RUTHFULLY YOURS

…We are talking about 600,000 Israeli settlers planted on Palestinian soil,” declared Slaughter. But this is pretty astounding stuff. Would Slaughter describe an Arab living in Israel as “planted on Jewish soil”? Indeed, he’d cause a minor crisis within British politics if he started describing Pakistani immigrants to Britain as colonizers “planted on English soil.” Presumably, Slaughter’s belief that the very soil of the West Bank is somehow intrinsically and exclusively Palestinian stems from his equally misguided view that the West Bank is a foreign country.
Tom Wilson..

Commentary Magazine..
15 October ’14..

Responding to Monday’s Palestinian statehood vote in Britain’s parliament, Times of Israel editor David Horovitz penned an op-ed provocatively titled “It’s the Settlements, Stupid.” Horovitz argues that the erosion of Israel’s diplomatic standing that made Monday’s vote possible has in large part been on account of Israel’s settlement policy. If true, then we live in strange times, where building homes for Jews can cause more outrage than Hamas stockpiling rockets and Iran developing nuclear weapons with which to murder those same Jews. And yet the following day, Sir Alan Duncan, Britain’s envoy to Yemen and Oman, gave a shocking speech asserting that those endorsing settlements should be considered on par with racists and hounded from Britain’s public life. The reality is, it is not the settlements that have eroded Israel’s standing, but rather the completely warped narrative that now surrounds them. And what’s worse, many Israelis have in no small part helped to create that narrative.

So let us see if we have this straight. The British parliament decides to “recognize” the “state” of “Palestine.” It thus reverts to exactly the same displays of courage and integrity that it showed back when Britain recognized the right to self-determination of the Sudeten Germans in 1938. All this from Britain, the occupier of Gibraltar, the Falklands, Wales, Scotland, Ulster, and the Channel Islands. The Brits are joined by Sweden in a similar belch of “recognition.” You remember Sweden, the country that was too cowardly to choose a side in either World War and that provided iron ore to feed Hitler’s war machine. Yes, Sweden, which refuses to recognize the rights to self-determination of its own Samis, and whose journalists recycle medieval blood libels about Jews murdering gentiles and selling their body parts. Other European countries are expected to follow. Why “Palestine” is any more worthy of being “recognized” than ISIS, another terrorist gang claiming to be a state seeking “recognition,” is never explained.

Now an interesting twist to the story is the demonstration of the Israeli Radical Left of its contempt for democracy and for Israeli sovereignty. The Israeli Left, led by the tenured leftists, is willing to endorse pretty much anything that is harmful to its own country. It has been urging European countries to “recognize the state of Palestine.” A petition was signed by dozens of Israel’s most anti-Israel academics, plus some non-academic members of the Hamas Lobby. It was organized by Amiram Goldblum from the Hebrew University, a founder of the extremist anti-Israel “Peace Now” organization, and Alon Liel, an ex-diplomat who now teaches for some reason at Tel Aviv University. These two were earlier among the initiators and organizers of a notorious pseudo-poll that claimed falsely to show that Israeli Jews favor “apartheid.” That “poll” last year was an exercise in distortion and tendentious manipulation, designed to generate misleading “statistics.” It was thoroughly discredited by serious social scientists.

Now the same “Israel is an Apartheid Regime” propaganda team is back, rallying the rest of the anti-Israel academic Left to attempt to bypass and neutralize Israeli sovereignty. Their initiative also reflects the utter contempt and disdain that Leftists in Israel have for democracy.

The New York Times online debating forum Room For Debate asked me to participate in an online forum regarding the rationale for recognizing the non-existent state of Palestine.
When Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven announced his decision to recognize the non-existent state of “Palestine” earlier this month, he inadvertently gave the game away.

Lofven said, “A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful coexistence. Sweden will therefore recognize the State of Palestine.”

The Palestinians refuse to recognize or peacefully coexist with the State of Israel.

Like his coalition partner Hamas terror master Khaled Mashaal, and despite his sweet talk to Western audiences, PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas has pledged, repeatedly, over decades that he will never, ever recognize Israel. During his speech to the UN General Assembly last month he reverted to PLO language from the 1970s, referring to Israel repeatedly as “the occupying Power,” and “the racist occupying State.”

So when Lofven recognized “Palestine,” he joined the Palestinian campaign to destroy Israel. He used the language of the “two-state solution,” to reject the Jewish state.

Former British foreign minister and Labor MP Jack Straw went a step further this week as he addressed his Parliament before its lopsided 274-12 vote to recognize “Palestine.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/beheading-raises-islamic-state-street-cred-on-the-glazov-gang/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dawn Perlmutter, the Director of the Symbol Intelligence Group and one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in symbols, symbolic methodologies, unfamiliar customs and ritualistic crimes. She designed and developed Jihad-ID, a symbolic database of the signs, symbols and identifiers of global jihad.

Ms. Perlmutter came on the show to discuss Beheading Raises Islamic State Street Cred, explaining how jihadists employ gang codes and rituals to their strategic advantage. The discussion occurred within the context of Why ISIS Beheads, in which Ms. Perlmutter took us into the dark world of Jihad’s key tactic and signature. She also focused on “Not Naming the Enemy,” “Beheading Videos as a Propaganda Tool,” and much, much more:

President Obama’s lies about the communicability of the truly terrifying Ebola virus are recklessly putting American lives at risk.

And yesterday Obama did the unthinkable: he cancelled a precious campaign fundraiser to address an issue of intense interest to the American people. At a photo-opportunity disguised as an emergency cabinet meeting the president did what he always does: he lied and lied and lied.

“Here’s what we know about Ebola: That it is not like the flu,” Obama told his groupies in government and the media in reassuring tones.

“It is not airborne. The only way that a person can contract Ebola is by coming into direct contact with the bodily fluids of somebody who is showing symptoms. In other words, if they don’t have symptoms, they’re not contagious.”

To demonstrate his fearlessness, Obama bragged about canoodling with health care professionals:

I want to use myself as an example just so that people have a sense of the science here. I shook hands with, hugged, and kissed not the doctors, but a couple of the nurses at Emory [University Hospital, where Ebola patients are treated] because of the valiant work that they did in treating one of the patients. They followed the protocols, they knew what they were doing, and I felt perfectly safe doing so. And so this is not a situation in which, like a flu, the risks of a rapid spread of the disease are imminent. If we do these protocols properly, if we follow the steps, if we get the information out, then the likelihood of widespread Ebola outbreaks in this country are very, very low.

The White House website repeats Obama’s lies: “You can only get the Ebola virus by direct contact with: Body fluids of a person who is sick with or has died from Ebola; Objects contaminated with the virus; Infected animals.”

My Capital Research Center co-worker, Dr. Steven J. Allen, happens to be an expert on the Ebola virus and he says Obama is not telling the truth. Allen earned his Ph.D. in biodefense from George Mason University’s College of Science in 2007.

Although Ebola is indeed spread by means of body fluids there’s a catch.

Jihad Crow in America
Welcome to Jim Crow with an Arab accent and no foreseeable expiration date.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Nadra Enzi (aka Cap Black), an anti-crime activist, Project 21 member and founder of American Brothers Against Crime. He writes for Change The Game at ctghq.org.

FP: Nadra Enzi, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to speak to you today about “Jihad Crow” in America, a phenomenon in this nation that involves Arab hatred of and discrimination against American blacks (and American black Muslims) in America.

But before we get to that I would like to talk to you about your background and some of the things you are doing today.

You were once a Muslim, correct? Let’s start with your story.

Nadra Enzi

Enzi: I grew up in a United Methodist household, the child of school teachers. Unfortunately, the church in my hometown was still as divided as the public sphere. The black Church I saw was a passive participant in ongoing bias, so Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali spoke to me as representatives of vocal opposition to bias and crime within the black community.

By this time, crack was hitting the inner city and black Muslims were very visible in the war against drug dealers who were making various areas free firing zones during disputes — killing infants, little old ladies and many other innocent lives.

Again, the black Church, liberalized to become an apologist for thugs and little more than a Democrat GOTV (Get Out the Vote) platform, was still largely MIA or worse: making excuses for those I’d call, “chocolate Klansmen” years later. I launched my citizen on patrol and private security activities anxious to ally myself with uncompromised black opponents of inner city crime.

FP: Who are you describing exactly as “chocolate Klansmen” and why?

Enzi: Chocolate Klansmen are the post-crack predators and gangs who kill black (and other) victims with a brutality once considered the province of the classic, violent white supremacist Klan. It’s a way of shocking liberal enablers out of their defense of thugs who’ve destroyed everything that giants like Medgar Evers or Dr. King died to establish. They’re the center piece of my “remote control theory” argument, which states that the inner city is freely chosen, not directed by invisible white villains hiding behind a tree.

In one of the great rhetorical reaches of all time, Financial Times columnist Edward Luce recently wrote of the paradox that America’s first Black President has presided over the biggest drop in African-American wealth since the Great Depression – a true statement. However, he added the following: “By no honest reckoning can Mr. Obama be blamed for the decline in black America’s fortunes. Yet the facts are deeply unflattering.” It read like an apology, but I am unsure to whom.

The facts are not just “unflattering,” they are condemning. Under Mr. Obama’s watch, the rich have become richer and the poor, poorer. Asset prices have boomed, while wages for non-white households have declined 10%, since 2009. The economy has limped along because of the underlying strength of American entrepreneurship and because of fracking that gave new life to the oil and gas industry – a technology that Mr. Obama did his best to shutter. Around the world, we are more disliked in the Middle East than we were when George Bush was President. Our relations with our European allies have sunk, and the “re-set” with Russia has been to increase the animosity between our countries.

With Mr. Obama, Harry Truman’s “buck” slithers past like a snake through the grass. He is a master of ducking responsibility for all unpleasant consequences of his policies: Blame Republicans in the House, blame Mitch McConnell, blame the Koch Brothers, blame the Maliki government, blame accountants (for tax inversions), blame the video, blame social media (for fomenting fears of terrorism), blame the media (for his slumping poll numbers), blame Bush (for everything!) He is the Teflon man. His acolytes in the press see-no-evil and hear-no-evil; so they neither speak-no-evil nor write-no-evil. One senses that fear of offending does not allow principles of accountability to apply. Mr. Obama’s supporters, in this regard, reflect an unspoken racial prejudice. It should make no difference what race, gender, religion or culture one is, one should always be held accountable for the ideas one espouses, the actions one takes and the results one gets.

The economy did receive a bit of good news a couple of weeks ago when unemployment dropped below 6%, the lowest point since the summer of 2008. But at the same time, the Labor Department noted that the labor force participation rate also fell to a 36-year low of 62.7%. Total non-farm workers in the U.S., as of last month, were preliminarily stated as 139,435 – about 5.5 million more people employed than when Mr. Obama took office in January 2009. While those numbers get touted by the Administration, what is omitted is that if the labor force participation rate were the same today as it had been in January 2009 (65.7%), and one accounts for the increased population there would be approximately 8.0 million more Americans working today.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ruled that ten year old girls can be married off, because in his words, “Good upbringing makes a girl ready to perform all marital duties at that age.” The Mufti, who also called for destroying churches in the Arabian Peninsula, is descended from Mohammed Wahhab who gave birth to Wahhabism and whose descendants have controlled the Saudi religious establishment, and through it Islam around the world.

However for all his power and influence, the Mufti is blind and hasn’t seen a thing in the last half century years; an apt metaphor for his entire religion.

Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, still tries and executes witches. What sort of religion can come out of a place that marries off ten year old girls and murders old women on charges of witchcraft? The sort that flies planes into skyscrapers, murders teenage girls for using Facebook and bases its entire society on a ladder with Muslim men at the top, Muslim women a few rungs below and everyone else somewhere at the bottom.

The Saudis are not an aberration, they are Islam in its purest and truest form. That is why Al Qaeda was founded by a Saudi and why Saudis, the wealthy citizens of a wealthy kingdom, are its best recruits. It is not poverty or oppression that moves them to kill, but wealth and privilege.

This is where Islam originated, whose brutality and cunning spread it across the world, whose clans killed each other, then killed or enslaved minority groups, and then embarked on a wave of conquest that destroyed countless cultures and left behind the seeds of hate of the wars we are fighting today.

Bashar al-Assad’s departure from power would illustrate to all countries in the world that that a regime unwanted by Turkey would not survive.

Both of Prime Minister Davutoglu’s references to Muslim prayers seem to symbolize his strong, inner desire for “conquest:” the “conquest” of Jerusalem by the Palestinians, and the downfall of al-Assad and the establishment of a Sunni, pro-Turkey regime there.

The Turkish interior minister was right when he said that legitimate states have a right to use proportionate violence when they face violence. But he is wrong to think that this right can only be enjoyed by his own country.

At the end of 1998, Turkey threatened to take military action against President Hafez al-Assad’s regime in Syria unless Damascus immediately stopped harboring Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the violent Kurdish separatist group, PKK. Al-Assad decided not to take the risk. And the Turks, in cooperation with the U.S., finally captured their public enemy No. #1 in Kenya, brought him to court and sentenced him to life. In a war-torn region, a war had been averted.

A decade or so later, the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (now president) and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu (now prime minister), declared al-Assad Jr., Bashar, and heir to the elder al-Assad’s throne, their country’s best regional ally.

Erdogan once said al-Assad was more than an ally: he and his wife, Asmaa, were the Erdogans’ family friends. Visa restrictions between the two countries were removed; bilateral trade boomed; joint cabinet meetings were held; and Turkey became the first NATO member to have joint military exercises with Syria.

The House of Commons is filled with people who would like to flaunt their anti-racist credentials… and show they are tough on terrorists. Yet here they were trying to will into existence a state which in the words of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, speaking last year, “would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands.” It is a pre-Mandela apartheid they are willing into existence.

“Our enterprise extends far beyond Palestine: Palestine in its entirety, the Arab Nation in its entirety, and the entire world.” — Mahmoud al-Zahar, speech, 2010. It is what the proxies and officials of al-Qaeda and Iran have said in European capitals for years and what they say every day.

All efforts to stop the mad rush to declare Palestine a state, without the Israel’s agreement as assured under international law, are dismissed as “Israeli propaganda.” The idea that sensible people can sensibly object is washed away.

On Monday night British Members of Parliament passed a motion by 274 to 12 saying, “That this House believes that the Government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.” It comes only weeks after the Swedish Parliament passed a similar unilateral motion.

Before coming to the alarming parts of this, let me break the good news. The motion is non-binding, having been proposed not by the government but by backbench MPs. Secondly the coalition government officially made it a “matter of conscience” vote, though behind the scenes advised its own MPs to stay away and so abstain from the vote. Thirdly the UK government announced in advance of the vote that if the result of the vote was a passing of the motion then the UK government would not accept the vote as in any way binding.