RUTHFULLY YOURS

“On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a “monumental act.” He said Lincoln was mistaken that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” Rather, the Bostonian remarked, “The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.”

Alas, Lincoln was right and Sumner was wrong. More young Americans today know the vulgar lyrics of popular rap trash, than the stirring words of the Gettysburg address delivered by Republican President Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago on November 19, 1863.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/11/11/the-muftis-islamic-jew-hatred-available-as-an-e-book/

“The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred” Available as an E-Book

My e-book, “The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred” is now available at amazon.com http://amzn.to/HJkOXo [1] , & can be previewed here: http://amzn.to/HQb9PB [2]

The 87 pp. soft covered print edition will also be available very soon via amazon.com
Product Details
The Mufti’s Islamic Jew-Hatred by Andrew Bostom (Nov 9, 2013)

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/putins-ruthless-power-an-ex-kgb-agent-on-the-glazov-gang/print/

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ex-KGB Agent Konstantin Preobraszhensky who discussed, The Tragic Fate of American POWs in Russia, unveiling a disturbing tale of how Putin blocked the search for U.S. prisoners of war in Russia under the guise of cooperation with the American government. [Starts at the 9:40 mark].

[For more info, see Frontpage’s Symposiums: Why We Left Our POWs Behind and The POWs the Communists Kept.]

Preobraszhensky also shed light on Putin’s Ruthless Power and The Dismal State of Freedom in Russia:

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/how-much-hatred-of-israel-is-too-much/

The Israelophobic left is a spectrum of hatred that stretches from the commonplace mainstream media basher who pounds out innumerable columns blaming Israel for everything wrong with the Middle East to the Gilad Atzmons and Israel Shamirs who claim that Israel is evil because the Jews are the devil.

Within that spectrum, everyone agrees that Israel is really bad and more responsible for international Muslim terrorism than the Muslim terrorists who are actually carrying it out. But that catechism of Israelophobic progressives is only a surface rationalization for the underlying hatred.

Opposition to Israel has never been rational or objective. It has always been emotional and subjective.

The left’s opposition to Zionism began as a toxic mixture of bigotry and self-hatred; influenced by everything from Karl Marx’s declaration that Jews were the embodiment of capitalism to Lenin’s denunciation of the illegitimacy of Jewish nationhood.

The left’s antipathy to Jews was always entangled with its antipathy to Israel. That is why there is no “New Anti-Semitism”. The virulent hatred of the left for Israel and the Jews is not a new phenomenon. And like all hatred, it has no bottoming out point.

Reasonable opposition has a natural limit. Emotional hatred has none. Opposition to Israel has no end point and few objectives except the ultimate expression of its hatred.

West must stop appeasing efforts to ban criticism of Islam

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4345/west_must_stop_appeasing_efforts_to_ban_criticism_of_islam

It is no accident that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It is also no accident that there is no such absolute provision in the Arab and Islamic world.

On the contrary, for at least fifteen years a concerted effort has been made by Islamic organizations, particularly the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.

This effort of the OIC has led to calls for controls of free speech in democratic countries as well as implementation of repression in its own member states. Although this OIC objective and its consequences have become familiar, it is puzzling that the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, did not resist it but rather seemed to compromise with it.

It should have been obvious that major international organs have been manipulated by the OIC to suppress speech. Each year from 1999 until 2010, one of the countries of the 57 member-state OIC, often Pakistan, has proposed resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) outlawing “defamation of religions.”

Rather than protection of religions in general, the intent of all the resolutions that have been passed is to declare criticism of Islam illegal and therefore punishable. More recently, OIC-inspired resolutions have condemned and called for penalization of what they term “Islamophobia.”

However, the number of states approving such resolutions has been declining. The OIC is aware of the fact that democratic countries have become alert to the fact that infringements of free speech result from any implementation of supposed “defamation” resolutions.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4346/totalitarianism_is_back_in_fashion

With the terrifying tenacity of a cancer once thought cured that will never go away, totalitarianism is back in fashion. The “crisis of capitalism”, to use the deluded vocabulary of the latest generation of totalitarians, once again makes Marx “relevant”.

For those influenced by Karl Popper’s magnificent tour de force The Open Society and its Enemies, it will be no suprise that a new wave of people and movements against the free society has emerged, and is fired up with a new confidence. Popper’s argument was that, going back to Plato, we are engaged in a world-historic philosophical struggle between the supporters and the opponents of a freedom oriented political society.

The struggle does not end.

This is but a short missive, which will be followed up later. Consider, for now, an offering from Britain’s leading leftist political magazine, the New Statesman, which (online at least) we regard as now superior in its content and influence to the increasingly life-style oriented Guardian’s Comment is free.

The piece in question is about the “radicalisation” — get the vocab? — of Leftists in the United States. Authored by Max Strasser, here are the central points of the piece, with our queries:

1. (via the summary) “Every time I’ve come home to the US from my home abroad over the past four years, I notice a trend among people of my demographic: they have become increasingly politicised – and increasingly radical.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 and has been trying very hard to demonstrate the threat of a dangerous human influence on climate due to the emission of greenhouse gases. This is in line with their Charter, which directs the IPCC to assemble reports in support of the Global Climate Treaty — the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) of Rio de Janeiro.

It is interesting that IPCC “evidence” was based on peer-reviewed publications – but (reluctantly) abandoned only after protracted critiques from outside scientists. E-mails among members of the IPCC team, revealed in the 2009 ‘Climategate’ leak, describe their strenuous efforts to silence such critiques, often using unethical methods.

I will show here that the first three IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an argument that seems to be circular and does not support their conclusion. Australian Prof. “Bob” Carter, marine geologist and paleo-climatologist, refers to IPCC as using “hocus-pocus” science. He is a co-author of the latest (2013) NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) report “Climate Change Reconsidered-II” www.climatechangereconsidereed.org . We also co-authored a critique of the 2013 IPCC-AR5 Summary

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6283

Who would have thought it would come to this — the Frenchinterceding to block a giveaway deal to Iran on its nuclear weapons program, a deal advanced enthusiastically by the United States? On the other hand, the Obama administration’s rapture for a deal that would involve empty Iranian promises in exchange for real hard cash to be released to the mullahs with sanctions relief, is not at all surprising.

As Daniel Pipes argued, a second term for U.S. President Barack Obama was bound to lead to this:

“I wrote before the last presidential election that Israel’s troubles will really begin should Obama win a second term. At Obama’s second inauguration, I predicted that he, freed from re-election constraints, can finally express his early anti-Zionist views after a decade of political positioning. Watch for a markedly worse tone from the second Obama administration toward the third Netanyahu government.”

Obama is now finished with elections, unless he seeks the U.N. secretary-general’s post (for which he is eminently qualified with his anti-Zionism). He is done fundraising from his many liberal Jewish “friends” in Hollywood and Wall Street, who always cared a lot more for his policies on abortion, or for business favors he could deliver, or ambassadorships, than they did about Israel, assuming they cared about Israel at all.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/11/10/who-said-this-about-jews-the-way-they-talk-walk-the-way-they-greet-each-other-there-is-a-vulgarity-of-character-that-is-bone-deep-and-structural-to-the-skeletal-vertebrae-of-its-culture/
“The way they talk, walk, the way they greet each other, there is a vulgarity of character that is bone deep and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture”
HINT: It wasn’t Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden. It is an Iranian-American professor at Columbia University, Hamid Dabashi, Chairman of the Department of Middle East Languages and Cultures.

Professor Hamid Dabashi is a Columbia department chairman, who calls supporters of Israel “Gestapo apparatchiks” and wanted to sue CNN for biased coverage of 9/11. Hamid Dabashi, the head of Middle East Languages and Cultures, was accused of, among other things, canceling classes to attend, and to permit his students to attend, a pro-Palestinian rally on campus that featured a call for Israel’s destruction. In his own public statements and writings, however, Dabashi has concocted a scenario of the Middle East in which Israel not only has no legitimate place but can hardly be said to exist, except as an unnamed Dark Force.

Among Dabashi’s notorious opinions: From NY Daily News (h/t Gary)
” The Jewish homeland is “nothing more than a military base for the rising predatory empire of the United States.
” It’s a capital of “thuggery” – a “ghastly state of racism and apartheid” – and it “must be dismantled.

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=87b74a936c723115dfa298cf3&id=3005ff3b85&e=552053f981

As delegates were flying in from all over the world to attend COP 19, the years most important UN climate summit in Warsaw, CFACT delivered the keynote addresses at a European climate conference with a different twist.

Co-hosted by the Polish Globalization Institute, Solidarity and other Polish NGOs and joined by groups from several other countries, the conference took aim at the UN’s version of global warming science, economics and politics.

The UN made a mistake when it chose Poland for COP 19. I’ve now had the chance to speak intimately about this issue with scores of concerned Poles and to address hundreds more at the conference. The majority of Polish citizens feel that a UN climate treaty threatens their hard-won independence and economic future.

Poles have a great deal to teach about the kind of common sense UN members should apply to global warming. The Poles have lived under repressive socialist control and never want to go back. When they hear citizens from rich western nations extolling the virtues of redistribution and government control, the laugh, sigh and remind them that “nobody really understands good sense, unless they were occupied by the Soviets.”

After numerous presentations on climate science and politics, the highlight of the conference was the signing of the Warsaw Declaration by representatives of Poland, Italy, France, Hungary, Sweden, Germany, the U.K., the U.S. and others. After numerous recitations of the facts, the Declaration states clearly that the UN should not adopt any climate treaty considering the many failures of climate models and the IPCC’s highly politicized science.