RUTHFULLY YOURS

n his brief treatment of international affairs in Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama offered essentially two assertions about his foreign policy: It is not reactive, nor is it one-dimensional. Yet this was more of an unwitting self-critique than the defense he intended. Both principles are undeniably sound, but the Obama administration has not practiced them; paradoxically, they are two of the major flaws in how the U.S. has recently conducted foreign affairs.

There is no clearer sign of the reactive nature of U.S. foreign policy than the near-absence from the speech of the “rebalancing” to Asia–the intended centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy–or of other early-term priorities such as Israeli-Palestinian peace or improved relations with Russia.

Iran has apparently produced an intercontinental ballistic missile whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe.

On Wednesday night, Channel 2 showed satellite imagery taken by Israel’s Eros-B satellite that was launched last April. The imagery showed new missile-related sites that Iran recently constructed just outside Tehran. One facility is a missile launch site, capable of sending a rocket into space or of firing an ICBM.

On the launch pad was a new 27-meter long missile, never seen before.

The missile and the launch pad indicate that Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is an integral part of its nuclear weapons program, is moving forward at full throttle. The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States as well.

Also on Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to address a joint session of Congress by House Speaker John Boehner.

Boehner has asked Netanyahu to address US lawmakers on February 11 regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the threat to international security posed by radical Islam.

The world’s leaders marched boldly through the streets of Paris, proclaiming themselves undaunted champions of free speech. Then they went home to supervise prosecutions and deportations of those who mistook their photogenic posturing for sincerity.

The Charlie Hebdo murders followed a perverted logic. No unprecedented, out-of-the box act, it was the work of cultural aliens to whom we in the West have already partially awarded the right to crimp and intimidate our civil society and its heritage, not least in Section 18C-style efforts to gag free speech. The “endarkenment” is what columnist Brendan O’Neill calls the movement to erase the gains accrued since the Enlightenment, and he is not guilty of exaggeration.

The recent great march in Paris, led by leaders from around the world, may have appeared impressive at first glance. Yet, many of the political leaders, who led that parade, are hypocrites of greater or lesser degree. Barrack Obama has been severely criticised for preferring to watch a football match, rather than participate in a spectacle supposedly dedicated to free speech. He compounded his indifference by failing to ensure that any member of his administration attended in his stead.

It is impossible to tell how soon France and the rest of Europe will be Judenfrei, but the process is well underway. When the exodus is complete, let’s just see how well the Continent’s sophisticates get along with the sort of people who cheered the Charlie Hebdo massacre

My European Jewish brethren are in danger. Again. European streets are ringing with “Death to the Jews” and “Gas the Jews” – ugly mobs, salivating for Jewish blood. Again.

They have almost stopped pretending that Israel’s existence is the reason for this hatred. They hate Jews, pure and simple. But who are the “they”? German burghers, dreaming of re-living their grandparents’ glory days as Nazi stormtroopers? I don’t think so. Germany was thoroughly de-Nazified after WWII and has sincerely atoned for the Shoah. It is, apparently, a different nation.

While the West has abandoned its brand of post-9/11 counterinsurgency, our Islamist opponents continue to operate by the old rule book. As we now face the difficult task of crafting an alternative way of war against guerrillas and militia forces, history’s lesson cannot be ignored

We still assume that if correctly managed, counterinsurgency can succeed anywhere. It is a dangerous assumption, for it may lead policymakers to commit American lives, lucre, and prestige to causes better analysis might have revealed to be chimerical.
— D. Michael Shafer, Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency Policy

In a speech at the Australian Defence College in Canberra in February 2007, the Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, posed the question: “How do the West’s fast-food nations fight a one-hundred-year war against Al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies?” Even as Pace spoke, the response was already well under way in the halls of power in Washington and London: employ armies in long-term counterinsurgency campaigns over years, if not decades, in order to bring about stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, there is probably no more unpopular form of war for a liberal democracy than counterinsurgency. The West’s record in fighting modern insurgents from the Cold War era to the age of globalisation is characterised by multiple political reverses.

The reporter’s computer was hacked, possibly by the feds, but the DOJ and the media turn a blind eye.

Sharyl Attkisson was one of the most distinguished investigative journalists in television news, covering everything from the dangers of certain prescription drugs to mismanagement at the Red Cross to TARP to K Street. Over a career that spanned more than 20 years at CBS News, she received numerous awards for her work, including multiple Emmys.

In her memoir Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, Attkisson looks back on the final years of her network career. One concludes from her book that Attkisson encountered more difficulty practicing her profession at CBS News during Obama’s tenure than at any other time. She reached an agreement for her departure from CBS News in March 2014, well before her contract was to expire.

Winston Churchill never once flinched in the face of the Third Reich.

Fifty years ago this Saturday, former British prime minister Winston Churchill died at age 90.

Churchill is remembered for his multiple nonstop careers as a statesman, cabinet minister, politician, journalist, Nobel laureate historian, and combat veteran. He began his career serving the British military as a Victorian-era mounted lancer and ended it as custodian of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

But he is most renowned for an astounding five-year-tenure as Britain’s wartime prime minister from May 10, 1940, to June 26, 1945, when he was voted out of office not long after the surrender of Nazi Germany.

Churchill took over the day Hitler invaded Western Europe. Within six weeks, an isolated Great Britain was left alone facing the Third Reich. What is now the European Union was then either under Nazi occupation, allied with Germany, or ostensibly neutral while favoring Hitler.

Yes, Ron Paul et al. are blaming the victims.

Ron Paul is feeling some blowback of his own. He was roundly criticized — notably by a number of high-profile libertarians normally inclined to sympathize with many of the views he has helped to popularize — for arguing that the Charlie Hebdo murders were the result of “blowback,” i.e., that French jihadists murdered the staff of a satirical magazine in Paris infamous for its cartoons of Islamic figures in retaliation for U.S. and French foreign policy, rather than in retaliation for the contents of the publication. His argument is absurd on its face — the editors of Charlie Hebdo are not what you would call major players in the foreign-policy world — but Paul rushed to his own defense, which is for him an increasingly lonely task. “Those who do not understand blowback made the ridiculous claim that I was excusing the attack or even blaming the victims,” he wrote.

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dawn Perlmutter, the Director of the Symbol Intelligence Group and one of the leading subject matter experts (SME) in symbols, symbolic methodologies, unfamiliar customs and ritualistic crimes. She designed and developed Jihad-ID, a symbolic database of the signs, symbols and identifiers of global jihad.

Dawn discussed Islamic Murder By Ritual Purification, taking us behind the scenes of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The discussion occurred within the context of how Jihadists view blasphemy against Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/islamic-murder-by-ritual-purification-on-the-glazov-gang/

TAmerican Sniper is the movie that should not have existed. Even though the book was a bestseller, nobody in Hollywood wanted the rights.

And why would they?

The Iraq War already had an official narrative in Hollywood. It was bad and wrong. Its veterans were crippled, dysfunctional and dangerous. Before American Sniper, Warner Brothers had gone with anti-war flicks like Body of Lies and In the Valley of Elah. It had lost a fortune on Body of Lies; but losing money had never stopped Hollywood from making anti-war movies that no one wanted to watch.

Even the Hurt Locker had opened with a quote from leftist terrorist supporter Chris Hedges.

An Iraq War movie was supposed to be an anti-war movie. There was no other way to tell the story. Spielberg’s own interest in American Sniper was focused on “humanizing” the other side. When he left and Clint Eastwood, coming off a series of failed films, took the helm, it was assumed that American Sniper would briefly show up in theaters and then go off to die quietly in what was left of the DVD aisle.