RUTHFULLY YOURS

Speaking of abusing non-profits, one of the worst candidates may be the Clinton Foundation which not only lets assorted dubious foreign governments influence a presidential candidate, but provides her with a non-profit publicity tour.

The Clinton Foundation announced Friday it is shaking up its leadership team, replacing its chief executive officer with a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – at least temporarily.

CEO Eric Braverman is stepping down from his post, the foundation said. The position will be filled on an interim basis by Maura Pally, a Hillary Clinton confidante who worked as a deputy assistant secretary during Clinton’s time at the State Department. Pally joined the Clinton Foundation in 2013 to “supervise Secretary Clinton’s Foundation-related activities, exploring new opportunities and ways to leverage existing Foundation efforts,” according to an internal email from then-CEO Bruce Lindsey at the time of Pally’s hiring.

Pally also has been named a senior vice president for women and youth programs at the foundation.

Hillary Clinton is largely running based on her, failed, time as Secretary of State. Not long ago her people were promising a more vigorous foreign policy. But after all this time, she hasn’t even bothered to make the most basic statement about the Paris terror attacks.

In the original primaries, Hillary boasted that she would be there to take 3 AM phone calls. Meanwhile days later, she still can’t even comment on the attack.

We’ve slammed Obama before for his inattention and laziness, but Hillary Clinton seems to be even worse. And Benghazi is a reminder of how her sloppiness and inattention to important details already cost lives.

Jake Tapper slammed Obama and GOP candidates for not going to Paris. He left out any mention of Hillary. Of course she didn’t have to fly to Paris, but she could have at least issued a boilerplate statement.

In the past Hillary was criticized for delaying a statement as long as possible in order to take the safest position, but how controversial is a generic condemnation of terrorism?

Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama’s illegal bailout of the Castro regime. This should be a no brainer.

After all the hype about Hillary’s Twitter account, there were two Tweets on it last month, both for charities. So much for her claims to want to emphasize social media.

No one is asking Hillary to march in Paris, but she could at least have put out a two sentence statement. It’s the kind of thing you do if you want to be president.

It used to be that the media would at least wait a day before sweeping the latest victims of Muslim terrorism into the trash to refocus on the looming “anti-Muslim backlash” that never actually comes.

The increase in Muslim terrorism however has made it risky for the media to wait that long. 24 hours after a brutal Muslim terrorist attack, there might be another brutal Muslim terrorist attack which will completely crowd out the stories of Muslims worrying about the backlash to the latest Muslim atrocity.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.

With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash” stories.

The Scandal of Free Speech
A year from now none but the unfeint of heart will still be with Charlie.

Last May, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage gave a talk at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics in which he used a term so infamous that it caused members of the audience to walk out “in a state of distress.” Later, a petition was put forward to demand that the institute apologize “for failing to stop” Mr. Savage from using the term, and to “assert a commitment to preventing the use of slurs and hate speech in the future.”

The word in question? To adapt the old joke: I could tell you but they’re going to kill me.

Well, OK, here goes. The word is “tranny,” meaning a transgender, or transsexual, or transvestite person. So hideously offensive is this word nowadays that, when I arrived at an Institute of Politics event a few weeks later, a group called Queers United in Power—or QUIP, minus the humor—held a protest outside and handed out fliers denouncing (without spelling out) the use of the “T word.” I had to ask around to find out just what the word was; I got the answer in a whisper.

Attention all of you logicians of Hyde Park: If words are to be forbidden, must they not first be known?

Scott Walker and Right to Work
Wisconsin’s Governor bobs and weaves on another labor reform.

Scott Walker is heading to Iowa this month as part of his consideration of a run for the White House, but in the meantime he’s starting a second term as Governor in which he presumably wants to accomplish something. So it’s unfortunate that he’s ducking a chance to make Wisconsin the country’s 25th right-to-work state.

At his second inauguration last week, Mr. Walker told voters that prosperity comes “from empowering people to control their own lives and their own destinies through the dignity born from work.” In the Badger State, he added, “we understand people create jobs, not the government.”

He’s right, which makes it that much stranger to watch Mr. Walker dodging the right-to-work challenge. In December, after Wisconsin Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald said he was interested in taking up a right-to-work bill, the Governor called it a “distraction.” Then he told WKOW-TV “Capitol City Sunday” that despite the chatter about right-to-work momentum, “there’s a lot of things that are going to keep the legislature preoccupied for a while,” like taxes and education.

That may be, but Wisconsin needs an economic lift and right to work can help. Big Labor spins right to work as radical, but it merely gives workers a choice to join a union. Many workers decide to drop their union affiliation once government coercion is repealed, and union political clout tends to fall.

The liquidation of the jihadists guilty of the Charlie Hebdo massacre has closed the first act of yet another European drama. It was not the first and will not be the last in the war of radical Islam against civilization. The lessons to be drawn have been in front of us for years, yet many in the politically correct France and the West are seemingly afraid to see the reality for what it is and draw the logical conclusions. If they continue to do that, European civilization is facing an existential danger.
So let’s see what transpired in Paris. Innocent people were murdered in cold blood as a revenge for an ostensible insult of the prophet Muhammad the cartoonists were said to have committed. And while common people with common sense reacted to this barbarism with a resounding “Je suis Charlie,” assorted western media like CNN tried to absolve the terrorists by intoning that Charlie Hebdo ‘had provoked the Muslims.’ Nor is this unconsionable attitude atypical of the leftist establishment that rules the roost in the West. Two years ago president Obama himself declared in a speech to the UN (Sept. 25, 2012) that “The future should not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” thereby expressing his solidarity with the Islamists. Many other media refuse to publish the cartoons to this day, demonstrating with their behavior that maybe the jihadists are right. No one, mentioned even once that there is no prohibition against drawing Muhammad in the Koran.

Jimmy Carter ties Paris terror to ‘Palestinian problem’
Former US president Jimmy Carter said on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” that “the Palestinian problem” is one of the causes of the violent terror attack during which four Jews were murdered in a Paris supermarket.
Carter was answering a question by Stewart on whether the violence stems from anything other than Islamic extremism.
“This aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now — what’s being done to them. So I think that’s part of it,” Carter said.
http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2013/05/F121022YA04-e1368360903729.jpgFile photo: Jimmy Carter seen during a press conference in Jerusalem on October 22, 2012. (photo credit: Yoav Ari Dudkevitch/Flash90)

Blaming “Islamophobes in America” for the bad rap that comes around whenever a group of Islamists worldwide commits some new blood-soaked atrocity, American Muslim leaders are gathering in Texas this weekend for a “Stand with the Prophet” conference.
Since the headlines will just be fading on the Islamist massacre in Paris on Wednesday – and who knows what stomach-turning activities might crop up before Saturday – it might be a tough sell to the uninitiated.
According to a Washington Free Beacon article by staff writer Adam Kredo, organizers of the “Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect” conference, planned for Saturday evening Saturday evening at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, say the media and “Islamophobes” are to blame for Islam’s reputation in the Western world.
The conference is apparently meant to change that.

Unfortunately for Harf, the issue she tried to distract reporters with was the activities of the Boko Haram Islamist terrorist group in Nigeria. That would be the Boko Haram group that’s kidnapped hundreds of girls to be forced into “marriage” with Islamist fighters. So far, the Obama White House’s most memorable contribution has been a selfie of Michelle Obama pouting over the girls’ sexual slavery.
If that sounded like an odd thing for the State Department spokeswoman to want to talk about, her performance during the rest of the briefing — vainly trying to explain away the U.S. failure to appear at the Paris gathering — explained it.
“We make decisions like these based on a variety of factors,” Harf said, in a classically obtuse Harf formulation. “There are just a variety of factors we take into account …
“I’m not going to get into what our internal conversations look like.”
Besides, she noted, the whole thing was getting more attention in the United States than it was in France. So to paraphrase another great American diplomat, at this point, what difference does it make?

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/01/13/dumbest-deflection-of-the-century-state-dept-marie-harf-tops-her-past-breathtaking-ignorant-moments-172224#ixzz3Oi7Lj5E5

THE COIN DOCTRINE-RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ENDORSED BY THE GENERAL SHOWED SUCH OVERWEENING SENSITIVITY TO THE BARBARIAN MOSLEM MORES THAT IT PUT OUR OWN BRAVE WARRIOR’S IN HARM’S WAY…..FIVE STAR BLOWHARD….RSK
One Cheer for Gen. Petraeus David P. Goldman

The Obama administration is still deciding whether to bring felony charges against former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, according to Attorney General Eric Holder. As a senior DOJ official in the Clinton administration, Holder arranged a presidential pardon for fugitive tax cheat Marc Rich. As attorney general, he ignored the unconscionable use of the IRS against conservative-leaning organizations seeking tax-exempt status.

This is a political prosecution. Petraeus’ supposed crime, leaking classified information to a girlfriend, is the sort of victimless infraction that never has been brought to the point of criminal prosecution at any time in the past. Petraeus’ offense, rather, is political: He is credited with the 2006-2007 surge that in Republican mythology won the Iraq War before President Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. One risks being run out of the Republican Party on a rail for questioning this mythology, but someone has to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Petraeus improved the optics of the Iraq mess at the end of the second Bush administration, to be sure, but he also helped set in motion the catastrophe that has now engulfed the Levant.

The story already has been told in depth by Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Daniel Bolger, whose memoir Why We Lost appeared last year. I reviewed it in Asia Times Online after observing that not one of the mainstream media reviews mentioned the most important assertions in Gen. Bolger’s excellent book: First, that American success in imposing majority rule on Iraq in 2006 set in motion the Sunni insurgency, and second, that America’s sponsorship of the Sunnis in 2007-2008 (the “Sunni Awakening” built with American funds as part of the “surge”) made the insurgency intractable.