Displaying the most recent of 90425 posts written by

Ruth King

Ukraine’s ‘Holocaust Disneyland’ A memorial would re-create the aesthetics of Nazi terror at the site of an atrocity. By Vladislav Davidzon

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-holocaust-disneyland-11594336467?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_4&cx_artPos=3#cxrecs_s

The territory of Ukraine was the site of countless horrors committed against the Jewish people under Nazi occupation. Yet the resource-strapped country lacks a major museum and memorial dedicated to the Holocaust. While an international initiative to create one began in 2016, the ambitious project is in disarray, with one critic calling it “Holocaust Disneyland.”

For centuries Ukraine has constituted the historical homeland for much of European Jewry, and more than half of American Jews have roots in the region. An estimated 1.5 million Jews were killed on its territory during the “Holocaust by bullets,” with some 90% of the killings carried out directly by German forces. Babyn Yar—a ravine outside of Kyiv, where some 34,000 Jews were rounded up and shot Sept. 29-30, 1941—has come to symbolize the killing fields across Eastern Europe.

The Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center initiative, launched in 2016, likely will be the last major Holocaust memorial built during the lifetimes of survivors. Costs are projected to surpass $100 million. Most funding has come from four Jewish billionaires, some of whose families perished at Babyn Yar. Yet three of the billionaires are Russian citizens. The leading role played by Russians has been controversial, given that the country has occupied and annexed swaths of Ukrainian territory and waged a war that has cost at least 14,000 Ukrainian lives since 2014.

Supreme Loser: Pelosi’s House The justices make it harder for lawmakers to justify subpoenas for the president. by Kimberley Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-loser-pelosis-house-11594336504?mod=opinion_lead_pos8

The Supreme Court on Thursday punted in two cases concerning subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records, sending them back to lower courts to resolve a host of legal questions. Yet if the cases had no clear winner, one of the rulings did produce an outright loser: Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s overzealous House.

Since the moment Mrs. Pelosi retook the gavel in January 2019, she’s operated as if her institution is the only branch in town, with limitless power. Within days of the 2018 election, an unnamed House Democrat bragged that the incoming majority was loading a “subpoena cannon,” aimed at more than 80 different areas of Trump investigation. The president’s tax returns, his firing of former FBI Director James Comey, his discussions with foreign leaders, security clearances, the Trump family business, Stormy Daniels, the reassignment of executive branch employees, the Mueller report. Ad nauseam.

No one disputes the House has oversight authority. But courts have always made clear that this power must be firmly tethered to a “legislative purpose.” Prior Congresses at least attempted to hew to the spirit of that phrase. Mrs. Pelosi’s committee chairmen—driven by fury over the Trump presidency—embarked on an extended fishing expedition. In doing so, they exposed how easy it is to abuse the legislative-purpose doctrine.

Supreme Court blocks funding for Soros-backed NGOs over absence of anti-prostitution pledge

https://www.rt.com/usa/493394-soros-ngos-blocked-supreme-court/

The US Supreme Court has denied federal funding to billionaire financier George Soros’ international anti-AIDS organizations, ruling that in order to access the federal cash, the groups must explicitly oppose prostitution.

The court’s five conservative-leaning justices overruled three of their liberal colleagues on Monday, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivering the majority verdict. The fourth liberal justice, Elena Kagan, sat out the case.

The Alliance for Open Society International, a US-based subsidiary of Soros’ Open Society Foundations, hoped to distribute federal funds earmarked for the fight against HIV/AIDS to its foreign sister organizations. However, these organizations refused to comply with a 2003 Congressional requirement that they adopt “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” which Congress at the time described as “additional causes of… the HIV/AIDS epidemic.” 

VIDEO:  “Soros & Steyer exposed as backers of ‘paramilitary’ lieft-wing group in undercover Project Veritas”

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that this policy requirement violated the First Amendment rights of the Soros-funded groups. However, the court on Monday ruled that the groups’ foreign affiliates are not afforded the same protection under the Constitution.

“In sum, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the US Constitution,” Kavanaugh concluded.

Open Society Foundations President Patrick Gaspard described the anti-prostitution pledge as part of “the US government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda,” adding that it “compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring with Kavanaugh, was unsympathetic in his ruling. An anti-prostitution pledge is “the reasonable price of admission to a limited government-spending program,” he wrote, adding that the Soros-supported organizations remain “free to accept or reject” it at their choosing.

A Declaration of Independence by a Princeton Professor written by Joshua T. Katz

https://quillette.com/2020/07/08/a-declaration-of-independence-by-a-princeton-professor/

In Congress, on July 4th, 1776, came the “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” Signed by 56 men, many of whom were considered national heroes just a few minutes ago, it opens with a long and elegant sentence whose first words every American child knows, or used to: “When in the Course of human events…” In Princeton, New Jersey, on July 4th, 2020, just two hours after my family and I sat around the festive table and read the Declaration aloud in celebration, a group of signatories now in the hundreds published a “Faculty Letter” to the president and other senior administrators at Princeton University.

This letter begins with the following blunt sentence: “Anti-Blackness is foundational to America.” One important difference between the two documents might wrongly be dismissed as merely cosmetic. In 1776 there were “united States” but there was not yet the “United States”; in these past two months, by contrast, at a time when we are increasingly un-united, “black” has become “Black” while “white” remains “white.”

I am friends with many people who signed the Princeton letter, which requests and in some places demands a dizzying array of changes, and I support their right to speak as they see fit. But I am embarrassed for them. To judge from conversations with friends and all too much online scouting, there are two camps: those cheering them on and those who wouldn’t dream of being associated with such a document. No one is in the middle. If you haven’t yet read it, do so now. Be warned: it is long.

Penn State Retracts Statement Saying Conservative Voices Are Important By Jonah Gottschalk

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/09/penn-state-retracts-statement-saying-conservative-voices-are-important/

Penn State University recently made a surprising statement about intellectual diversity, only to retract it after outrage from left-wing students.

“Dear conservative students. Your viewpoints are important,” the announcement read, referencing the isolation and self-censorship many conservative students experience on left-wing campuses. According to the schools Director of Strategic Communications, it was part of a statement aimed at creating a supporting and inclusive environment for students.

A survey conducted at the University of North Carolina found that over two-thirds of conservative students self-censor themselves in the classroom.

The danger of denigrating America’s ‘founding f**kers’ – opinion The goal of these radicals is not to achieve a “better America” – as they pretend – but the “end of America.” By Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-danger-of-denigrating-americas-founding-fkers-opinion-634565

The fifth season of the hit HBO comedy series Veep opens with the fictional US president, Selina Meyer – played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus – panicking about the electoral tie of the previous day, which could result in her not being able to remain in the Oval Office for a second term.

Aptly titled “The Morning After,” the premier episode of the season highlights what happens in America when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. Addressing the nation, Meyer insists that she is in “barefaced awe of the majesty of our democratic system,” while also saying that the “electoral college is a somewhat arcane institution that many scholars say we should do away with.”

Talk about prescience.

The episode aired on April 24, 2016, nearly seven months before the election in which Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump beat his Democratic Party rival, Hillary Clinton, by garnering an electoral college majority – even though she had won the popular vote. Unlike Clinton, however, the protagonist of Veep ultimately obtained the electoral college coup that she needed to keep her coveted seat in the White House.

But before it was clear to Meyer that this was the case, she told her staffers sardonically that she had forgotten in her speech to “thank the voters for making our country look like a high-school Spanish

She added bitterly, “Didn’t those founding f**kers ever hear of an odd number?”

Donald Trump teaches history The president fights for the survival of the republic in his Mount Rushmore speech Douglas Murray

https://spectator.us/trump-mount-rushmore-1619-statues-speech/

Ahead of Independence Day last week, CNN went live to their correspondent Leyla Santiago. Here is how she described the upcoming celebrations: ‘Kicking off the Independence Day weekend, President Trump will be at Mount Rushmore, where he’ll be standing in front of a monument of two slave owners and on land wrestled away from Native Americans.’ She went on to report that the President was expected to focus on efforts to ‘Quote “Tear down our country’s history”.’ And where might the President have acquired such an idea?

Even a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for a major network like CNN to have described Mount Rushmore in such nakedly hostile terms. America still had its agreed-upon holy sites, people and ideas – revered as unifying points of the nation’s past and necessary for any conceivable future.

Not anymore. Today every element of the American past is up for grabs, and the intensity of the campaign may well provide the likeliest means for Donald Trump to remain in the White House.

It is stunning to watch, this unweaving of a nation. While going on for decades, the latest orgy of iconoclasm has seen crowds assail statues of the Founding Fathers with equal ferocity to that aimed at Confederates. A statue of George Washington pulled down in Portland, Oregon had ‘genocidal colonist’ spray-painted on it. A statue of Thomas Jefferson, pulled down outside a high school bearing his name, was graffitied with ‘slave owner’, as well as the name of George Floyd.

Jonathan Tobin:Understanding the collapse of liberal Zionism Peter Beinart claimed to speak for Jewish critics of Israel. Now he wants to replace it with a binational state, leaving Jews defenseless. Is anyone really surprised?

https://mailchi.mp/e7eb45e31b93/krd-news-a-take-down-of-peter-beinarts-outrageous-ny-times-piece?e=9365a7c638

https://www.jns.org/opinion/understanding-the-collapse-of-liberal-zionism/?fbclid=Iw

YESTERDAY, Peter Beinart published an outrageous piece in the New York Times (where else?) entitled “I No Longer Believe in a Jewish State”.

In response, Jonathan Toubin wrote, “Understanding the Collapse of Liberal Zionism”:

There’s a reason why most Israelis find it difficult to listen patiently to lectures from liberal American Jews. For Israelis, their country is a real place filled with real people and perplexing dilemmas that have no easy solutions. But for all too many American Jews, Israel is a dreamland—a place for intellectual tourism where we can project our own insecurities and anxieties on the Jewish state while expressing our moral superiority over the lesser beings who live there and lack our wisdom.

Which brings us to the problem of Peter Beinart.

Beinart, the former editor of The New Republic and columnist for The Atlantic, sought to carve out a place for himself as the leading liberal critic of Israel with his 2012 book The Crisis of Zionism. The book was as spectacularly ignorant as it was arrogant in its refusal to acknowledge the reality of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The conceit of the work was that Israelis needed to rise above their fears and recognize that a two-state solution was within easy reach. Anything that contradicted his assumptions—like the nature of Palestinian political culture or the continued rejectionism and obsession with the fantasy of Israel’s destruction—was either rationalized or ignored. Too immersed in their unseemly quest for security and profit, Israelis could only overcome the “crisis” of the title by listening to the wisdom of Beinart, a righteous American pilgrim, whose manifest good intentions should have generated respect and deference from his recalcitrant Israeli pupils

In rueful praise of Elena Kagan: The ‘Little Sisters’ ruling By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/506562-in-rueful-praise-of-elena-kagan-the-little-sisters-ruling

I wish she were on my side.

Conservatives ruefully jest that, while John Roberts may hold the lofty title of Chief Justice, he’s really just another seat on the Kagan Court. In Wednesday’s much-anticipated ruling on a religious liberty challenge to the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate, Justice Elena Kagan again demonstrated that she is not just the Supreme Court’s center of gravity. She is its master tactician.

And how she must be chortling, while the Trump administration celebrates as if the 7-2 majority decision were not just a win but a rout in favor of the Constitution’s guarantee of free religious exercise. Justice Kagan knows better. If you scratch beneath the surface, religious liberty is actually losing, albeit in slow motion. Thanks to Kagan’s strategy, there are lots of innings left to play, and her team is much better suited to the long game.

When the hangover ends, conservatives will remember Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania as the case in which the court choked. Don’t be deceived by the 7-2 vote, in which the court’s putative conservative bloc of five justices was joined by Kagan and her fellow progressive, Justice Stephen Breyer. This seven-justice majority agreed only on a narrow holding, confined to a technical matter of statutory construction regarding the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA, or ObamaCare). 

That was not a vindication of liberty. On the core question, there were no more than four justices, and maybe just three, supportive of free exercise of religion. That’s why it’s a mirage of victory in what eventually will be a desert of defeat.

Supreme Court’s Rulings on Trump Subpoenas — Ho Hum By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/supreme-courts-rulings-on-trump-subpoenas-ho-hum/

A New York prosecutor may pursue the president’s financial information. Congress, though, must relitigate its case in lower courts.

The Supreme Court’s decisions Thursday on two separate cases involving subpoenas for the president’s personal financial information are legal defeats for the presidency. Politically, they are a win for Donald Trump.

Both opinions were authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and were ostensibly resounding 7–2 defeats for the president’s position. But there’s less here than meets the eye.

The State Grand Jury Subpoena One case involves a subpoena issued by a New York state grand jury conducting a criminal  investigation led by the office of Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney. That investigation is believed to be focused, at least in part, on the payment of hush money to women who claim to have had liaisons with Donald Trump about a decade before he became president, including how the reimbursement for those payments was allegedly booked by the Trump real-estate organization. The subpoena, issued to Trump’s longtime accounting firm, Mazars, is believed to be sweeping, seeking voluminous financial information (including tax-return information), over a number of years.

The Court’s ruling against the president is emphatic. It was expected that the president would lose. This seemed obvious during the oral argument, when the Court focused intently on the fact that, while the president was making a broad immunity claim, he was not arguing that he had immunity from being investigated; just that he had immunity from complying with subpoenas — indeed, subpoenas addressed to a third-party agent of his, not to the president himself.