RUTHFULLY YOURS

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remark about the dangers of a Palestinian state has sent advocates of Palestinian statehood into a rage so hysterical that you would think he had questioned somebody’s sacred religious beliefs.

On second thought, maybe he did. The Palestinian statehood crowd has become so inflexible and doctrinaire, and so oblivious to the changing realities of the Middle East, that their political positions are starting to resemble a set-in-stone religious faith.

Here’s what the prime minister said: “Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state, anyone who is going to evacuate territories today, is simply giving a base for attacks to the radical Islam against Israel. This is the true reality that was created here in the last few years.”

His point was simple and straightforward. His logic was impeccable. The response of critics has been exactly the opposite.

Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party got its best numbers not in Jerusalem, where it only won a quarter of the vote, or Sderot, the city under siege where it still got less than half, or Maaleh Adumim, a city of some 40,000 known as a “settlement” because it is located in ’67 Israel where it also took less than half.

Its best numbers appear to have come from Arab-al-Naim, a Bedouin settlement, where it scored three-quarters of the vote.

The residents were uninterested in any of the accusations of racism being aimed at Netanyahu by the media. Instead they were interested in housing. As one resident put it, “I used to sleep in a cave with my goats. Now I ask my daughter what wallpaper she wants in her room.”

Netanyahu’s election comment about Arabs being bused in to vote has been seized on as a useful excuse to explain how the media’s poll numbers that showed Netanyahu losing align with the actual results by claiming that a rash of racist Israelis rushed to vote. But that fails to explain why the exit polls were still badly wrong. A more realistic explanation is that the media’s polling was biased against Netanyahu. But it’s easier for the media to accuse Netanyahu of racism than admit to its own biases.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbids any of it signatories to have nuclear weapons. Full stop.

Under the terms of the NPT, the P5+1 have no legal authority to amend the treaty unilaterally, to abrogate the treaty, or to allow nations that are signatories to the NPT to abrogate the treaty.

Since when can the UN Security Council amend U.S. treaty law? The UN can certainly propose amendments, but it cannot approve such changes on behalf of the U.S. Congress and the American people.

If Iran is allowed nuclear weapons capability, other nations — especially throughout South America, already infiltrated by Iran — will doubtless follow suit.

In Iran, would this agreement have the force of law, or would the Supreme Leader — who just this week said, “Death to America” — be allowed to change its terms unilaterally? And what would be the consequences to him if he did?

Dr. Denis MacEoin has a PhD in Persian Studies (Cambridge 1979) and has lectured in Arabic and Islamic Studies. He has contributed to the major encyclopedias on Islam and Iran, the Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd. ed., The Encyclopedia Iranica, and The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World.
As the current U.S. Administration said it would take Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu “at his word,” it is, of course, safe to assume that it will take Iran’s Supreme Leader at his word, as well.

On Sunday, March 21, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was lowing about progress in the “peace talks,” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was calling for “Death to America.” Mercifully, his call came before the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany) — illegally, under the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — tried to allow Iran to bolt its obligations under the NPT and acquire nuclear weapons.

Khamenei’s announcement, reported by the Times of Israel, appears to vindicate the views of Israel’s farsighted, newly re-elected Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the voters who overwhelmingly elected him, as well as France’s courageous former Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius.

Netanyahu recently explained that the circumstances of escalating extremist Islamism in the region at this time make handing over more land to terrorist groups, such as the Palestinian Authority’s government and Hamas, inauspicious. U.S. President Barack Obama said he would take Netanyahu at his word. It is therefore safe to assume, of course, that the current U.S. Administration will take Iran’s Supreme Leader “at his word,” as well.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/22/video-ayaan-hirsi-ali-speaks-out-in-new-book-heretic/
Watch as the infamous activist, blacklisted by Brandeis University for her anti-Islam views, discusses her new book Heretic and the concept of reforming Islam. Martha Raddatz has no problem outing herself as a turncoat feminist, accusing Hirsi Ali, herself a survivor of female genital mutilation, of unfairly attacking Islam now that she has left the religion.

Raddatz and the pro-Islam Manalo Omar are also quick to gang up on Hirsi Ali when she highlights one of the many Qu’ranic calls for death to infidels currently being used to justify Sharia law and jihad, citing both “the Torah” and “the Bible” as containing violent verses. When Hirsi Ali replies by questioning where the Christians are who take these verses as literally as their Islamic counterparts, Raddatz changes her line of questioning without changing her politically correct tone.

“Doesn’t [your book] incite people to hate Muslims?” is Raddatz’s conclusion, not her query, proving once again that the West’s multiculturalist elite are the greatest threat to Islamic reform.

“I spent the first four years of Obama as the White House correspondent for ABC News and it was just fascinating to watch the relationship deteriorate from the very beginning when — I’m sure I’m going to mess up the chronology here — but there was a Biden trip to Israel and he landed and immediately new settlements were announced. There was Netanyahu not being permitted to come through the front door one time, an honor usually reserved for the Dalai Lama,” Tapper said during a discussion at the Center for Strategic Studies in Washington titled “Foreign Policy Hotspots.”

“And what was interpreted by President Obama as Netanyahu lecturing Obama in the Oval Office. And I think it’s fair to say that the respect Netanyahu and Obama have for each other knows bounds, but beyond that it has affected the relationship. Yes, the defense cooperation, the intelligence cooperation and that continues. There is this undergirding of the two countries being allied but the idea that it’s irrelevant, which is something that you hear sometimes from Obama’s supporters, that it doesn’t really matter that these two don’t get along, of course it matters that these two don’t get along. I think it had very bad consequences, especially for Israel,” CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Tapper also said.

Two victories this week for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one seismic, the other minor though not insignificant. First, he won a solid re-election victory that affirmed his dire warning of the peril from a nuclear-armed Iran. Secondly, he persuaded an influential American liberal that his campaign warning that Israel’s Arab citizens might swing the election against him was not a despicable, race-baiting tactic as alleged by other liberals.

Netanyahu may never learn of this second vote of approval from liberal comedian Bill Maher, but it remains worth savoring for conservatives here in the U.S.

It was heard on last night’s broadcast of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher during a panel discussion with former GOP congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia, ex-New York City Councilwoman Christine Quinn, and Republican strategist Mercedes Schlapp —

KINGSTON: He was making sure that his base showed up …

QUINN: By pandering fear …

SCHLAPP: That’s not fear. It was not fear. It was basically saying those Arabs are not going to vote for him and so he’s going to have to bring out his vote. This is what you do in an election, Bill.

MAHER: We got off on a tangent. Let me ask the question I was going to ask about this, which is when he said that, ‘Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls,’ I heard a lot of commentators here say, it would be as if Mitt Romney in 2012 on the eve of the election said black voters are coming out in droves to the polls. But I don’t know if that’s really a great analogy. I think that would be a good analogy if America was a country that was surrounded by 12 or 13 completely black nations who had militarily attacked us many times, including as recently as last year. Would we let them vote? I don’t know. When we were attacked by the Japanese, we didn’t just not let them vote, we rounded them up and put them in camps.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/video-mob-attacks-london-synagogue-yells-kill-jews
London synagogue attack by group of youths yelling ‘we will kill you’

Record number of 1,168 anti-Semitic incidents were reported in Britain in 2014

A synagogue in the London suburb of Stamford Hill was attacked by a group of approximately 20 youths Saturday night.

The youths, who yelled “we will kill you”, beat worshipers and vandalized property including tearing apart prayer books reported The Jerusalem Post.

One local Jewish man who was passing by the synagogue at the time of the attack suffered hits to his face after being overwhelmed by the group of youths after trying to grab one of them to bring to the police.

The attack, which was filmed by a member of the synagogue shows two groups of youths, one inside the building and the other trying to get in, screaming at each other through broken windows. Towards the end of the video, an object is shown being thrown through one of the windows after a man tries to shut the door, causing glass to fly towards the group inside.

The “Wizard of Oz” is the best available single-source explanation of American politics. Specialists, to be sure, will want to read the Federalist papers, de Tocqueville and the speeches of Lincoln, but the 1939 MGM movie gives you the essentials. We are a nation of scarecrows without a brain, tin men without a heart, and lions without courage. Nothing is going to cure us, but the next best thing is to feel better about ourselves. The Wizard, a broken-down carnival huckster impersonating the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz gives our three national archetypes not what they need, but the next best thing: A phony diploma, a testimonial, and a medal. The party favors don’t help the feckless trio (the Scarecrow proceeds to recite a comically mistaken formula for the length of the sides of an isosceles triangle) but they did wonders for their self-esteem.

America is a winner’s game. America succeeds because it breeds success and ruthlessly crushes failure. A main purpose of American politics, in turn, is to make losers feel better, without, of course, preventing them from losing. No president in American history more closely resembles the Wizard than Ob the Great and Powerful, the present occupant of the Oval Office. Self-esteem is America’s consolation prize and Obama spreads it with a shovel.

MIKE FLYNN: CNN POLL: VOTERS’ IDEAL 2016 CANDIDATE AN ANTI-OBAMA

A new CNN poll, asking Americans about their “perfect” candidate in 2016, is a bitter prelude to Obama’s presidential legacy. By strong majorities, Americans want a political leader with lots of experience who will reverse Obama’s policies.

Barack Obama first registered on the national political scene a scant four years before he was elected President. His entry into the national political arena was precipitated by a speech to the Democrat National Convention in 2004, when he was a state Senator and candidate for the US Senate. Rather than an event or singular accomplishment, his political fortunes were forged in words.

According to the CNN poll, 59% of Americans would prefer Obama’s successor to be a seasoned political leader who has been on the national scene, and in the public eye, for many years rather than a newcomer. An equally strong majority would prefer the next President to have executive experience, either in government or business, rather than a legislator.