RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/26/to-honor-neil-armstrong-obama-posts-a-picture-of-himself
The thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is his unearned narcissism. His smugness and arrogance are beyond the ability of science to measure. I don’t mind someone being a bit cocky or even arrogant, IF they have the accomplishments and achievements to back up the attitude.

Obama’s greatest achievement, though, is creating his own personal narrative. He is his own personal touchstone. Even when honoring a great American hero, Obama can’t help but thrust himself into the event.

On Friday, America and the world lost a true hero. Neil Armstrong, who died of heart complications at the age of 82, was the first human to walk on the moon. His steps onto the lunar surface were watched by the largest television audience in history. His statement “one giant leap for mankind” echoed throughout the world, allowing people everywhere to step back from the clutter of their daily lives and pause to dream big things. People who witnessed it will never forget it.

Armstrong’s heroism wasn’t the lunar walk, though. It was how he comported himself afterwards that showed the true measure of the man. He was among the more famous human beings in history. Yet he retired to a quiet and private life teaching aeronautical engineering and tending to his farm. His walk on the moon wasn’t a personal achievement, per se, but an accomplishment for all of humanity.

He made few public appearances. He gave very few speeches or interviews. His resignation from the public square made his lunar walk something mankind achieved rather than something Neil Armstrong achieved. His walk was the culmination of the work, not only of the thousands of engineers and scientists who directly worked on the mission, but also of the countless others throughout the ages who looked up at the skies and dreamed. Armstrong understood this.

On October 26, 2008, then Senator Barack Obama gave a radio interview on WBEZ Chicago. He was asked by the moderator his views on the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement. He replied:

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.” He further lamented: “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society….It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” Restraints he’s been trying to break free of since the first day he took office.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts

In 1864, Karl Marx founded the International Working Men’s Association, known in communist literature as “the First International.” Three years hence, in 1867 he would then publish his most famous work, Das Kapital.

The starting point for Marxist philosophy, and the basis of Das Kapital, is the observation that, in general, the world revolves on a capitalist economy wherein people with money hire people without money to make things and provide services. Marx observed that capitalism is self-defeating and predicted that class distinctions would become wider and wider. He proposed that capitalism should be replaced with a system where work is performed for the common good rather than for money provided by a privileged class; in other words, he proposed communism.

Marx believed that the problem with the socialism of his day was that it did not deal with economic issues. He proposed that his new (communist) economic system, which called for redistribution of wealth was more equitable. Redistribution of wealth, where have we heard that term lately?

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=598

“The redistribution of wealth,” in his own words, Obama is right on board with Marx on this one. Slipping under the radar by carefully wording his speeches, he has insidiously been pushing this Marxist philosophy from day one. Constantly referencing the “rich,” not doing their fair share, he has incessantly inspired class envy like no other president in the history of our country. In speech after speech Obama has been driving home this Marxist ideology. Such was the case this past March 30th in Burlington Vermont where he once again argued for transferring money from one group of people to another, denouncing what he deemed, “you’re on you’re own economics,” thus continuing his demonization as somehow evil the more successful in American society.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-calls-more-redistribution-wealth-declaring-i-am-my-brother-s-keeper

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2218/Dying-over-the-Truth-Murder-Inside-the-Wire.aspx

Andrew Bostom gleans the buried truth deep in an unclassified May 2011 internal Pentagon “Red Team” report on murder “inside the wire”: It turns out that these Pentagon analysts actually lifted the official blinders a crack to note clash of civilizations as a driver behind the constant violent assaults by Afghan security forces on US and other Western forces, and even suggested US troops be instructed in an “objective and comprehensive assessment of the totalitarian nature of the extreme theology practiced among the Afghans.” Of course, that was only suggestion #40 out of 58, so, so much for the Red Team’s powers of priority-analysis.

Clearly, the team’s suggestion wasn’t taken as a February 2012 pocket reference guide (pictured above), “Inside the Wire Threats — Afghanistan Green on Blue,” demonstrates. The complete handbook on which this so-called smartcard is based inexplicably remains classified, but the gist is clear. 1) US troops are to walk on eggs and refrain from saying or doing anything that might set off their armed, “hair-trigger moderate,” Afghan counterparts: “Avoid public rebukes,” troops are told. “Counsel in private jointly with ANSF chain of command” (directions, surely, any self-respecting drill sergeant would roar at). 2) Worse, US troops are ordered to assume the age-old role of the dhimmis, those wretched, self-censoring non-Muslims repressed and stunted by Islamic law: “Respect Islam, Koran or a mosque; Afghan women, elders and children. Avoid arrogance; i.e., belief that ISAF culture is superior to Afghan culture.”

This, pure and simple, is code for submission to Islam’s culture and tenets, which, if the truth were taught in accordance with the Red Team’s sensible recommendation #40, directly conflict with and contradict “ISAF culture” — i.e., Judeo-Christian-humanist principles. The unspeakable fact is, “respecting Islam” and “avoiding arrogance” are impossible to do without surrendering these same Western principles. As much as Islam’s command to Muslims to slay the infidel, this fact, as the Red Team report perhaps inadvertently reveals, is probably at the heart of at least some of the “green-on-blue” attacks that are reported to have followed an “argument.”

To wit, this Red Team summation of interviews with US personnel:

Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for “entertainment” purposes. Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam. Dogs are seen [in Islam] as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such “trivial matters,” and deeply resent any interference…This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members…

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/
Obama Campaign Will Hold Muslim Jumah at DNC – But Won’t Let Catholic Cardinal Lead Prayer
It’s an Obama world.

The Obama Campaign will sponsor an Islamic Jumah at the DNC in September. Obama’s DNC lists the assembly as an “official function.”
Robert Spencer wrote this about the DNC Jumah:

But the most disturbing aspect of the entire “Jumah at the DNC” is not the obvious victimhood-mongering of its agenda, but the people involved. The Democrats are playing host to an unsavory gang of Islamic supremacists with numerous ties to jihad groups. Even this is not surprising, but it should be a matter of concern to any Americans who are more aware of the jihad threat than the average politically correct Democrat pol.

But, as Atlas Shrugs pointed out, the Obama Campaign denied Catholic Cardinal request to lead prayer at the convention.

President Obama turned down a chance to have Timothy Cardinal Dolan deliver a prayer at the Democratic National Convention after Dolan told Democrats he would be “grateful” to deliver a blessing in Charlotte.

Dolan — considered the top Catholic official in the nation, as head of the Archdiocese of New York and president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops — tipped off Democrats a few weeks ago that he had agreed to deliver the prime-time benediction at the Republican convention in Tampa next week, Dolan’s spokesman Joseph Zwilling told The Post.

Unbelievable.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/110309/gop-conventions-rabbi-in-chief

GOP Convention’s Rabbi-in-Chief Meir Soloveichik, scion of a famous Orthodox dynasty, will give the Republicans’ invocation
By Yair Rosenberg|

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik will bless the Republican National Convention Tuesday.

Pol Position
How the heir to an Orthodox rabbinical dynasty landed in Pennsylvania’s Senate race
By Allison Hoffman
With all the speculation in recent weeks over whether Mitt Romney would tap a fellow Mormon to deliver a prayer at the Republican National Convention, one never would have guessed that the opening invocation would be delivered by a rabbi. But on Tuesday afternoon, when the convention makes its belated beginning after being postponed due to inclement weather, Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik will be the clergyman kicking off the proceedings.

If the name Soloveichik sounds familiar, that’s no surprise: The 35-year-old rabbi—who graduated summa cum laude from Yeshiva University, then went on to Yale Divinity School, and received his PhD in religion from Princeton in 2010—is a scion of one of Orthodoxy’s most celebrated rabbinic dynasties. And like many of his family members who manage to keep one foot firmly in the Beit Midrash and the other in the public square, Meir Soloveichik certainly gets around.

Unprecedented Sharia Enforcement by City Governments — on The Jamie Glazov Show, Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 8-9 pm Pacific
Pamela Geller joins Frontpage’s radio show to take your calls for the full hour.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/unprecedented-sharia-enforcement-by-city-governments-on-the-jamie-glazov-show-tuesday-august-28-2012-8-9-pm-pacific/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577615331538288616.html

For the past 67 years, the United States has been criticized for being the only country to drop atomic bombs on another sovereign nation. But while the anniversaries of Hiroshima (Aug. 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9, 1945) rarely pass without comment or controversy, another crucial date is completely ignored: Aug. 29.

Between July 16, 1945, the day the U.S. tested the first atomic device in New Mexico and realized that it actually worked, and Aug. 29, 1949—when the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb—the U.S. held a nuclear monopoly.

No country has ever held a greater strategic advantage over the rest of the world—not Rome under Caesar, France under Napoleon, or Germany under Hitler. Yet between 1945 and 1949, America’s friends and enemies lost very little sleep. Why not? Because the idea of the U.S. using its great advantage to take over the world with nuclear bombs was ludicrous to all but the most irrational minds.

Instead, the U.S. spent the late 1940s focusing on other things. It upgraded its consumer economy, rebuilt its former enemies with the Marshall Plan, and actually downgraded its military.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union took control over all of Eastern Europe and provoked a confrontation with the West when it broke all previous agreements and denied the U.S. access to Berlin. The Chinese Communist Party defeated the Nationalists and Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic on Oct. 1, 1949. And Kim Il Sung began his preparations to drive his North Korean army across the 38th parallel. Clearly a nuclear U.S. didn’t seem to frighten its enemies from doing whatever they desired.

Similarly, in today’s greatest danger zone—the Middle East—it has been widely speculated that Israel has had a nuclear monopoly over all of its sworn enemies for perhaps half a century. In that same period, much larger Arab armies (the combined militaries of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, with help from the Saudis) have threatened Israel’s very existence in 1967 and again in 1973. That doesn’t include the continued terror attacks across Israel’s borders since the United Nations partitioned the territory in 1948, or the missile attacks now coming from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Israel’s response, like that of the U.S., has always been a strong defense with conventional weapons.

Few people lost a wink of sleep over the American nuclear monopoly in the 1940s—and when the Saudis or Syrians or Egyptians have turned off their lights over the past half-century, the last worry on their minds has been being blown to bits by an Israeli nuclear bomb.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/to-hell-in-a-handbasket-carter-obama-and-the-arab-spring/

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ruthie Blum, a twice weekly columnist for Israel Hayom (the English website of Sheldon Adelson’s daily Hebrew paper). For two decades she was a senior editor and regular columnist at the Jerusalem Post. She moved to Israel from the United States in 1977 and resides in Jerusalem. She describes herself as a “right-wing bohemian,” a term she invented to distinguish her politics from those of neoconservatives, paleo-conservatives, and libertarians — because she is a bit of all three. She has four children (three boys and a girl), all of whom served in the IDF. She is the author of the new book, To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the “Arab Spring.”

FP: Ruthie Blum, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with what inspired you to write this book.

Blum: Thanks Jamie.

I began researching the book exactly two years ago, shortly after Jimmy Carter published his appalling book, “Peace Not Apartheid.” I was commissioned to write it by David Azrieli, a renowned Canadian-Israeli architect and philanthropist, who had lost his family in the Holocaust, and who had spent his teenage years escaping the Nazis by the skin of his teeth.

Originally, the book was supposed to be a kind of indictment of the Carter presidency. The idea behind it was to show Carter’s responsibility for the fall of the Shah of Iran, the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the mishandling of the American embassy takeover, and hence the current situation in which the mullocracy in Iran is soon to be in possession of nuclear weapons.

Four months into my research, the so-called “Arab Spring” erupted, when a Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire. Suddenly, everything I had been reading and discussing with my interviewees for the book came to life again — only this time it was President Obama at the helm.

FP: Why were you pessimistic about the “Arab Spring” from the very beginning?

Blum: Partly because I actually live in the Middle East, and don’t tend to translate the statements and actions of Arabs into some watered-down version of America-speak. When Tunisians, Egyptians, Lybians and Syrians take to the streets and scream for blood, it doesn’t ring like the desire for freedom and democracy. Rather, it is an expression of rage at being “the abused,” as opposed to “the abuser.” It is not an expression of a desire to end a reign of terror; it is an expression of the desire to be the ones at the helm of that terror.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577615300669832384.html

A few days ago there occurred one of those telling little episodes that captures the essence and folly of the Obama administration’s approach to foreign policy. The meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement is being hosted this week in Iran, and the administration had urged United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon not to attend as a signal of displeasure at Tehran’s serial violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Of course Mr. Ban is going.

The administration’s response to Mr. Ban’s decision was “muted,” according to the New York Times, evidently out of sympathy for his delicate position: Most U.N. member states are also members of the Non-Aligned Movement, and it’s customary for U.N. secretaries-general to attend the meetings. There’s also hope Mr. Ban will make a public stink in Iran about its leaders’ nuclear bid or their calls to wipe out Israel. And maybe he will.

Still, there’s no overlooking the central point of this tussle: In the global popularity contest between Barack Obama and Ali Khamenei, the ayatollah is winning.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3312/the-pro-palestinians Once again, it has been exposed that Americans and Europeans who claim to be pro-Palestinian are actually just Israel-haters. For them, the Palestinian issue is just a vehicle for vomiting their hatred for Israel, and most likely all Jews. They are closer to Hamas and Islamic Jihad than to moderate Arabs and Muslims. The […]