Displaying the most recent of 90908 posts written by

Ruth King

The Left’s message of ‘Peace with the Palestinians’ is brainwashing Peace campaigns were not about peace; they were about creating a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River: Moshe Dann

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-lefts-message-of-peace-with-the-palestinians-is-brainwashing-633009

For half a century the Left has been brainwashing us with a simple but devious message: “Peace with the Palestinians instead of war.” Ignore the reality that the Arab and Muslim world, aided by the Soviet Union sought Israel’s destruction, and still does. Peace now! It was a powerful drug that continues to numb our critical thinking.

Although enticing, however, peace campaigns were not about peace; they were about creating a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. The first stage was accomplished beginning in 1993 with the Oslo Accords, which established the Palestinian Authority run by the PLO, and the withdrawal of Israeli control from large sections of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) and eventually from the Gaza Strip. None of this brought peace, of course, but the opposite: waves of terrorism. Solemn commitments made by PLO leaders were meaningless, a subterfuge to advance their agenda to destroy Israel. Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups were clear and explicit. The guarantors, the European Union and UN, went along with the hoax.

The basic problem, however, remained: most of the international community considers any Israeli presence beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines to be “illegal” and a “violation of international law” – as they interpret it. Major organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the designated authority of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an important basis for humanitarian law, declared Israel was “occupying Palestinian territory.” The UN, the EU and of course the entire Arab and Muslim world agreed; the ICJ and ICC gave it their “judicial” support.

The Room Where It Happens, Indeed

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-room-where-it-happens-indeed/91173/

As the House readied its vote to make a new state out of the District of Columbia, the Speaker went before the press to dilate on injustice of what has obtained for the past 230 years. Mrs. Pelosi called the District “an affront to our democracy.” She noted that its residents pay taxes, serve in the military, and contribute to the “economic vitality” of America but lack for representation. “How could it be? Whose idea was that?”

It turns out that we know exactly whose idea it was. That’s because it was hatched at the very dinner party that, among other things, is now being immortalized anew in the Broadway blockbuster “Hamilton.” The dinner took place in 1790 at New York. It was no cabal of counter-revolutionary cads. The three persons in the room where it happened were Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison.

Jefferson, then secretary of state, was the host. He had famously encountered Hamilton outside President Washington’s office at lower Manhattan. Hamilton, Jefferson later wrote, looked “somber, haggard, and dejected.” That was owing to Congress having just rejected his plan for the federal government to assume the states’ debts from the Revolutionary War. So Jefferson offered to host a dinner with Madison.

The repast took place on June 20. The deal they struck was that Madison would support Hamilton’s plan to federalize the debt, while Hamilton would agree to putting the American capital at a spot along the Potomac. By the end of July, the House and Senate had passed the legislation. They acted under the constitutional grant to Congress of the power to accept such a district as ceded to the federal government by the states.

And to exercise over it “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.” Madison, in 43 Federalist, addressed the logic of this. He called the Congress’ “complete authority at the seat of government” an “indispensable necessity.” Without it, he reckoned, “public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity.” Plus members of the government might develop a “dependence” on the local state.

The New Iconoclasm: Down With Jefferson, Up With Sharpton by Edward Alexander

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/06/15/the-new-iconoclasm-down-with-jefferson-up-with-sharpton/
Rarely a week passes without dramatic pictures on TV and in the press of sledgehammers taken to heroes of the Old Confederacy, along with new “replacement” sculpture and statuary to Black Lives Matter (like the formidable slab within full view of the White House itself) and already on the list of Places to See in Washington, DC. We will, no doubt, soon see statues of Rev. Al Sharpton alongside of, or even replacing, those of Martin Luther King, Jr. The Reverend Sharpton is the titular and also unchallenged leader of Black Lives Matter, now turning the country upside down to express its indignation over the murder in Minneapolis and its (supposed) epitome of police brutality towards black Americans.

The Rev. Sharpton was a constant presence in the White House during the presidency of Barack Obama, and has been treated with oily sycophancy by every major Democratic candidate for that party’s nomination. (When Sharpton’s acolytes in Black Lives Matter shouted down Bernie Sanders at a Seattle rally, the candidate reacted with instant compliance, and surrendered the microphone to them.) He has taught leading Democrats, at nearly all levels of the party, to view crime as a problem of prejudiced and brutal police, not of ruthless and pitiless criminals.

Do Americans know much about Sharpton, the unquestioned leader of Black Lives Matter, an organization now carrying all before it, including governors of states and mayors of cities? He first came to prominence for his central role in the assaults on Jews in 1991 in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. It has been called by historian Edward Shapiro “the only antisemitic riot in American history.” This has not prevented Senator Elizabeth Warren from calling Sharpton a paragon who has “dedicated his life to the fight for justice for all” or ex-candidate Kamala Harris from exuding about how much he “has done … for our country.” And so on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Police ‘Reform’ and the Making of a Racism Narrative By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/police-reform-and-the-making-of-a-racism-narrative/

This narrative is driving the nation to ruin.

Have you seen that mountain of evidence that Derek Chauvin is a racist? Me neither.

In that regard, I’m like the Wall Street Journal’s fearlessly fact-driven Jason Riley. Did some shred of racial animus motivate the since-fired Minneapolis police officer’s killing of George Floyd? For the moment, we have no proof of that — just a racialist narrative built on the happenstance (no reason to believe it’s more than that right now) that Chauvin is white and Floyd was black.

These days, alas, mere happenstance is enough to tear this nation asunder.

As an old investigator, I am intrigued by the fact that Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison has refused to disclose police body-cam video of the moments leading up to Chauvin’s disturbing neck hold. Ditto the fact — highlighted in my analyses of the charges filed against the arresting officers (here and here) — that the state’s minute-by-minute recitation of probable cause omits whatever went on between Floyd and police inside the squad-car. Surely, if they helped the prosecution’s police-brutality allegations, those gaps in the complaint would have been filled.

Similarly, the fact that Minnesota police procedures permitted the use of neck holds for suspects resisting arrest has disappeared from the reporting. No chatter permitted, either, about the facts that Floyd (a) had a significant criminal record (though no new charges in recent years), (b) was suspected of passing a small amount of counterfeit money at the time of his arrest, and (c) was high on fentanyl and methamphetamine — a toxic combination whose ingestion was particularly dangerous for a person with his heart conditions.

Silence on these matters is partially explained by the admirably widespread desire not to besmirch a tragic victim, as well as the Left’s more-narrow determination to martyr Floyd for purposes of their police-racism narrative. The subject is also verboten, though, because the police were inconveniently recorded discussing their fear that Floyd might be experiencing excited-delirium syndrome. When police suspect that dangerous condition, their training calls for restraining the arrestee until emergency medical personnel arrive.

The Democrats’ ‘Bonfire of Inanities’ Charles Hurt

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/25/the-democrats-bonfire-of-inanities/

In this modern Bonfire of Inanities, ignorance reigns supreme. Which is one of the big problems with mob “justice,” a painful lesson we history students here in America learned a long time ago.

Not that this current crop of uneducated, stupid, self-enthralled miscreants rioting in public streets and parks has the slightest grasp on five minutes of history. Or, wisdom for that matter.

This is what post-Obama America looks like. Or, as President Trump calls it, “Joe Biden’s America.”

History is dead. Intelligence is weakness. Wisdom is scorned. Justice is the punchline to a sick joke.

Love him or hate him, Mr. Trump ran for president on a set of concrete promises.

Strangle illegal immigration. Curtail endless wars overseas. Stop screwing America with unfair trade deals. Trim the voracious tentacles of the federal government.

These are promises aimed at all Americans — regardless of race or gender or religion or whatever evil division politicians might stoke for their own benefit. Making good on these promises is for the benefit of everyone. Make. America. Great. Again. For everybody.

President Barack Obama won on amorphous, intangible promises. “Hope.” And “change.” And calming the rising seas.

The Left Wants to Distract Us from a Choice in 2020 by Thaddeus G. McCotter

https://amgreatness.com/2020/06/26/the-left-wants-to-distract-us-from-a-choice-in-2020/

Every time the president attacks Biden, Trump is trying to make the coming election a choice; every time populists attack Trump for being weak they unwittingly abet the Left’s attempt to make the coming election a referendum on the president.

In Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square during the Left’s latest attempt to create “Year Zero” by erasing American history, the less-than-peaceful protestors endeavored to create a “Black House Autonomous Zone” (BHAZ). As is their destructive wont, they defaced St. John’s Episcopal Church and a statue of President Andrew Jackson. Before they could topple the statue of Jackson, however, D.C. police intervened and, using pepper spray and other tactics, pushed the crowd back.

The statue is safe for now; and some protestors should become quickly acquainted with the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act which, as Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was kind enough to remind these “criminal masterminds,” carries a 10-year sentence for destroying a statue of a veteran on federal property. In his own tweet, President Donald Trump also cited this federal law and urged the vandals to “Beware!”

Should these lawless desecrators demur, the president later tweeted that he has

authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison, per the Veteran’s Memorial Preservation Act, or such other laws that may be pertinent… This action is taken effective immediately, but may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused. There will be no exceptions!

Clearly, the president’s message comes not only in response to the vandals, but also in response to the president’s populist critics who have chided him for appearing weak in the face of the lawlessness. These populist critics may not find the president’s actions to be enough, for he is not sending in the federal troops to put an end to the disorder. 

Understating Black-on-Black Murders By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/understating-black-on-black-murders/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

About three weeks ago, we published my column, “The ‘Institutional Racism’ Canard.” In it, I made a point about black-on-black murders, drawing on FBI statistics from 2016. Though the data I drew from the published stats was accurate, there are caveats that I did not explain. When additional information is factored in, the problem is even worse than I suggested.

Specifically, I noted that Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff had drawn on FBI crime statistics for 2016 in support of the proposition that “of 776 black-white homicides, blacks committed 533 and whites 243.” I ended the paragraph with my own observation: “Neither of these numbers, by the way, nor their combined total, comes anywhere close to the number of blacks killed by blacks: a staggering 2,570 — the overwhelming majority male.”

We are going to remove that sentence, with a reference to this Corner post. As noted above, it accurately reflects what is set forth in the relevant table of the FBI’s 2016 crime statistics (Expanded Homicide Data Table 3), but it could be misleading. As an explanatory note explains, Table 3 “is based on incidents where some information about the offender is known by law enforcement.” That is, it “excludes data when the offender, age, sex, race, and ethnicity are all reported as unknown.” Moreover, Table 3 includes only murders where a single offender is known to have killed a single victim; that, too, omits a significant number of murders from the chart. Consequently, Table 3 breaks down only 6,676 murders that occurred in 2016.

As the FBI explains elsewhere in its compilation, however, there were an estimated 17,250 murders in the United States that year. In 7,881 of these, the victim was black.

Why Is Andrew Cuomo Bragging? By Kyle Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/why-is-andrew-cuomo-bragging/

New York’s governor surveys the smoldering wreckage of the hardest-hit state and declares victory.

Andrew Cuomo is spiking the football, dunking the basketball, and dashing around the soccer field taking off his shirt. He’s spraying champagne all over Albany. He’s Muhammad Ali standing over the crumpled form of Sonny Liston in 1965: Boom, take that, coronavirus. Woo-hoo! Victory! Only 31,000 deaths. New York suffered through the equivalent of 9/11 times 11 but . . . yay?

“You played politics with this virus and you lost,” Cuomo said in an interview Thursday, referring to Florida governor Ron DeSantis, with whom Cuomo is engaging in a bizarre feud to rival his utterly nonsensical ongoing war with fellow liberal Democrat and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. “It’s now undeniable this country paid a terrible price,” Cuomo continued, suggesting . . . what? That other states lacked the sage wisdom of Andrew Cuomo, slayer of the coronavirus? Thirty-one thousand New York families would like a word.

Last week, Cuomo saluted himself as he celebrated several weeks of encouraging coronavirus trends in his state by saying there was no longer a need for his daily press briefings, a habit for 111 days. “We showed that in the end, love does win. Love does conquer all — that no matter how dark the day, love brings the light,” he said. “That is what I will take from the past 111 days. And it inspires me and energizes me and excites me.”

Face Masks: The Radical Leftist Symbol of Submission  by Linda Goudsmit

 http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/24330/face-masks-the-radical-leftist-symbol : http://goudsmit.pundicity.com

: http://lindagoudsmit.com

Masks have been a part of societies for 9,000 years. The earliest masks were used for rituals and ceremonies. Later, they were used in hunting, feasts, wars, performances, theaters, fashion, sports, movies, and then as protection against medical and occupational hazards. Masks have become symbols for their various functions. 

Different masks worn by different people have different motives. A masked bank robber is very different from a masked Halloween trick-or-treater. Masks are coverings that can also disguise messages. So it is with political masks.  

The two most controversial political masks in America today are the Muslim niqab and the COVID19 face mask. What do these seemingly disparate face coverings have in common? Both are marketed as protective face coverings with the connotation of safety, both are worn with pride by their adherents, and both disguise a powerful political message of submission. The mask is the message.

Muslim women following supremacist, Islamic religious sharia law are subservient to their fathers, husbands, and brothers no matter where they live in the world, and no matter how protective equal rights laws for women are in the country where they reside. Sharia law does not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution. 

Muslim women who embrace sharia law wear their niqabs with pride. They value their submission and, for them, wearing the face-covering is virtue signaling. For most Americans, the face mask worn by Muslim women is a detestable symbol of submission that violates American principles of equality and freedom. It is almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand these Muslim women without understanding that sharia law teaches the supremacy of Islam. 

We Can’t Let the Outrage Mob Win By Dan Crenshaw (R-TX-2)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/we-cant-let-the-outrage-mob-win/

In the face of far-left radicalism, we must hold the line.

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about George Orwell’s chilling premonition over the past several weeks, as an ever-growing number of statues, books, movies, television shows, and even food brands have been canceled by the left-wing mob.

Though there is a legitimate debate to be had about Confederate symbols and statues, the mob never intended to stop there. Not even the most heroic of American figures are safe now. Not the father of our nation, George Washington. Not Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant, who delivered the death stroke to General Lee’s Confederate rebellion. Not Abraham Lincoln, whom Frederick Douglass called a “friend and liberator.” And not Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1905 spoke of the need to “secure to each man, whatever his color, equality of opportunity, equality of treatment before the law.”

As Americans watch this unfold, many might ask: “Am I a bad person for not joining the mob? Have I failed to see the racism and oppression within these long-admired totems of our history? The mob seems so angry, and its anger must be proportionate to its righteousness, right?”

Wrong.

To Americans asking these questions: You are not the problem. The outrage mob is. Its breathless moralizing and anger do not portend reason or good faith, but instead mask deep ignorance and malicious intent.