RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2493/Q-A-The-Jihadist-Plot-by-John-Rosenthal.aspx

I will never forget the unmitigated horror of watching as the United States openly switched sides in the 2011 “Arab Spring,” abandoning allies in the war on terror (jihad) to support those same jihadist forces instead. There was precious little company in the press gallery on this one as US media, shouting slogans of “revolution” and “democracy,” blindly failed to perceive or actually covered up the obvious truth: The US, with NATO, was now supporting the Other Side — the same Other Side that had struck us in 9/11, killed and maimed our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threatened Western liberty everywhere. It was in this crazy atmosphere, John Rosenthal’s independent reporting from Europe provided essential information and context.

John’s long-awaited book, The Jihadist Plot: The Untold Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion, is now out from Encounter. It contains much new information on this shameful, perplexing, dangerous episode — whose jarring reverberations, by the way, have yet to play out.

Here is our Q & A.

DW: Whose side is the United States on in Syria?

John Rosenthal: Objectively, we are on the same side as Jabhat al-Nusra in the Syrian conflict. The administration’s listing of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terror organization changes nothing in this regard and amounts in fact to a kind of sleight of hand. It allows the administration to claim that it is supporting
the Syrian rebellion, but somehow not its “extremist” component. But this distinction is completely bogus. The response to the listing from other rebel brigades — many of which hastened to express their solidarity with Jabhat al-Nusra — makes this clear. Jabhat al-Nusra is part of the
mainstream of the Syrian rebellion. If it is extremist, then so is the rebellion as such.

DW: You explain in your book that in mid-2011, the US changed sides in the so-called war on
terror, which was originally mounted as a war against Al Qaeda; and, moreover,
that the US media missed this story. Could you state the case in brief?

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2489/American-Betrayal-The-Debut-Interview.aspx Last week, I traveled to Florida to discuss American Betrayal:The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character in the Presidential Speakers Series sponsored by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona. The book, which, in fact, doesn’t come out until May 28, couldn’t have had a nicer debut with host Marc Bernier helming the interview. Bonus: […]

CAIRvivi-viThe list keeps growing. We were shocked to find five Illinois Congressional Representatives supporting CAIR. Apparently, there are at least 17 more! If you live in Illinois, let them know what you think. And give them a crash course on the Islamists they are supporting.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/04/30/the-unbearable-lightness-of-alan-dershowitz/

It may well be that Alan Dershowitz suffers from a unique syndrome of Law Professor idiot savantism. Or perhaps he is just another vapid, doctrinaire Leftist hypocrite who (wrongly) views himself as a “traditional liberal” Zionist—and of course, “sage.”

Regardless, Dershowitz’s self-righteous and angry clinging to the failed Oslo delusion “Two State” solution (which ignores the 77% of the original 1920 Mandate for Palestine that was arbitrarily given over to Muslim “Transjordan, ” in 1922, as well as the ancillary Muslim jihad terror state-let of Gaza, under Hamas since shortly after the Israeli withdrawal in 2005), was on vivid display this Sunday, April 28, 2012. Speaking at the Jerusalem Post Annual Conference in New York, Dershowitz

…told the audience that he had spoken with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and suggested that a new basis for negotiations be agreed upon in which construction would continue in the settlement blocs but not in any areas in which there is “reasonable disagreement.” Abbas signed a paper with Dershowitz that he would agree to such a move if the Israeli side would as well, the professor stated.

Angered by the informed audience’s reaction—laughter—to his risible words and deeds, Dershowitz responded peevishly,

It’s so easy to laugh, but I have to tell you the audience today is not helpful in resolving complex and serious issues. You’re proving my point. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

The informed audience reaction to this peevish tirade was jeers and boos.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/04/29/whose-side-is-he-on/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=whose-side-is-he-on In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, the investigation into its perpetrators has been marred by a series of bizarre and even alarming actions by President Obama and his administration. Unfortunately, these increasingly suggest a pattern that is at odds with our national and homeland security. The question must be occurring to many […]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-at-obamas-press-conference-a-presidential-bystander/2013/04/30/42d640be-b1cf-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_print.html

It’s never a good sign for a president when he feels compelled to assure the public he still has a pulse.

This is the unenviable position President Obama was in Tuesday morning when he held a news conference in the White House briefing room and faced a profusion of questions about the stalled pieces of his legislative program. Asked by ABC News’s Jonathan Karl whether he still had “the juice to get the rest of your agenda through,” Obama paraphrased Mark Twain’s response to a newspaper’s report that he was near death.

“You know, rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated,” Obama said.

Back in 1995, Bill Clinton assured Americans that he was still relevant; this may be the first time a president asserted that he was still alive.

One hundred days into his second term, Obama has already lost control of the agenda, if he ever had control in the first place. He ricocheted through his news conference, as he has through his presidency recently, between issues and crises not of his choice.

He was asked about unrest in Syria, the September attack on American officials in Libya, the bombing in Boston, troubles implementing his health-care law and difficulty closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Karl pointed out that Obama’s gun-control legislation collapsed, that his attempts to undo the “sequester” cuts have been ignored and that 92 House Democrats defied his veto threat on a cybersecurity bill.

“Well, if you put it that way, Jonathan, maybe I should just pack up and go home,” Obama replied. “Golly.”

The president was out of sorts from the start of the news conference, scheduled for 10:15 a.m. and postponed to 10:30. Obama finally came out at 10:46. “Good afternoon,” he said. “Or good morning.”

He didn’t attempt to set the tone for the event, skipping an opening statement. And he often found himself remarking on the difficulty of his job: intelligence sharing (“this is hard stuff”), closing Gitmo (“it’s a hard case to make”), Republican governors blocking his health-care law’s implementation (“that makes it harder”) and responding in Syria (“it is a difficult problem”).

If there was a common theme to the president’s many troubles, it was an uncooperative Congress. “Right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill,” he observed. As an example, he mentioned the legislation — which he signed into law — to end flight delays caused by the sequester’s furloughs of air-traffic controllers by shifting money from airport repairs and improvements. “In order to avoid delays this summer, we’re going to ensure delays for the next two or three decades,” he said.

“Why’d you go along with it?” Karl asked.

Some in the room chuckled. Obama didn’t. “You seem to suggest that somehow these folks over there have no responsibilities, and that my job is to somehow get them to behave,” he said. “That’s their job. . . . I cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions.” He instead spoke of creating “a permission structure” for Republicans to do what he wants.

Obama is correct about the dysfunction, and the difficulty of passing even uncontroversial bills. But his stance was frustratingly passive, as if what happens in Congress is out of his hands. It’s the president’s job to lead, and to bang heads if necessary, regardless of any “permission structure.” Obama seemed oddly like a spectator, as if he had resigned himself to a reactive presidency.

In response to questions from Fox News’s Ed Henry, Obama offered some noncommittal thoughts on how he would respond to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons (he would “rethink the range of options”).

Obama later told CBS’s Bill Plante that he had to keep the Guantanamo prison open because “Congress determined that they would not let us close it.” And, in response to a question from NBC’s Chuck Todd, the president found himself dismissing lawmakers such as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus as “nervous and anxious” doubters because Baucus warned that implementation of Obamacare could be a “huge train wreck.”

FROM JANET LEVY ROSS….

Shariah violates every tenet of the U.S. constitution, is incompatible with Western laws and values and violates ALL human rights. It is a supremacist, totalitarian, triumphalist, misogynistic, anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-American hate ideology. This slick video produced by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization effectively shifts the conceptual framework and makes Muslims look like the victims of religious persecution rather than the perpetrators of an evil system that commands complete control of every aspect of life for EVERYONE – even non-Muslims!
Our forefathers did not fight for freedom, justice and liberty to have us descend into Shariah Hell – a place where there is NO justice – no due process, no trial by jury, no freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no equal rights under the law. Shariah Hell is an existence in which Muslims control the lives of non-Muslims, women are be stoned to death for alleged sexual impropriety, girls are forced to undergo genital mutilation and endure forced underage marriages, females are restricted in their movement and activities, wives are beaten, homosexuals are hung, non-Muslims are given the choices of death, conversion or dhimmitude and must pay Muslims for the privilege of staying alive, medieval punishments are enforced for crimes including cross-amputation, eye-gouging, imposed paralysis, there is no singing, laughing or smiling, slavery and rape of non-Muslims is de rigueur, etc.
Shariah Hell has NOTHING to do with the freedom of Muslims to practice their hate ideology disguised as a religion! It has NOTHING to do with being an American! It is ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-FREEDOM, ANTI-TOLERANCE, ANTI-JUSTICE!
Be sure to watch the short video below! Don’t fall for this propaganda and be sure to educate others about this blatant deception!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lH9y7l9xcmY
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/04/30/florida-muslims-and-their-dhimmi-muslim-sympathizers-say-being-anti-sharia-is-being-anti-america/

Kentucky Derby features tradition but safety first

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/novelists-view-world/2013/apr/30/kentucky-derby-features-tradition-safety-first/

NEW YORK, April 30, 2013 – Will it be another Secretariat or Affirmed to gallop into legend? For sure the race will be thrilling – but with a difference.

Caution is the word, and attendees are being alerted to “say something” if they “see something.”

Large purses, coolers and bottles are among the carry-in items that are being banned for the first time, as Churchill Downs steps up (airport-type) security for Saturday’s running of the 139th Kentucky Derby. Backpacks were forbidden in previous years, even before the terror in Boston.

More than 160,000 fans are expected to attend, and everyone will be subject to electronic scanning. The official precautionary details are available here.

So it’s come to this!

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Diplomacy-Taking-a-more-nuanced-look-at-Israel-311159
Israel’s consul-general in New York Ido Aharoni advocates shifting Israeli advocacy on campus from angry confrontations on the quad to showing Israel’s relevance in students’ lives.

NEW YORK – Spend any time at all in the US speaking with pro-Israel American Jews and one theme constantly emerges: Israel is losing the campuses.

If it is distress over the annual anti-Israel “Apartheid Week,” annoyance over Palestinian students disturbing high-profile Israeli speeches, or votes in student government bodies about disinvestment, the overall impression is that American college campuses are a beehive of anti-Israel activity. The concern expressed by many pro-Israel supporters in the US is simple: Tomorrow’s leadership cadre is being trained today at America’s universities, and they are being poisoned by a virulently anti- Israel atmosphere.

Ido Aharoni, Israel’s consul-general in New York, who spends hours upon hours on American campuses, has a much more nuanced – and as a result more sanguine – view of things.

Indeed, Aharoni has a whole different idea of what needs to be done on the college campuses: less trying to outshout radical Palestinian supporters on the tree-lined quads, and more quietly trying to make Israel relevant for the vast majority of students for whom the Middle East is distant and far down on their agenda.

“In today’s tech environment it is not about winning debates, but building relationships with people with influence and relevance, people who matter,” Aharoni says in his spacious office just off New York City’s 42nd Street. “The public debate on the quad is not where the battle should be waged. Fighting the fight and arguing the argument will never produce the leapfrog effect for Israel.”

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3688/israel-uk-ambassador The former PA security man makes it clear that the intention is to inflict unbearable pain while leaving a minimum of identifiable traces… The whole of the ambassador’s piece, like its opening, rings with the unqualified confidence of old-time apologies for the Soviet regime. What if the Israeli ambassador in Britain were to write […]