RUTHFULLY YOURS

The recent questionably unconstitutional moves by the Houston city council to subpoena the sermons of five area ministers, as well as internal correspondence dealing with social issues, should have the American Civil Liberties Union and everyone else who believes in free speech and religious freedom up in arms.

We as Americans must guard every aspect of our Constitution and recognize when it is being threatened. One of the great dangers in America today is extreme intolerance in the name of tolerance.

For example, in this Houston case, it is presupposed that the pastors in question may have said something that was objectionable to the homosexual community. In order to prove that we are tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle, we as a society allow gays to be intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them in any way.

Of course, gays should be able to live in any manner they choose as long as it does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. And of course, ministers should be able to preach according to the dictates of their conscience as long as they are not forcing others to listen. This concept of “live and let live” is an essential ingredient of harmonious living in a diverse society. We cannot single out the side we want to castigate for intolerance while letting the other side get away with it without comment.

Perhaps it is time for Americans to take an honest look at what it means to live peacefully in a diverse society composed of people with many different points of view. This requires true tolerance, which includes being capable of listening to people with views that might differ from yours.

Black-ish, and the never-ending “honest conversation.”

‘A long-awaited invitation to begin an honest, calm national dialogue about race,” was how the Chicago Tribune described President Barack Obama’s speech in response to the Jeremiah Wright scandal. “Can an honest conversation about race be inoffensive?” Conor Friedersdorf wondered in The Atlantic. A recent book from the University of Virginia Press promised “an honest conversation on race, reconciliation, and responsibility.” Whitney Dow, the documentarian behind “The Whiteness Project,” also desires “an honest conversation about race.” Sensing the moment with its usual acuity, the Onion reported: “Open Dialogue Two Americans Having about Race Pretty Hilarious.” In that intellectual environment, Black-ish, Kenya Barris’s new ABC sitcom — just not a sitcom but a “black sitcom,” according to Wikipedia — has about it a feeling of inevitability. And of course it raises “more serious conversations about race,” according to CNN.

Black-ish is the story of Andre Johnson Sr., a successful Los Angeles advertising executive who with his mixed-race physician wife, Rainbow, is determined to give his children all of the advantages and opportunities that he himself did not enjoy growing up, but who is worried that his family’s life of affluence and security has somehow rendered them less authentic. “I’m going to need my family to be black, not black-ish,” he declares over the dinner table at his “spectacular” Southern California home. He is unhappy that his elder son is going by “Andy” rather than “Andre” and wants to play field hockey rather than basketball, that his young twins do not identify with the only other black child in their class or even consider her blackness relevant, and that his popular elder daughter does not seem to have any sense of uniquely black identity.

There have been many moments in recent American history at which it has been undeniably obvious that black Americans and white Americans in the main inhabit separate emotional and intellectual universes. This divide is not as dramatic as the O. J. Simpson verdict or the Rodney King riots, but another brick in that wall of racial separateness is the fact that it has never occurred to me, a conservative, white, middle-aged man from Texas, to meditate for a moment on the question of whether I am living a life of sufficiently authentic whiteness. I have of course been aware that the issue is a pertinent one among black Americans, aware at least in the vague and seldom-considered way that whites tend to be aware of those things. I was skeptical about whether the premise could sustain a single episode of a sitcom, must less provide the organizing basis for a series.

If Hillary Had a Daughter She Would Look Like Monica Lewinsky By Paula Bolyard

Monica Lewinsky spoke recently to young entrepreneurs and achievers at Forbes’ 30 Under 30 Summit in Philadelphia about her sex scandal with the President of the United States and about how her life was forever altered by the experience.

Sixteen years ago, fresh out of college, a 22-year-old intern in the White House — and more than averagely romantic – I fell in love with my boss in a 22-year-old sort of a way. It happens. But my boss was the President of the United States. That probably happens less often.

Now, I deeply regret it for many reasons. Not the least of which is that people were hurt. And that’s never okay.

But back then, in 1995, we started an affair that lasted, on and off, for two years. And, at that time, it was my everything. That, I guess you could say, was the golden bubble part for me; the nice part. The nasty part was that it became public. Public with a vengeance.

Lewinsky, now 40, wrote in Vanity Fair in May that although the affair was consensual, nothing could have prepared her for the aftermath, when attacks came from seemingly every direction:

Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.

Monica’s bad and immoral decision – every salacious detail of it – was published on the internet:

Now, my brother – and all his fraternity brothers – were privy to my most intimate details. As were my dad and his fellow doctors. And my stepdad, and his World War 2 war buddies. My stepmom and her knitting circle. Even both my grandmothers, then in their 80s, knew about the internet. My whole family. My friends. My friends’ parents. My parents’ friends.

The Democrat mantra that voting fraud is rare takes another blow today with the stunning story of a GOP candidate unable to vote for himself in Cook County Illinois. The Illinois Political Review reports:

Admitting his confidence in Cook County ballot integrity is shaken, State Representative Candidate Jim Moynihan (R-56), was shocked today when he tried to cast a vote for himself and the voting machine cast it for his opponent instead.

“While early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” said Moynihan. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”

While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race. It is unknown if the machine in question (#008958) has been removed from service or is still in operation.

Well, they don’t call it Crook County for no reason.

In the recent months, I have been engaged in political debates with liberals mostly under the age of 40 (I am over the age of 40). These debates have taken place in person, via email and political discussion blogs. In each occurrence, I was contacted or confronted by the individuals who wanted to engage in discussions with me. I was personally contacted and invited to participate in discussions on a blog that repost some of my articles. However, after each round of discussions, I am saddened with the realization that our great country is in deep trouble if today’s young liberals are America’s future.

The first thing that is quite evident is that the liberal institutions have done a good and thorough job in indoctrinating our young people. The liberal professors have taught them to view America through the lens of the past rather than the present. This trick has caused these individuals to be filled with anger at an America that does not exist (an America that they themselves were not alive to experience). Every issue that is discussed is based on the false premise that every negative thing that happened in past (slavery, Jim Crow, The Southern Strategy) is influencing everything that is happing in the present (i.e. Voter ID laws, Ebola). However, there is never any mention of all the positive things that happened in the past that continues to make America great today. It is as though they believe that the American people are programmed robots void of the ability to think or make decision for themselves based on current issues.

While engaged in discussions, I have learned that liberals do not read. When commenting on my articles, liberals have accused me of saying things that are not in the article or they will question something that is answered in the article. How is it possible to make angry comments about something that you have not read? This reveals to me that they probably do not read anything that they believe goes against the liberal narrative. Maybe liberals would learn something if they would just read. It is as though they read titles and then go straight to the comment section. This also happens in dialog on the discussion blog. I will reply to a question that someone has posted and in that individual’s response, he or she will ask me the same question again. The same thing happens in email conversations, I end up responding by rewriting the same thing.

Kobani Became too Symbolically Important to Lose

In public, the Obama administration argued for weeks that Kobani wasn’t strategically vital to the air campaign against Islamic State extremists. Behind the scenes, however, top officials concluded the Syrian city had become too symbolically important to lose and they raced to save it.

As the U.S. role rapidly evolved, U.S. and Syrian Kurdish commanders began to coordinate air and ground operations far more closely than previously disclosed. A Syrian Kurdish general in a joint operations center in northern Iraq delivered daily battlefield intelligence reports to U.S. military planners, and helped spot targets for airstrikes on Islamic State positions.

In contrast to the lengthy legal debate over U.S. aid to rebels fighting the Syrian regime, U.S. airdrops of weapons to Kobani got a swift nod from administration lawyers—a sign of its importance to the administration.
The change in thinking over the fate of one city, described by U.S., Kurdish, Turkish and Syrian opposition officials, shows how dramatically U.S. war aims are shifting. After Islamic State made Kobani a test of its ability to defy U.S. air power, Washington intervened more forcefully than it had initially intended to try to stem the group’s momentum.

In doing so, the U.S. crossed a Rubicon that could herald a more hands-on role in other towns and cities under siege by Islamic State at a time when some U.S. lawmakers question the direction of American strategy and warn of mission creep.

“This is a war of flags. And Kobani was the next place Islamic State wanted to plant its flag,” a senior U.S. official said. “Kobani became strategic.”

The U.S. now is relying on two separate, stateless Kurdish groups in Iraq and Syria as ground forces to back up its air campaign against the extremists.

Handling epidemics isn’t the World Health Organization’s forte—unless fighting against sugary drinks counts.

The Ebola outbreak has again revealed an international health system that lacks the plans and capabilities to fight an epidemic or pandemic. Atop the pyramid of this health system sits the United Nations’ World Health Organization, whose 1948 charter gives it “directing authority” for “international health work.”

In lieu of another round of incremental reforms at the WHO and another appeal for budget increases, it is time to try something else. We need a new organization within the international health system to prevent, detect and verify outbreaks—and respond rapidly to them.

The WHO’s record of handling epidemics over 30 years reveals a health system that is getting worse, not better. On at least four occasions the U.N. organization has failed to deal with major outbreaks of communicable disease.

In the 1980s, the WHO underestimated the scale of the AIDS epidemic and was plagued by infighting and poor coordination. The U.N. Economic and Social Council concluded in 1994 that the AIDS crisis was beyond the WHO’s capabilities to coordinate, so the U.N. created a new entity, the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS, or Unaids. Although the WHO opposed the new program, history has shown that Unaids, with its clear, narrowly defined mission, has been more effective in addressing the AIDS epidemic.

In 2009 the World Health Organization was slow to address the H1N1 flu pandemic. It later commissioned an expert panel to investigate its mishandling of the crisis. The report released in 2011 slammed the WHO for making crucial errors, including a lack of transparency, poor external communication, management conflicts, and a “needlessly complex” definition of pandemic and its phases. H1N1 ended in 2010 and we were fortunate the strain had a lower mortality than initially feared. Notably, the panel concluded that the world isn’t ready to handle a major health disaster.

If you want to understand the challenge Western liberalism faces from Islamic supremacism, take six minutes to watch this extraordinary interview of Ayad Jamal al-Din, a Shiite cleric, Iraqi intellectual, and former member of the Iraqi parliament who campaigns for a democratic Iraq that separates mosque and state. Mr. al-Din was in Washington for the October 17 interview by al-Iraqiya TV in Iraq, and the interview with English subtitles (which I’ve reproduced as a transcript below) was publicized on Monday by the invaluable MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute).

While President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Prime Minister Cameron absurdly contend that the Islamic State, or ISIS, is not Islamic, al-Din – an authentic moderate Muslim who regards the Islamic State as the enemy – patiently explains that the jihadist organization adheres to a firmly established interpretation of Islam that is based on sharia and fiqh (jurisprudence).

I have repeatedly argued that classical, mainstream sharia is repressive, discriminatory, and anti-democratic, and thus that it was self-defeating for the United States to sponsor new constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan that attempted to meld Western democratic principles with sharia (see here, here, and here). It is especially gratifying to hear a passionate, articulate explanation of the incompatibility of Western democracy and Islamic jurisprudence from someone who reveres the former, is steeped in the latter, and understands the stakes.

Moreover, for those of us who frequently point out that mosques – which Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna described as the “axis” of his ideological movement in every city and town – are often centers for jihadist incitement, recruitment, training and fundraising, it is refreshing to hear someone intimately familiar with this phenomenon explain that there are mosques throughout the world directly and indirectly championing the Islamic State by glorifying jihad and the caliphate.

Our national security will not be well served until the United States government ends its futile search for “moderate Islamists” and realizes our allies in the Muslim community are the real moderates, meaning pro-Western democrats who reject the imposition of sharia on civil society. Supporting our enemies only undermines our friends.

Here is the transcript:

The Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today’s Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to “liberate”?

Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.

A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs — a Muslim land occupied by “Palestinian” Arabs — has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states — not Israel — that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.

When U.S. President Barack Obama announces in the United Nations that he wants a two-state solution for Israel and “Palestine,” and when U.S. Secretary of State repeated it recently — and when Sweden and the UK vote for a Palestinian State, and now possibly Spain and France — they should be more careful what they wish for.

Although there is no lawful justification for offering statehood, but Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, on September 26, 2014, told the United Nations that “the hour of independence of the state of Palestine has arrived.” Earlier, in 2012, the PA had already received elevated status from the UN General Assembly to that of a “nonmember observer state,” but this elevation fell short of full sovereignty.

There can also be no justification — ethical, legal, or geopolitical — for waging war against the ISIS jihadis in Syria and Iraq, while simultaneously urging statehood for the Hamas/PA jihadis in West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza.

It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.

A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents “anti-Europe.”

Two years ago the European Commission proposed a law that would authorize an “independent authority” within the European Parliament [EP] to decide whether EP parties would receive an official legal status as EP parties. This legal status is needed for a party to obtain EP party subsidy, which is designed to cover 85% of party expenditures.

Despite a British and Dutch lobby against the law, it was passed by the EP on September 29, 2014.

Among the demands parties have to meet are that of “internal party democracy” and that they must “respect the values on which the European Union is based.” Among these values are: “pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men.” Also, the parties must be active in at least seven out of 28 EU member state countries.

The law states that: “decisions regarding a party’s respect for values on which the EU is based, may only be taken following a special procedure and in cooperation with a committee of independent prominent individuals.”

Although the law does not specify the composition of this illustrious special committee, it is highly probable that Martin Schulz, the EP’s chairman, is among them. Schulz is a German socialist who got reelected as EP chairman even though he was absent during the parliamentary debate for the position. Schulz is also known for strongly condemning the content and distribution of a film critical of Islam, “Innocence of Muslims,” and for his disproportionate criticism of Israel.

Even though the committee is designated as an “independent authority,” within the self-aggrandizing dynamic of the EU, one cannot be “prominent” and “independent” at the same time.