RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030131740812396.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Elusive Justice: The Search for Nazi War Criminals

Tuesday, Nov. 15, 9-11 p.m. EST on PBS, whose dates and times vary; check local listings.

With every passing year, every new model of portentous drivel about the Nazi era rolled out by the film industry—”The Reader,” about the travails of a concentration camp guard, comes to mind—the more indispensable the facts of history become. The clearer it is, too, how flimsy these film fantasies are as vehicles for drama, compared with that history. The latest reminder of this truth comes with a PBS documentary extraordinary in its detail and revelatory power. It’s title, “Elusive Justice: The Search for Nazi War Criminals,” may be informative, but it’s far from adequate for a work that yields so many surprises, the greatest of which is its freshness. Moving in unexpected directions at every turn, Jonathan Silvers’s film averts the burden of predictability—no small accomplishment for work on so familiar a theme.

The Nuremberg trials and their drama are familiar enough to the world, but not the face and the work of the 27-year-old American Army lawyer and investigator Benjamin Ferencz, charged with the task of collecting evidence for the Nuremberg prosecutions. The terrors of entering the just-liberated camps with their hellish scenes—the film provides striking footage, more extensive than the usual documentary clips, of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower doing just that, with Gen. Omar Bradley just behind him—caused him, he tells the filmmakers, to create a self-defense mechanism. The whole scene wasn’t real, he told himself—it was “just a case,” one of many to get through, in camp after camp. He would become chief prosecutor of a special German unit, the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing units operating on the Eastern front. He found the report of their daily accomplishments, which Germans meticulously recorded—a typical page of which is shown on screen, detailing how many Jewish children were killed, how many men and women had been murdered on a particular date. He counted. “When I got to over a million I stopped counting.”

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/nigeria/article_123074.html More than 130 of 150 slain were Christians, church leaders say. DAMATURU, Nigeria, November 11 (CDN) — They stormed this town in Yobe state, northern Nigeria like a swarm of bees, and at the end of their four-hour rampage, some 150 people had been killed – at least 130 of them Christians, according […]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/11/beijings-electronic-pearl-harbor/

By Brett M. Decker and William C. Triplett II U.S. national security endangered by China’s army of hackers

The following is an excerpt from “Bowing to Beijing” (Regnery Publishing, Nov. 14, 2011):

In November 1997, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism that “we’re facing the possibility of an electronic Pearl Harbor. … There is going to be an electronic attack on this country some time in the future.” Two years later, he told a secret session of the House Armed Services Committee, “We are at war – right now. We are in cyberwar.” Fast-forward more than a decade, to 2011. President Obama’s choice for secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, tells the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing that the United States faces a possible “electronic Pearl Harbor.” Mr. Panetta had been the CIA director for the previous two years – so he would have known.

Two extreme, nearly identical warnings 12 years apart should have brought home the magnitude of the electronic threat facing the country. Yet nothing was done. When former Director of National IntelligenceAdm. Mike McConnell was asked directly by Congress about our ability to withstand such an onslaught, he replied, “The United States is not prepared for such an attack.”

The Obama administration has shown a shocking disinterest in this threat, earning it a blunt rebuke from former White House national security official Richard Clarke. While “our government is engaged in defending only its own networks … it is failing in its responsibility to protect the rest of America from Chinese cyber-attack,” Mr. Clarke wrote in the Wall Street Journal. In other words, the federal government has taken action to protect itself, but not the rest of us. Mr. Clarke further declared that “senior U.S. officials know well that the government of China is systematically attacking the computer networks of the U.S. government and American corporations,” and yet, “In private, U.S. officials admit that the government has no strategy to stop the Chinese cyber-assault.”

http://bigpeace.com/mweisman/2011/11/13/two-wrongs-makes-a-left/#more-175572

You will recall that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit in support of a Muslim public school teacher, Sefoorah Khan. After just 9 months’ employment in a Chicago area school, Ms. Khan chose to take a three week hiatus from her position to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj — a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. She was encouraged, no doubt, by our ever-appeasing President when she demanded the school capitulate to her whim to fulfill this tenet of her religion — during her first year of employment, no less.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced it settled Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit compelling the district to pay $75,000 in back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Even more insulting than this, the district has agreed to develop a policy “accommodating religions [i.e., Islam]” consistent with the Civil Rights Acts to prevent a similar infringement in the future. To be clear, this unusual action on the part of the Justice Department is perfectly congruent with this President’s record of relentlessly protecting political Islam.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10816/pub_detail.asp The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has announced that Manal Omar, the recently appointed United States Institute of Peace (USIP) Director of Iraq, Iran, and North Africa Programs, will be a featured speaker at the group’s 11th Annual Convention in December. Describing Ms. Omar as a “Muslim Visionary”, the report states: Named one of […]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

There is no surer path to Muslim violence than through the legitimization of Muslim grievance. And once you accept the legitimacy of the grievance, then you are also bound to accept the legitimacy of the violence that follows.

Violence begins with grievance. Grievance is the pretext for violence and the narrative for the violence. Liberals make a fetish of separating the grievance from the violence, emphasizing constructive means of resolving the grievance. But what do you do when the grievance and the violence are inseparable?

Grievance is the stories that Muslims tell themselves to justify their violence. To explain why they kill children and why they murder the innocent. The list of grievances is an endless as the violence. Every act of violence carries its own narrative. The endless Muslim conflicts throughout the world all carry their burden of history. But it isn’t a history that can be resolved with a tolerance session.

http://frankmillerink.com/2011/11/anarchy

Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

The “Occupy” movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

“Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.

Maybe, between bouts of self-pity and all the other tasty tidbits of narcissism you’ve been served up in your sheltered, comfy little worlds, you’ve heard terms like al-Qaeda and Islamicism.And this enemy of mine — not of yours, apparently – must be getting a dark chuckle, if not an outright horselaugh – out of your vain, childish, self-destructive spectacle.

In the name of decency, go home to your parents, you losers. Go back to your mommas’ basements and play with your Lords Of Warcraft.Or better yet, enlist for the real thing. Maybe our military could whip some of you into shape.

They might not let you babies keep your iPhones, though. Try to soldier on. Schmucks!!!

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2584/uk-muslims-new-names-old-groups The British government has banned “Muslims Against Crusades” (MAC), an Islamic extremist group that recently launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it referred to as “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states. British Home Secretary Theresa May signed an order on November 9 that makes membership or support of MAC […]

The Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2586/palestinian-victimhood-narrative

Shelby Steele, Robert J and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute, member of the Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.

The following is excerpted from a speech delivered September 22, 2011 in New York City at the conference “The Perils of Global Intolerance: The UN and Durban III,” sponsored by the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and the Hudson Institute.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, is not really a conflict, it is a war – a war of the Arabs against the Jews. In many ways, this conflict has been a conflict between narratives. We who strongly support Israel have done a poor job in formulating a narrative which will combat the story spun by the other side. We can do better.

The Durban conferences, the request for UN recognition of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, and the general animus in the Middle East and elsewhere toward Israel and toward the Jews, what are they really about? Is the Durban conference and the claim that Israel is a racist nation really about reforming the people of Israel and curing them of their racism?

I think their real interest is to situate the Palestinian people within a narrative of victimization. This is their ulterior goal: to see themselves and to have others see them as victims of colonialism, as victims of white supremacy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2011/11/13/perry_can_win_if_leadership_trumps_debates

Ken Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union and is on the board of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. He is the co-author of the new bestseller The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, on sale in bookstores everywhere..
Gov. Rick Perry stated at the outset of his presidential campaign that he is running for president based on his principles and leadership accomplishments, not his oratorical skills. Media focus on his debate missteps deliberately ignores Perry’s record and charisma.

Six months ago discussing Perry’s possible candidacy, a top conservative leader privately said, “Rick is a great leader. But he’s not a greater debater. And he knows it. The question would be whether he overcomes it.

Technology regularly creates new challenges for presidents. Debating skill was a non-issue for many consequential presidents, but some are trying to make it an automatic disqualifier for the Texas governor.

America’s third president—Thomas Jefferson—was a lousy public speaker. He was literally a genius, and his singular eloquence as a writer is seen in his prose in the Declaration of Independence and other writings.

But Jefferson was no speaker, so much so that he only gave a couple speeches in his entire two-term presidency. He was so bad that he fulfilled his constitutional requirement to give an annual State of the Union by sending a written document to Congress.