RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Obama has wrapped up his tour of Africa. It was notable, insofar as that word can be applied to the trip, for his somewhat condescending and neo-colonial lecture to his hosts on the need to ease up on the old homophobia.

Certainly, Africa is not terribly gay-friendly. But nor are other parts of the planet. In his ardent wooing of Iran, for example, he doesn’t seem to have been perturbed in the least by his new best friends’ executions of homosexuals, anymore than he is by the brutalization of gays elsewhere in the Muslim world. You might deduce in his highly selective criticism a certain cowardice. I’ll bet the mullahs do.

If you’ve read The [Un]documented Mark Steyn (and if you haven’t, you really should, especially when you can get it personally autographed to you at no extra charge), you’ll also know that Obama, in reprimanding Africa for its homophobia, is at odds with The Guardian, whose position is that black homophobia is all our fault. As I write in the book:

“The first thing I said when I converted is, ‘How do I worship my God?'” Nuttall says in the video. “And my second question was, ‘Where is my gun? Let’s go do jihad.”

Islamophobia is a serious threat and must be defeated no matter how many non-Muslim children must be killed to make it happen.

Amanda Korody, a Canadian woman found guilty of taking part in a terrorist bomb plot, also wanted to infiltrate a synagogue and kill Jewish children, according to a report in the Western Canadian newspaper, the Times Colonist.

Both Korody and co-defendant, John Nuttall, her husband, are self-described Muslim converts.

Police notes presented in British Columbia (B.C.) Supreme Court on Monday described how Korody’s husband John Nuttall told an undercover officer that his wife believed she would be doing Jewish children a favor by sending them to paradise, since she believed “grown-up Jews” go to “eternal hell” when they die.

“They will be regulars in the synagogue. They will gain the trust of everybody. And once they have everything they will get enough guns

New PBS documentary follows a long tradition of whitewashing Black Murder Inc.

Editor’s note: This Fall, PBS is featuring a documentary, The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution, which turns out to be little more than a pro-Panther propaganda film which ignores the mountain of evidence that the Black Panther Party was a murderous street gang with a political veneer. As Michael Moynihan points out in his recent review of the PBS documentary, Whitewashing the Black Panthers, in The Daily Beast, the production excuses a murderous and totalitarian cult that worshiped communist mass murderers such as Stalin, Chairman Mao, Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh — and emulated their savagery and sadism at home.

To mark this occasion, Frontpage is publishing below an essay written in COMINT magazine (Spring 1991) by David Horowitz (one of many), “PBS Promotes the Black Panthers.” It is included in the newest volume of Horowitz’s classic, The Black Book of the American Left, Volume 5, Culture Wars, which will be released in October 2015. The article documents the record of PBS’s shilling for this murderous black gang, providing propaganda cover for a group which preyed on the black community in the name of “social justice.” The duration of this disgrace shows the continuing dominance of a liberal ideology that will justify any criminality so long as it is committed by blacks.

“But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation….” – UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

Cameron, however, has not offered a precise definition of “extremism,” and it remains unclear how his government will balance efforts to silence Islamic extremists with the right to free speech. The government would “actively encourage” moderate Muslims, especially those who are working toward a “reformation” of Islam, one that would be “free from the poison of Islamist extremism.”

“What I call the grievance justification, must be challenged…. When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres — it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.” — UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

As Obama administration officials lobbied for the Iran nuclear deal before the House Foreign Affairs Committee today, the images of four Americans held in Iran stared back at them from the dais.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) taped photos of Marine vet Amir Hekmati, pastor Saeed Abedini, reporter Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Bob Levinson underneath his microphone.

“I put their pictures here to remind you of them today,” Duncan told Secretary of State John Kerry. “I understand not using them as pawns in negotiations, but what should have been — what should have happened is they should have been released as a precondition before ever sitting down with Iran for anything.”

Regarding Hillary’s emails, Kremlinology is back in style.

Media folks have long viewed the New York Times as something akin to the Kremlin back in the heyday of its beloved Soviet Union. Times-watchers, like Kremlinologists, collect signs, signals and portents about what actually is taking place within the grim fortress near Times Square. So the recent brouhaha over Mrs. Clinton’s emails has brought Timesology roaring back to the fore:

Four days after a major error in a story about Hillary Clinton’s emails, the New York Times has published an editors’ note laying out what went wrong. The note, published late Monday night, said The Times’ initial story was based on “multiple high-level government sources,” but acknowledged that as the paper walked back its reporting, corrections were slow to materialize, and substantial alterations “may have left readers with a confused picture.”

The original story was published Thursday night. It initially claimed federal inspectors general had requested a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email use during her tenure at the State Department. Over the next few days, the story had numerous changes, including that the investigation request was for a “security” referral, which is far short of a criminal investigation. In addition, Clinton was no longer named as a target.

As careful readers have noticed, there is a proxy war going on inside the Times regarding the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua. On one side is the Obama administration, most likely in the person of Valerie Jarrett, furiously leaking damaging information about Mrs. Clinton during her disastrous tenure as secretary of state; on the other are the die-hard aging Clinton partisans (the Times once was filled with them) who are quick to rise to her defense. As the newspaper noted in its “correction”:

Barack ‘Son of the Soil’ Obama wrapped up his ‘Nudge Africa toward Gay Rights’ tour. Next stop, summer vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. Before heading home, Obama shared insights that are not only contradictory, they’re down right terrifying.

It was during a joint news conference with Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, after pushing for peace in civil war-torn South Sudan that Obama the race-baiter, responsible for stoking the flames of unrest in the U.S., urged Ethiopian leaders to restrain from imposing restrictions on the press and political debate.

Obama, who, when it comes to Tea Party activists, Fox News, and conservative talk radio doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, reminded his hosts that “When all voices are being heard, when people know they are being included in the political process, that makes a country more successful.”

While the young woman who complained of lurid texts and wandering hands has been suspended without pay, the man she accuses of sexual harassment sails serenely on. He continues to describe himself as head of the IPCC as probers drag their heels and the Western media looks the other way.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri,until this February the world’s top climate bureaucrat, continues to operate at the helm of Delhi think-tank The Energy & Resources Institute (TERI), with no announcement that he has resigned or dismissed. There’s even speculation now that he might make a comeback in some new role at the United Nations.

In February, Pachauri, 75, was hit with a sexual harassment complaint by a 29-year-old TERI analyst, who provided police with more than 5000 incriminating texts stretching back to her first weeks at TERI in 2013. She also alleged he had assaulted her sexually and that, having repeatedly resisted his advances, Pachauri finally removed her from productive work.

When those on the left deliver their sermons on the threat of global warming and the need to do something about it, they accept the allegedly science without question. In doing so they elevate a misplaced faith in what they would term rationality above reason
Is anthropogenic climate change real? What’s most surprising about the climate change debate is how often commentators signal their stance by offering either a negative or an affirmative answer to this question. That is, most people seem to think that a mature response to climate change has to be based upon an assessment of the credibility of the specific scientific claims that are bound up in the notion of “climate change”. Whether one denies or affirms the reality of “climate change”, one is seen to be taking a position relative to some real or perceived consensus among scientists.

I want to suggest that it is really much more complicated than that. The dialogue between liberals and conservatives is rife with solecisms, and “climate change” is one of them. Because when liberals use the phrase “climate change” they are not simply referring to the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are contributing to an exacerbated greenhouse effect which is resulting in an increase in average temperatures globally. By now, a set of progressive political programs designed to address climate change, and the attitudes that constitute acceptable speech on the subject, are inextricably bound up in the liberal notion of “climate change”. The question, “Is anthropogenic climate change real?” is, regardless of the science, already a politically loaded question.

“Maybe Republicans should nominate Donald Trump after all. We could have an election that completely fulfills the modern archetypal tendency to select candidates who crave the presidency to satisfy their own needs, not the country’s.”

How will six different capital-gains rates make managements or shareholders any less concerned with quarterly earnings? She doesn’t say.

Hillary Clinton would string syllables together in any order if she thought it would get her to the White House, so it’s with that giant asterisk that we examine the content of her capital-gains plan unveiled in a speech in New York last week.

That Mrs. Clinton found time at the end to notice any imperfections in government—for instance, that it can’t write and execute a budget—came almost as a shock in a speech designed to assure us that ultracompetent government can fix the failings of big business.