RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/04/16/as-white-house-utters-the-t-word/?print=1

The Obama administration, which generally chokes on the word “terrorism” and fought against applying it to the jihadist atrocities at Fort Hood and Benghazi, is calling yesterday’s Boston Marathon bombing “terrorism.” Its reasoning, coupled with the way the term was rolled out, is intriguing.

Initially, President Obama made a brief statement to the nation last night in which, characteristically, he did not use the word “terrorism.” Moments afterward, however, an unidentified “senior administration official” pronounced that the bombing was a terrorist attack, telling Fox News, “When multiple devices go off, that’s an act of terrorism.”

In point of fact, while bombing is a common tactic of terrorists for obvious reasons, the choice of attack-method is not what makes violence “terrorism.” If, say, the mafia were to use two or three car bombs to rub out several rival gangsters at the same time, that would not be terrorism even though “multiple devices” would be involved. Terrorism is violence directed at political communities — usually, nations and their governments. It is carried out for the specific purpose of intimidating the political community into submitting to the terrorists’ preferred policies, and, significantly, it is almost always ideologically motivated.

That last attribute of terrorism is the cause of the Obama administration’s paralyzing misgivings about the T-word. The president is mulishly determined to cultivate Islamic-supremacist governments and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. The stubborn problem is that al Qaeda — the only Muslim outfit the administration seems willing to hang the “terrorist” label on — is also Islamic-supremacist. That is, al Qaeda is adherent to the same ideology — based on sharia, Islam’s legal code and societal framework — as the groups the administration considers “allies” and “moderates.”

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/16/saudi-king-to-obama-boston-bombers-belonged-to-no-religion-at-all/

Saudi King Abdullah reached out to President Obama to express condolences for the Boston Marathon bombings and say that the attackers had “no religion,” according to the Saudi Press Agency.

“In his own name and on behalf of the people and government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the monarch expressed profound sorrow and pain for the death and injury of some innocent people as a result of the two terrorist acts in Boston, describing the perpetrators of the explosions as belonging to no religion at all and that no ethics or values ever accept this deed, and wishing the injured quick recovery and the American people steady security and stability,” the news agency said.

Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Saudi foreign minister, met briefly with Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington today in a meeting also attended by Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir and Osamah bin Ahmed Nugali, head of the information department at the Foreign Ministry.

“During the meeting, they discussed bilateral relations between the two friendly countries and regional issues of mutual concern, including Middle East peace efforts and the current situation in Syria,” the SPA reported. “Prince Saud Al-Faisal also expressed his condolences on the victims and the injured in the Marathon attacks in Boston.”

Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu also condemned the bombings today, saying an “act targeting to destroy the peaceful atmosphere of a sporting event was cowardly and reprehensible.”

“He wished speedy recovery of the injured and underlined that the OIC stands with the United States Government and People in rejecting such violence,” the OIC added in the statement.

“These heinous crimes are not consistent with the provisions of any religion, violate international laws, oppose the simplest principles of humanity, aim at destabilizing security and stability of the United States of America, and terrorize its innocent people,” an official source at Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the SPA.
Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion

Unsubstantiated accusations against my son by a former girlfriend landed him before a nightmarish college tribunal.

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323346304578424881461306920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

New Jersey unions wanted a monopoly on Hurricane Sandy reconstruction, but Governor Chris Christie put a stop to that scheme on Monday when he vetoed a bill that would have favored unions on all state public-works projects over $5 million.

The bill would have expanded the state’s ability to mandate the use of so-called project labor agreements, or PLAs, on taxpayer funded projects including roads and bridges. Mr. Christie wrote in his veto message that the bill would “significantly alter public contracting in this State” when the focus should be on rebuilding.

Unions are fond of PLAs because they usually force all contractors to hire workers at union hiring halls and pay into union benefit plans, discouraging non-union firms from bidding on jobs. New Jersey Democrats, including Senate President Stephen Sweeney, say mandating PLAs would have given more jobs to New Jerseyites. That’s curious math, when some 75% of the state’s private construction workforce isn’t unionized.

The real goal is to kick more business to unions and expand their market share. Projects run with PLAs take longer and cost more, but they also squeeze workers by forcing non-union workers to pay union dues to work on a taxpayer-funded project. Under current law, unions can still bid on Sandy reconstruction projects, but they’ll have to do so in open and competitive bidding.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/04/what_right_of_return.html

BENNY MORRIS THE DADDY OF BIASED HISTORY AGAINST ISRAEL HAS NOW BECOME ONE OF ITS DEFENDERS….ATONEMENT? RSK

On Sunday evening, April 14, Boston University hosted a forum titled “What ‘Right’ of Return?” Prompting this gathering was a conference held at B.U. the previous week, called unambiguously “The Right of Return,” headlined by the infamous Professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University. Not surprisingly, that conference “failed to create an open forum for peaceful dialogue, and excluded key historical facts, speakers, and information,” according to the organizers of Sunday’s rebuttal — “faculty, staff and friends of Boston University.”

Those who showed up Sunday, besides the usual handful of Israel huggers and bloggers, probably came because of the rare opportunity to hear and see Professor Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University, the highly controversial historian who is currently (and conveniently), a visiting professor across the river at Harvard.

Morris was joined by Israeli journalist, lawyer, and government advisor on immigration Ben-Dror Yemini; and by Asaf Romirowsky, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum. Each had important things to say about the omissions, propaganda, and lies being fed to vulnerable students at colleges across the world; lies, as Yemini said, that are couched in the seductive language of human rights and social justice, terms every student wants to believe. These are stratagems, of course, poisonous fabrications with one goal: the ultimate destruction of the Jewish state. Of these revisionist falsehoods, the so-called right of return is among the most sinister — destruction by demography.

The transfer of populations, as Yemini pointed out, is as old as history. In fact, the 1937 Peel Commission envisioned the transfer of population from the Jewish to the proposed Arab state. It is true that about 700,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948. (It is also true that some 120,000, 20% of the population, remained in their homes, and today the Arab population of Israel is on the order of 1.4 million.) The Arab “refugees” now number at least 5 million souls — children, grandchildren, and great-children by patrilineal descent, three generations still dispossessed, still being refused citizenship in Arab lands, and still being indoctrinated to hate the naqba (the “disaster”), the state of Israel, and the Jews.

Meanwhile, some 900,000 Jews, many of whose families had lived in Arab lands for centuries, were expelled from their homes, stripped of their possessions, and forced into exile. By contrast with their Arab counterparts, all have been absorbed into Israel, the United States, and other western countries.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_epic_failure_of_the_intel_agencies_on_the_boston_bombing.html I find it very disconcerting that thirty-six hours (as of this writing) after the Boston terrorist bombing, law enforcement and counterterrorism officials are running hotlines and calls for “anyone seen with an unusually heavy, dark bag” in the Boston area.  A $50,000 reward has been offered for clues leading to the arrest and conviction […]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ After serving a few years in prison for his role in the Munich Massacre, Willi Pohl moved to Beirut. The brief sentence was a slap in the wrist, but Pohl had still served more time in prison than the Muslim gunmen who had murdered eleven Israeli athletes and coaches during the 1972 Summer Olympics. […]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/novelists-view-world/2013/apr/15/jane-fondas-get-life-dismays-vietnam-veterans/

NEW YORK, April 15, 2013 – It must have started as a joke.

Who should play Nancy Reagan for director Lee Daniels’ The Butler, a movie about true-life Eugene Allen who served eight presidents as head butler?

The brainstorming around the Hollywood casting table must have been intense.

“Hey, why not Jane Fonda?” someone cracked if only for some laughs.

But Jane Fonda got the part. No joke. She plays Nancy Reagan alongside Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan.

The movie is now in post-production, due for release in the fall.

Vietnam veterans and veterans in general are not amused. Navy veteran Larry Reyes has started a Facebook petition to boycott the movie.

Fonda, known for consorting with the enemy during the Vietnam War, is not troubled by Reyes or by others who object to her playing a Conservative First Lady.

“Get a life,” she told her dissenters according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Here’s veteran John W. Cassell’s response to that: “Fonda has one hell of a nerve telling Vietnam vets to ‘get a life’ when her treachery during the war cost untold misery to our servicemen and their families. To this day we may not know the extent of her actions, but we do know that she gave aid and comfort to the enemy.”

Cassell was a staff sergeant, later commissioned, serving with the Strategic Air Command 1973-1976. He has written several books on the turbulent American Society during the Vietnam War and is the father of a combat veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and two other Army veterans.

Fonda crossed into North Vietnam in 1972. She was tagged “Hanoi Jane” after she posed smiling with enemy soldiers alongside an anti-aircraft battery. “I will go to my grave regretting that,” she told Barbara Walters and Lesley Stahl, which some take to mean that she was sorry she got caught. Otherwise she does not disavow the sum of her anti-war activities.

The record shows that Fonda made 10 or more Hanoi radio broadcasts, favoring the enemy, and that she referred to American military leaders and returning POWs as “war criminals.” Disapproving veterans then and now view such “Tokyo Rose” actions as treacherous, borderline if not outright treasonous.

“Hypocrites and liars,” was her response to GIs who complained of torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese.

The facts and testimonies clearly prove that our GIs in captivity were indeed tortured.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, all the Republican presidents in The Butler are being played by Liberal actors, such as John Cusack for Richard Nixon; Robin Williams for Dwight Eisenhower, and Rickman for Ronald Reagan. Given the political climate in Hollywood and elsewhere, this is not surprising.

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/9030 When I was in high school, back in the late 70’s, I had a history teacher who told the class that we would experience acts of terror on American soil during our lifetime. To my teenage mind, that was a devastating and scary idea to imagine – and it was an idea that I […]

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-lion-hunter-of-zion/

In his youth, King David proved his heroism by slaying a lion. He went on to put his life on the line for the Jewish People and become a hero for all Israel. Three thousand years later, another lion-hearted lion-slayer also put his life on the line for the Jewish People and became a hero for all Israel. He wasn’t even Jewish, but he was one of the greatest friends and supporters that the Jewish People ever had – and his experiences with lions assisted in numerous ways.

Colonel John Patterson was an Irish soldier and engineer assigned to Kenya by the British Empire at the turn of the twentieth century. His job was to supervise the construction of a bridge over the Tsavo river for a massive railroad project. Unfortunately, railroad workers were constantly being slaughtered by the most notorious man-eating lions in recorded history. Two maneless but huge lions, working together, were estimated to have killed and eaten well over a hundred people working on the railroad.

Night after night, Patterson sat in a tree, hoping to shoot the lions when they came to the bait that he set for them. But the lions demonstrated almost supernatural abilities, constantly breaking through thorn fences to take victims from elsewhere in the camp, and seemingly immune to the bullets that were fired at them.

Patterson was faced with the task of not only killing the lions, but also surviving the wrath of hundreds of workers, who were convinced that the lions were demons that were inflicting divine punishment for the railroad. At one point, Patterson was attacked by a group of over a hundred workers who had plotted to lynch him. Patterson punched out the first two people to rush him, and talked down the rest!