Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

Patriotism Wins in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Backyard How to win a battle with the Left. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274340/patriotism-wins-rep-ilhan-omars-backyard-daniel-greenfield

On June 17th, the St. Louis Park City Council voted 5-0 to get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance. On July 15th, just as the abolition was set to take effect, the Council voted 7-0 in a room crowded with American flags and red, white and blue signs, to bring the Pledge back. Outside a giant inflatable bald eagle kept watch.

It was an unlikely victory for patriotism in an implausible place.

St. Louis Park is a small Democrat city in Minnesota. Hillary Clinton beat Trump here 3-1. Rep. Ilhan Omar represents it in the House. The firm at the center of her tax and marriage scandal is based here.

Councilwoman Anne Mavity, who had called for the abolition of the pledge, insisted that the pledge didn’t reflect the city’s diverse values. As part of those diverse values, she had endorsed Rep. Omar.

“Omar,” Councilwoman Mavity had said, was a voice for an “unapologetic progressive agenda.”

Mavity never did apologize. But at least one member of the St. Louis Park City Council did.

“I’ve concluded that I made a mistake and I’m sorry and I’m asking for forgiveness,” Councilman Steve Hallifan conceded.

The Battle of the Pledge was won by a combination of committed local patriots, who came flying flags and eager to confront the councilmembers who had tried to sneak the issue past everyone by tying it together with a meeting time change and some other procedural minutiae, and by President Trump’s willingness to take on a local issue in a place most people outside Minnesota had never heard of.

A Herd Has No Mind Of mob politics and the decline of reasoned discourse. By Kevin D. Williamson

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/07/29/a-herd-has-no-mind/

Funny thing about my new book: I had begun shopping around the proposal for writing it long before my brief period of employment with that other magazine and the subsequent witless chimp-brained media freakout and Caffeine-Free Diet Maoist struggle session that followed and climaxed with my being fired by Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg on my third day of employment there and after a good deal of stink eye from some seething young woman with an unfortunate All-Lesbian World Bowling Champion haircut loitering glumly in the coffee room. I was, for a few days, a writer who was much more read about than read. After the ninth (or so) New York Times denunciation of my soul and my work, my professional dance card began to fill up with pleasing speed.

That’s the upside of being in the controversy business: I always get paid. Hooray for me.1

But why was I flogging this book way back before I got involved in what I must with some genuine disappointment characterize as only the second-most-infamous episode involving a shady right-winger and the Watergate complex?2 There were good reasons. A number of disturbing sociopolitical meltdowns combining deep stupidity with casual authoritarianism already had taken place: the firing of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his views on marriage, and the IRS’s criminal leak of the National Organization for Marriage’s confidential tax documents in the service of a campaign to harass and attack its donors; the firing of James Damore for the crime of being stupid enough to believe that his po-faced ham-souled Caitlyn-haunted superiors at Google were being anything like halfway serious when they asked for dialogue about diversity in the firm; the campaigns against Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss at the New York Times; the “deplatforming”3 of conservatives and other nonconforming voices on social media; the violence and firebombings targeting unpopular speakers at Berkeley and other college campuses; and much more. The blackshirts and the American Association of Outrage Professionals were as creepily tumescent as Anthony Weiner cruising a Hello Kitty boutique, and there was outrage-porn aplenty, rampant, unapologetic, depraved — but my little book proposal was met with almost no excitement until I became, for a couple of weeks, the headline in the story.

I revisit that tawdry little episode in the book, to the extent that it is necessary to the story, but it isn’t a memoir. My subject is not the life and times of Kevin D. Williamson.4 My subject is what Coriolanus5 called “the beast with many heads” — mob politics, on social media and in what passes for real life, which increasingly is patterned on social media — and its effects on our political discourse and our culture. It is the most important political issue of our time. Discourse — the health and character of that discourse — is a force that exists above and outside the specific policy questions of the day; it is the master issue that will determine how every other issue is talked about and thought about — and whether those issues are thought about at all.

The Economy, Father of Us All By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-economy-father-of-us-all/Good times immunize a president and make his over-the-top domestic enemies look irrelevant.

Each week we are warned of a recession. And each week the economic news “unexpectedly” and “surprisingly” improves or stays steady — in ways well aside from the staples of continued near-record-low peacetime unemployment (3.8 percent), near-record-low minority unemployment, booming annualized GDP (3.1 percent), and a record-high stock market.

In June, retail sales increased for the fourth straight month. The rate of Hispanic home ownership continues to increase. A quarter-million new jobs were created in June, with strong growth in construction and manufacturing. Record oil and gas production seems only to keep increasing. Strong wage growth of 3.4 percent continues.

The point is not so much “It’s the economy, stupid,” but rather that the economy is the font of all contemporary politics, and it adjudicates the parameters of presidential prerogatives.

In the standoff between the “Squad” and Donald Trump, near-record peacetime unemployment in general and in particular historic-low minority unemployment argue against the idea that Trump is racist.

Polls suggest that Donald Trump may well win a greater share of the minority vote than moderates John McCain and Mitt Romney — largely because of a raise in middle-class wages in a tight labor market, and new leverage of entry-level workers over labor-hungry employers. Do working-class blacks and Hispanics suffer then from false consciousness, and do they need tutorials from progressive grandees so they won’t be so incorrect as to appreciate having more jobs at better pay?  Racists do not craft economic policies that empower African Americans far more so than those promoted by the first African-American president.

Tulsi Gabbard Breaks With 2020 Democrats, Says Decriminalizing Illegal Crossings ‘Could Lead To Open Borders’ By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/23/tulsi-gabbard-breaks-candidates-says-decriminalizing-border-crossings-lead-open-borders/

2020 presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said she is “looking at” supporting other candidates in their calls to decriminalize illegal U.S. border crossings but that she is concerned such a policy would lead to open borders.

“That’s something that I’m looking at,” Gabbard told the hosts on ABC’s “The View” on whether she supports the policy. “I think decriminalizing could lead to open borders. We need safe, secure borders in this country.”

Rival 2020 candidate and former secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro was the first to advocate for the policy that the other Democratic presidential candidates rapidly adopted.

During the second night of last month’s presidential primary debates in Miami, nearly every candidate raised his or her hand when asked if they supported eliminating legal penalties for those who ignore U.S. immigration laws. The only candidates who did not raise their hand were U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and former Vice President Joe Biden, who raised his hand half-way in a gesture to the moderators to explain his stance on the issue.

Other prominent Democrats have come out to criticize the proposal. Former U.S. secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, who served under President Barack Obama, blasted the idea in the Washington Post as “tantamount to open borders.”

Journalist Who Peddled Shoddy Kavanaugh Story Defends Al Franken-Mollie Hemingway

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/23/journalist-who-peddled-shoddy-kavanaugh-story-defends-al-franken/

Of all the people in the world who are in a position to write an article poo-poohing Al Franken’s problems or fretting about journalistic excesses, Jane Mayer may be the very worst choice.

A reporter known for slinging unsubstantiated allegations of improper behavior against conservatives has developed a sudden appreciation for due process and journalistic fact-checking. At least for Democrats. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer published a robust defense of former U.S. senator Al Franken, who resigned under intense pressure in 2017 after eight women publicly detailed unwanted groping and kissing from him.

Mayer argues that the former Minnesota senator should not have resigned, since one of his accusers was conservative and was associated with political opponents of Franken. As for the other seven, Mayer suggests their complaints about unwanted kisses and groping didn’t rise to the level of seriousness that a Senate resignation would indicate. Yes, Mayer reports, he was known for the unsolicited kissing of women on the mouth, but, we’re assured, he is “a social—not a sexual—’lip-kisser.’” Well, there you go.

Mayer expresses concern that “in an era when women’s accusations of sexual discrimination and harassment are finally being taken seriously, after years of belittlement and dismissal, some see it as offensive to subject accusers to scrutiny. ‘Believe Women’ has become a credo of the #MeToo movement.” Franken learns that “being on the losing side of the #MeToo movement, which he fervently supports, has led him to spend time thinking about such matters as due process, proportionality of punishment, and the consequences of Internet-fuelled outrage.”

Cory Booker Explains Why he Would Never Punch Trump By Jim Treacher

https://pjmedia.com/trending/cory-booker-would-never-punch-trump-that-fat-old-body-shamer/

I’m old enough to remember when fantasizing about physically attacking the President of the United States was considered racist. Why, I’m so old that I can actually remember when late-night TV was worth watching! But neither of those things is true anymore, as you’ll see in this clip from last night’s Late Night with Seth Meyers.

Here’s ostensible presidential candidate Cory Booker talking about how he would never, ever punch Donald Trump, no matter how desperately he wants to:

.@CoryBooker: “My testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching [Trump], which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that — a physically weak specimen.”

Let’s take a moment to imagine any Republican going on national TV and saying something like this about a Democratic POTUS. And let’s take another moment to contemplate the amusing idea of Cory Booker possessing testosterone.

Anyway, Booker would never punch Trump. That would be beneath him. But what’s wrong with getting a round of applause from a liberal NYC audience, and a warm, friendly smile from Seth Meyers, for talking about punching Donald Trump?

Plus, Trump is old and out of shape. What does Booker look like, a body-shamer?

Beto O’Rourke: ‘What we saw in North Carolina last week was almost an impromptu Nuremberg rally’ By Faris Bseiso

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/23/politics/beto-orourke-trump-rally/index.html

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said in an interview Monday that a campaign event held by President Donald Trump last week “was almost an impromptu Nuremberg rally,” implicating Trump supporters with an invocation of Nazism.

“Yes, President Trump is a racist. What we saw in North Carolina last week was almost an impromptu Nuremberg rally, inciting hatred and ultimately, I think implicit in that, is violence against people based on the color of their skin, based on their religion, based on their difference from the majority of Americans,” O’Rourke told ABC News. “And it is in keeping the President who describes Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals, who describes asylum seekers as animals or an infestation, who says that Klansmen are ‘very fine people.’ It’s very clear the path that he is taking us on.”
O’Rourke was referring to a campaign event held in Greenville, North Carolina, in which the President doubled down on his racist rhetoric against progressive minority members of Congress — including Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia but has since become a naturalized US citizen — which was met with chants from a crowd yelling “send her back.” Trump stood there at length as the crowd chanted, though he later claimed he disapproved of their chant.

Home News Politics Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Sen. Kamala Harris ‘is not qualified to serve as commander-in-chief’By Seth McLaughlin –

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/23/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-not-qualified-serve-co/

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on Tuesday said Sen. Kamala D. Harris is not qualified to be president because she lacks the foreign policy credentials and temperament to lead the nation on the global stage.

“I think one of the things that I am most concerned with is Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander-in-chief,” the Hawaii Democrat said on Outkick the Coverage with Clay Travis. “I can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier. She has no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander-in-chief.”

Ms. Gabbard, who served in Iraq as a member of the Hawaii National Guard, said she has seen firsthand what it is like to have presidents who lack foreign policy experience fall under the influence of the “foreign policy establishment” and the “military industrial complex.”

Lily Adams, spokesperson for the Harris campaign, dismissed Ms. Gabbard’s comments, suggesting she has blemishes on her record.

“Definite hard pass on taking national security advice from Assad’s cheerleader,” Ms. Adams said on Twitter.

Spitting in the face of cooperation with Israel Unlike Israel, which has a burgeoning understanding with many of its Arab neighbors based on a shared interest to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Palestinians have been kissing up to Tehran. Ruthie Blum

https://www.jns.org/opinion/spitting-in-the-face-of-cooperation-with-israel/

If further proof were needed to illustrate the futility of diplomatic overtures to the Palestinian Authority, Monday’s attack on a pro-Israel Saudi in Jerusalem is a good example.

As part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s regional strategy to forge ties with formerly hostile Muslim-Arab states, the Israeli Foreign Ministry invited a delegation of six media personalities from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt to see the Jewish state for themselves. Up close and personal.

As a precautionary measure for their safe return home, their identities were not disclosed.

The only exception was Mahmoud Saud, a law student and blogger from Saudi Arabia, who regularly tweets about his unabashed support for Israel in general and the Netanyahu government in particular. This is clearly why Saud not only agreed, but was proud, to be photographed with the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman and Likud Knesset member Avi Dichter.

At a meeting with Dichter at the Knesset on Monday morning, one member of the delegation said, “This visit to Israel is like touring a dreamland. If only we would be able to bring hundreds of people from our countries, so that when they go back they can tell what they saw and felt.”

Indeed.

Andrew McCarthy: Mueller’s testimony will not give Democrats what they crave. Can they handle it?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-robert-mueller-democrats-trump-t

Prepare to be disappointed.

That should be Democrats’ mindset heading into Robert Mueller’s appearance this week before two House committees. The greater the anticipation of the testimony, the more the letdown is apt to be.

That is because the special counsel simply is not going to give them what they crave.

Democrats want Mueller to say he would have charged President Trump with obstruction of justice were it not for Justice Department guidance instructing that a sitting president may not be indicted. Mueller cannot say that without contradicting his report and his statements at a late May press conference.

He is not going to do that.

Mueller abdicated on the obstruction question. Mind you, at the time he took over the Russia-gate investigation on May 17, 2017, there were already strong indications that there was no cyber-espionage conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election. In essence, what he assumed was more an obstruction than a collusion investigation. Indeed, just days earlier, according to former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, the FBI had opened an obstruction investigation against the president based on the May 9 firing of the Bureau’s then-director, James Comey.

I never believed a special counsel was legally or factually warranted. But if we assume for argument’s sake that a special counsel was necessary, then the single central issue he was needed to resolve was: Is there a prosecutable obstruction case against the president?

Yet, after putting the country through a nearly two-year probe, Mueller declined to answer that question.