RUTHFULLY YOURS

BY GIDON BEN-ZVI, HARRY BEN-ZVI

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the UN General Assembly in New York took last week took place in the Western world’s epicenter for the promotion, codification and implementation of institutional anti-Semitism.

After all, it is no coincidence that behind every conflict Israel has ever fought there has been a failed United Nations resolution.

Simply scrape the gloss off the noble sentiments expressed in the Charter of the United Nations and you will discover that the world body’s Near East policy has from its inception fanned the flames of Arab nationalism, perpetuating regional conflicts that have effectively preserved a status quo sympathetic to authoritarian Arab regimes, at the expense of Israeli security and sovereignty.

The die was cast by Great Britain, which had occupied modern-day Israel from the end of the First World War until the 1947 UN partition. The European-based realpolitik that catered to Arab nationalism and authoritarian rule came at the expense of historical Jewish claims and contemporary Jewish interests.

A decade later, following the 1956 Sinai War, the United Nations forced an Israeli withdrawal from the Peninsula by establishing an international peace keeping force to demilitarize the area. This state of affairs held sway until 1967, when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded and received a UN withdrawal of said international peacekeeping force.

This unexplained retreat by the United Nations facilitated a massive Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai, and an eventual Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Teheran to Israeli shipping, an act of war that sparked the Six-Day-War.

Fast forward to the 1970s and you will find that since the UN was first charged with preserving peace in Lebanon, the country has degenerated from being the ‘Paris of the Middle East’ to a terrorist caliphate. Simply swap out ‘PLO’ for ‘Hezbollah’ and a disturbing historical trend emerges.

The UN peacekeeping force’s raison d’etre in Lebanon was to preserve ‘stability’ by facilitating a withdrawal of Israeli forces. With international peacekeepers filling the void created by the IDF’s exit, southern Lebanon would thus be demilitarized.

Handbook so controversial Canadian cops rejected it.

The U.S. State Department endorsed on Wednesday a controversial anti-terror handbook published by Canada’s Muslim community that refers to jihad as “noble” and urges law enforcement to avoid using terms such as “Islamic extremism.”

The handbook, published earlier this month by two Canadian Muslim community organizations, was so controversial that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) flatly rejected the manual and ordered its officers not to use it.

Yet the State Department’s official anti-terrorism Twitter feed, called Think Again Turn Away, appeared to endorse the controversial handbook on Twitter and linked to a positive article about it.

The handbook, titled United Against Terrorism, has become a contentious issue for the RCMP since its release. Several sections of the guide instruct Muslim community members not to cooperate with police while others claim jihad “is a noble concept.”

The RCMP ultimately decided to reject the book, citing its “adversarial tone.”

“After a final review of the handbook, the RCMP could not support the adversarial tone set by elements of the booklet and therefore directed RCMP Manitoba not to proceed with this initiative,” the police force said in a statement posted on its website.

The handbook itself recommends that “intelligence and law enforcement officials” should “avoid terms such as ‘Islamist terrorism’, ‘Islamicism’, and ‘Islamic extremism’ in favor of more accurate terms such as ‘al Qaeda inspired extremist,’” according to one section of the handbook, which still bears RCMP’s official logo.

Law enforcement officials also are told to “discontinue any inappropriate information gathering techniques including (but not limited to) showing up at workplaces, intimidating newcomers, questioning individuals religiosity, and discouraging legal representation,” according to the handbook.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/a-cameroonian-dissidents-love-affair-with-america-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ako Eyong, a journalist from Cameroon, West Africa, where he became a political dissident and was eventually exiled for critiquing the government. He is the author of the new novel, The Vision of the Blind King.

Ako came on the show to discuss “A Cameroonian Dissident’s Love Affair With America,” discussing his appreciation of living in the U.S., his new novel, the vital importance for a nation not to abandon God, the conflict between love and fear, and much, much more:

Don’t miss this week’s second episode with Conservative Entrepreneur Monty Morton, who came on the show to emphasize Two Lethal Threats to America:

During the recent race riots in Ferguson, Missouri, CNN’s Jake Tapper was walking down a street and filming a segment when someone emerged out of the shadows behind him, holding a banner emblazoned, “ISIS is here.” At that point it was just a threat, or a boast, or both, but on Tuesday Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said that the Islamic State was doing all it could to make it a reality: “At least ten ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas.”

“There’s nobody talking about it,” Hunter added. “If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border. It’s that simple…They caught them at the border, therefore we know that ISIS is coming across the border. If they catch five or ten of them then you know there’s going to be dozens more that did not get caught by the border patrol.”

Indeed. And jihadist exploitation of our southern border is nothing new. In June 2014, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) foreshadowed Hunter’s announcement when he said: “This jihadist group ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have promised direct confrontation with America. He is looking forward to that day and he has said that publicly, we should believe him when he says that. These folks hate everything about the United States.” What’s more, “Of course the way they would come to the United States would be through the porous border with Mexico. The drug cartels will bring people into the country no matter who they are — for money. Everyone in the world knows that the border between the United States and Mexico is completely porous.”

Jihad terrorists and their enablers and accomplices have been entering the U.S. illegally by means of the Mexican border for many years. According to TheBlaze, “Hezbollah members and supporters have entered the U.S. through the southern border as early as 2002, with the case of Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison by Mexican authorities on charges of organized crime and immigrant smuggling. Mucharrafille had owned a cafe in the border city of Tijuana, near San Diego. In 2002, he was arrested for smuggling 200 people into the U.S., including Hezbollah supporters, according to a 2009 Congressional report.”

And in May 2010, the Department of Homeland Security warned local police along the southern border about a Muslim named Mohamed Ali who was suspected of being a member of the jihad terror group al Shabaab. An official who spoke to CNN about the warning said that it wasn’t clear whether or not Mohamed Ali was trying to enter the country illegally, but it seems unlikely that such an alert would have been sent out to police along the border if that had not been the case. Ali was, in any case, apparently involved in operating a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” that had brought hundreds of Somali Muslims into the U.S. illegally.

“We’re liberals! We’re liberals. We’re not crazy tea-baggers,” Bill Maher protested after his televised argument with Ben Affleck about Islam.

“We are not bigoted people. On the contrary, we’re trying to stand up for the principles of liberalism!” Maher added. “I think we’re just saying we need to identify illiberalism wherever we find it in the world, and not forgive it because it comes from [a group] people perceive as a minority.”

But despite Maher’s protests, the majority of liberals would agree with Affleck that criticizing Islam is racist. Liberals claim that the Islamic State is Un-Islamic. It would be more accurate to state that liberals are illiberal. Liberalism, even the form that was in common usage not too long ago, is as dead as Lenin.

Ben Affleck isn’t a liberal. He’s an enthusiast of revisionist Communist historian Howard Zinn. The modern liberal of today is uninterested in identifying “illiberalism” since he is an illiberal man of the left. The most significant difference between the two is not simply political, but psychological. Liberals used to think about issues. Leftists respond to ideological cues while operating on a purely tribal wavelength.

Affleck’s assertion that criticizing Islam is racist is impossible to argue with. It’s completely wrong on multiple levels, but it’s not an argument. It’s a denunciation. It doesn’t advance an argument; it rejects the argument and the arguer as illegitimate. And it’s an ideological cue telling everyone else to follow.

Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse. The denunciation places the target outside the consensus. Calling Maher a “racist” makes him a Tea Party member no matter how much he clings to a liberal identification. It makes him an outsider.

Sunday Fox News interviewed a policeman who risked his own life by taking Weeks family into a safe and clean apartment…..Ronan Farrow is an insipid idiot who lets these outrageous accusations stand without challenge and Jesse Jackson is a superannuated race hustler…..rsk

Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian man who lied on his exit forms and brought Ebola to the United States, died today.

It took less than half a day for his family to come out and blame racism for Duncan’s death.

Jesse Jackson entered the story earlier this week. Today, Duncan’s nephew, Josephus Weeks, appeared on MSNBC with Ronan Farrow. Weeks clearly blamed the care that his uncle received on race.

Farrow interviewed Weeks before Duncan had even died, on Monday, but Jackson had already become part of the story by then. Farrow asked Weeks whether he believed that discrimination played a role in Duncan’s death.

“Well, yeah,” Weeks responded, “go in there and, like, you know, ostracized, you know, like we didn’t belong there.”

“The hospital? By who?” Farrow asked.

“The hospital, the staff, initially,” Weeks said. “We call, get hung up on, stay on hold for 30 minutes. Sometimes we call, get bounced around the hospital about 15 minutes get told we can’t speak. And after Reverend Jackson stepped in, and a lot of people started changing their minds and coming in to assist and, you know, more receptive to our needs.”

It’s hardly unusual for a hospital to bounce an incoming call around. It’s also hardly unusual for Jackson to suddenly start getting “results.” The threat of an expensive shakedown looms whenever he turns up. None of that speaks to racial discrimination.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has lobbed a series of damning accusations against his old boss, President Barack Obama.

In his new book, Panetta says that Benghazi was always an obvious terrorist attack. He says that Obama approaches the world like a law professor, meaning that he does not usually see reality if it does not comport with his preconceived notions. Panetta writes that Obama’s decisions on Syria and Iraq have paved the way for the rise of of the Islamic State. Panetta writes that Obama has given up on the job, rather than continue to try working with Republicans in Congress.

The merits of some of these charges, as well as Panetta’s timing in launching them, can be debated. Obama never showed any interest in working with Republicans in Congress, for instance. In his first meeting with the opposition party, then in the minority in both houses of Congress, Obama declared “I won” and shut off debate. He lurched farther left after his overreaches, including Obamacare, led to the Republicans taking over the House in 2010. It is also probable that some of Panetta’s charges, whether correct or not, are being lodged now in order to pave the way for his friend Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House. He has revised Clinton’s role in Syria and ISIS, for instance, in a way that makes her look better and Obama look worse.

All of that said, the seriousness of Panetta’s charges isn’t debatable. He writes, essentially, that Obama is unfit for the job of president for multiple reasons. That means nothing will change for the rest of Obama’s term. He might be dragged into fighting ISIS more vigorously, which Panetta supports, but only after the world’s richest terrorist group has accumulated more territory and troops, and only after it has killed even more innocent people and become even more dangerous than it already is. By the time Obama gets around to launching more than four airstrikes per day against ISIS, the group may have further destabilized the Middle East and could even have obtained weapons of mass destruction.

So Panetta’s charges are serious, and they come from a serious man who served in Congress and who led both the CIA and the Defense Department. A man who perhaps could have done more, sooner, to make the case that he is making now — but he is serious.

From Ebola to the Secret Service, U.S. bureaucracies have become a clear and present danger.

“The White House defended the sprawling U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak on Thursday amid complaints that it’s not clear who’s in charge of the effort.”

—CNN, Oct. 2

Ebola, the Secret Service, Veterans Affairs, ObamaCare’s rollout, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Behind all these names are federal bureaucracies that are supposed to protect people or help them. Instead they have been putting individuals at risk, or worse.

Ebola’s spread in West Africa was predicted. Government agencies responded late. Now it’s here. The Secret Service is so disorganized it can’t protect, of all things, the White House. Veterans died waiting for admission to VA hospitals. The CDC lost track of anthrax, smallpox and H5N1 bird-flu samples. At the State Department, no one seems to quite know why a U.S. ambassador died in Benghazi. The 9/11 Commission explained in detail how the attackers evaded the bureaucracies. Add to this list the Internal Revenue Service, an agency of extraordinary power that has forfeited the public’s trust.

It is past time to start thinking about how much could be going wrong at so many federal agencies. Watchful waiting isn’t the cure for the next bureaucratic meltdown.

The theoretical defense of bureaucracies is that they perform large, needed tasks in a predictable way. For decades, left and right have argued over the bureaucracies’ accountability, regulatory capture, adverse incentives and the like. Along the way, all this largely got internalized as background noise, the annoying price of a complex society.

My purpose in tackling the issue of immigration is to provide you with perspectives you will not find reported in the mainstream media and will not hear from the great majority of politicians. My goal is to be thought-provoking and to help you to think independently about immigration. I ask that you put your preconceived notions aside. Most of those notions are probably the result of being hammered by a veritable barrage of myths and falsehoods about the most serious challenges and threats facing America today. It is vital to understand that the lack of integrity to the process by which aliens are granted lawful status in the United States — including resident alien status, and United States citizenship, pose an immediate and direct threat to national security.

Immigration is often portrayed by supposed journalists and many so-called political leaders as being a single issue of relatively small consequence to the nation. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Immigration is in fact a singular issue that profoundly impacts nearly every challenge and threat facing America today. Our immigration laws were enacted to achieve the primary and vital goals of protecting the lives and jobs of Americans. It is hard to imagine an American of any political stripe who would not want those two vital goals to be met. When politicians talk about the work “Americans won’t do,” they are insulting hard-working Americans.

Today I will play “Myth-Buster” and take on these myths, lies, and propaganda that are nothing short of Orwellian. Having raised the name of George Orwell let me provide a pair of insightful quotes of the author from the book, 1984:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

The ongoing crisis on the border which is meant to separate the United States from Mexico has moved the immigration issue to the lead story on news programs and newspapers all across the country. The reality is that immigration should have always been a major news story all along. It is so important an issue that while the media almost always labels Americans concerned about border security and the enforcement of immigration laws as “right wing” and may accuse them of bigotry, immigration should actually serve as one issue upon which all Americans can and should agree, irrespective of political orientation. That issue is national security. Immigration is a classic example of an issue that is not about “left or right,” but “right or wrong.”

The agency says they were personal.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to notify the National Archives about the deletion of thousands of text messages sent or received on top agency official Gina McCarthy’s official mobile phone, Justice Department lawyers told a federal court this week.

An EPA spokesperson, Liz Purchia, tells National Review Online by e-mail that although the “EPA is not aware of any evidence that federal records have been destroyed,” the agency plans to forward information about the deleted text messages to the National Archives “out of an abundance of caution.”

The EPA says that text messages may not even qualify as public records. Nonetheless, Purchia says, EPA employees are instructed to save “any content on mobile devices that qualifies for federal preservation as a public record.” She continued: “The EPA is not aware of any individual non-compliance with this guideline, and finally, even if such destruction occurred, it was likely not unlawful because text messages qualify as transitory records . . . which may be deleted when no longer needed.”

But Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Liberal War on Transparency, who is suing over the text-message correspondence, says he believes that McCarthy, who was appointed to run the EPA last year, tried to hide official correspondence and that “her story as to why [they were missing] proved untrue.” As the EPA received a growing number of Freedom of Information Act requests, McCarthy “began texting like a teenager,” Horner says. “She was clearly turning to it as an alternative to e-mail, which it is. But those records must be maintained and produced.”