will get through Congress — or to be more exact, avoid disapproval by Congress — by sheer partisan force.

When Obama mounted a defense of the deal in a speech at American University, it was aimed less at public persuasion — never a strength of his during the Obamacare debate — than base mobilization as he seeks to hold the Democrats he will need to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval.

How else to explain a speech that chastised opponents for their “strident” rhetoric at the same time it contended that Iranian hard-liners “are making common cause with the Republican caucus,” a juvenile little jab worthy of a Daily Kos diarist?

For years, we’ve heard Obama say that all options are on the table in forcing the Iranians to “end their nuclear program.” But he believed in having all options on the table about as much as he opposed gay marriage. Saying that he didn’t rule out military options was all about buying time until he could turn around and say, in effect, that a bad deal is better than all military options.