RUTHFULLY YOURS

When a large number of foreign-policy experts—both Republicans and Democrats—falsely attribute many of the world’s ills to the Jewish state, they are channeling an ancient hatred. The time has come to say so.
Schizophrenia is a much-abused metaphor. Those of us who have ever cared about someone who suffers from the illness have a hard time with all those pundits who get it wrong, confusing it with split-personality disorder, and then applying it metaphorically to anybody who carries two contradictory thoughts.

But knowing about the disease can still be helpful in talking about politics—giving us a much better metaphor to describe the conversation about Israel taking place in Washington today.

Schizophrenics suffer not from multiple personalities, but from an inability to tell the difference between things they encounter or imagine on the one hand and reality on the other. It’s been described as a kind of filtering problem: If they overhear someone on television saying, “the court awarded me $5 million,” a schizophrenic may easily believe she is owed that money and say so repeatedly for years. Schizophrenics also suffer from all manner of delusions, believing things happened that never did. And if they are also paranoid, they will try to convince you that secretive people and forces are conspiring to hurt them.

Our immigration laws and our borders are America’s first and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals and other foreign nationals whose presence in the United States would undermine national security, public safety and the overall well-being of America and Americans.

Yet the president has decided that the political component of this issue justifies his issuing edicts that contradict current laws. He has also apparently decided to “double down” when, during an interview on MSNBC made it clear that any Border Patrol agent or any ICE agent who attempts to enforce the immigration laws that contradict his illegal edicts would face serious consequences. This is a not-so veiled threat. Once again we find that we live in a thugocracy (sic).

After watching Jihadi John saw through so many human necks in the name of Allah, we now know his name and his name is “Victim”.

Sure Mohammed Emwazi, aka Jihadi John, may be a brutal killer, but he was actually a “gentle, kind … beautiful young man” who was “radicalized by Britain.” If the brutal monster was extreme about anything, it was being “extremely kind”.

That’s according to Asim Qureshi of CAGE, one of those groups campaigning against Islamophobia and efforts by the beleaguered British to prevent further kind and gentle beheadings.

Asim is another of those extremely kind Muslim men who might be extremely kind or kind of extreme depending on your perspective.

He was caught on video saying, ”When we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechyna, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel we know what the solution is and where the victory lies.”

“We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the west. Allahu akbar!”

CAGE claims that criticism of Boko Haram, currently using little girls as suicide bombers in a quest to wipe out the Christians of Nigeria, is about “demonizing Islam”.

Despite acknowledged flaws in computer models and global temperatures’ prolonged plateau, three august Australian bodies have issued reports insisting that the climate-change “crisis” is real, bad and getting worse. Have they no shame?

Many things are said to be threatened by climate change — species, coastlines, farming and so on. Few, if any, have actually witnessed a deleterious impact, save perhaps the most important of all: integrity.

Gone are apolitical scientists who once told the whole story. In their place are activists who distort, omit crucial facts, cherry-pick and torment data contrary to common science ethics. I was initially prepared to write it off as incompetence, but we’ve seen so much of it, time and time again, not to grasp that some darker influence must be at work. The Climategate emails pulled back the curtain on a cabal of scientists who “hide the decline”; select a small subset of, in one infamous instance, tree ring-data that supports their claim while ignoring a broader base of survey findings; conspire to have scientific journals’ editors sacked, and discuss how to stall and stymie perfectly legal Freedom of Information requests. As those emails showed, the climate cabal even expressed joy over the death of a persistent critic.

The rancid Pelosi-Reid contingent of the Democratic Party won’t even listen to what Israel’s prime minister has to say.
Here we are, on the eve of Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to both houses of the United States Congress. The Obama administration is acting like a petulant twelve year old [1] — how dare the prime minister of Israel come to the United States and speak before Congress when he wasn’t invited by us? — and the rancid Pelosi-Reid contingent of the Democratic Party has promised to take their marbles and go home: they won’t even listen [2] to what he has to say.

The ostensible issue is Iran, with which the Obama administration is currently capitula– er, negotiating. The presence of a Jew, and a Jew from Israel, in the nation’s capital (and Capitol) is sure to offend the mullahs in Tehran, and it might just upset the delicate diplomacy by which Obama privately assures that Iran gets nuclear weapons while publicly pretending to prevent that eventuality.

Back in 2001, when Barack Obama was in the Illinois state Senate and still battening on the wisdom of the “Reverend” Jeremiah (“God-Damn America”) Wright [3], Netanyahu was more forthright, and more percipient, than most politicians about the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Menendez Pulls No Punches: Takes Shots at Rice, ‘Political Friends,’ Nuclear ‘Mothballing’

The Democratic author of Iran sanctions measures that have drawn ire from the Obama administration took aim at his critics and embraced his allies in a passionate address before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, also took a dig at National Security Advisor Susan Rice as he rallied the conference crowd in the speaking slot after the administration official.

“I take issue with those who say the prime minister’s visit to the United States is ‘destructive’ to U.S.-Israel relations,” Menendez said. Rice made such comments in an interview with PBS aired last week.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu prepares to address Congress on the “Iranian file,” it is undeniable that Israel is confronting another — and perhaps the most crucial — existential crisis in its volcanic history as a legitimate state. It has successfully met every threat to its survival from its founding to the present, but the specter of a nuclear Iran, which has vowed to erase Israel from the map, has raised the stakes to a new and unprecedented level.

Israel has always relied on its pluck, resourcefulness and ingenuity to defeat its enemies’ plans and initiatives. But what can it do, friendless and encircled, against 130,000 Iranian and Iranian-backed troops [1] massing in southern Syria and the Syrian Golan while the chief instigator of its destruction hurtles towards nuclear and ballistic capability — with, be it said, the complicity of the White House [2] and the support of its European hangers-on?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is slated to address Congress Tuesday, March 3, 2015 regarding his concerns over the so-called “P5 (i.e., the U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain) +1 (Germany)” nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015, a week before Netanyahu’s scheduled appearance� which is clearly unwelcome by the Obama Administration� Susan Rice, the Administration’s national security adviser, told PBS’s Charlie Rose, bluntly:

I think it’s [Netanyahu’s address] destructive of the fabric of the [U.S.-Israel] relationship.

Subsequently, Israel National News (on March 1, 2015) repeated unconfirmed allegations from a Kuwaiti newspaper that President Obama personally thwarted a planned Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014, threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they reached their Iranian targets. By Sunday evening (3/1/15), in a statement issued to The Washington Times, a senior Obama Administration official claimed the Kuwaiti report was “totally false.”

Pair this frank denial of the Kuwaiti story with Ms. Rice’s icy, hostile remark, and it reflects an Obama administration thoroughly, even vindictively dismissive of the Israeli Prime Minister’s grave, rational apprehensions. Mr. Netanyahu appropriately rejects the current negotiations process which abets, and de facto legitimizes, Iran’s nuclear aspirations, under the guise of regulated uranium enrichment for promised non-military uses, while ignoring the Islamic Republic’s long range ballistic missile development, and nuclear weaponization programs. Speaking at Bar Ilan University, on February 9, 2015, Netanyahu offered a plaintive rationale for his Congressional address in early March, highlighting the shared existential threat to Israel, and the U.S:

The true question is whether Iran will have nuclear bombs to implement its intention to destroy the State of Israel. That is something we will not allow. This is not a political issue either in Israel or the U.S. This is an existential issue.

Referencing the disturbing findings of a confidential IAEA report exposed by the New York Times on February 20, 2015 (discussed below), Netanyahu later expressed his “astonishment” that the P5 +1 negotiations had not been abandoned altogether:

Not only are they continuing, there is an increased effort to reach a nuclear agreement in the coming days and weeks. Therefore, the coming month is critical for the nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers because a framework agreement is liable to be signed that will allow Iran to develop the nuclear capabilities that threaten our existence.

“My ten months with Isis” – Life as a hostage of Jihadi John’s brutal terror gang

▪ In an exclusive first interview outside France, a freed French Isis hostage says the British and American prisoners remained as cheerful as possible but that their governments could have done more to save them.

I spent three days this week with Pierre Torres, one of the French hostages who was held captive by Isis in Syria for ten months. He was released last year, a short time before his American and British co-captives were beheaded one by one in a series of gruesome videos. He was among the last people to see them alive.

He and I were in Geneva to conduct a question and answer session at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights. A video of it can be seen here, in which he explains why he first went to Syria, and other matters.

But in addition, over a series of coffees and walks around Geneva, Torres, a charming and good-humored but rather shy young man of 30, slowly provided me with additional insights into his time in captivity — his first interview with a non-French journalist.

“We were moved around a lot, kept underground most of the time, sometimes chained together for weeks on end. It was tough and terrible things happened, but we also kept ourselves in as good spirits as possible.”

“We passed the time by inventing quizzes which we played with each other. We also played chess. We created chess pieces out of a discarded milk carton we had. Our captors let us play but were angered when we represented some of the pieces by faces – their interpretation of Islam strictly forbids any depictions of any man or animal. So we had to make the pieces again.”

Fear and anger are synergistic emotions. Combined, they can quickly overwhelm a person’s psyche, as President Obama’s is now. He so greatly fears what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will say to congress tomorrow about his Iranian nuclear weapons deal that he has stopped at nothing to prevent and discredit it.

Obama’s has aimed every political weapon he has at Netanyahu.

His fear and anger are the reasons he sent Jeremy Bird, one of his top political consultants, to Israel to help defeat Netanyahu in the election that will be held two weeks after the speech.

Fear and anger are why he sent National Security Adviser Susan Rice out to say that Netanyahu’s speech is “destructive of the fabric” of America’s relationship with Israel. They are why Secretary of State Kerry said that Netanyahu’s judgment is defective on such matters, giving as proof the fact that the Israeli PM supported the 2003 Iraq invasion. (Kerry was careful to not mention that he voted for the Iraq invasion as a senator and reaffirmed the vote in his 2004 presidential campaign.)