Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

A Project to Transform France by Guy Millière

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13826/france-project-transform

“It is up to us to give a political meaning to the [“yellow vest”] revolt. The goal is not simply to challenge an increase in taxes, but the political system that induces it…” — Elias d’Imzalene, French Islamist preacher, November 23, 2018.

“Macron hates the yellow vests and wants them to vanish. He wants to win European elections and needs the Muslim vote. He knows perfectly well who the anti-Semites are today, but will not attack them. He needs them. He attacks [only] those who are dangerous to him. “— Éric Zemmour, French author, February 19, 2019.

Other people noted that holding a demonstration that excluded the right-wing National Rally party was a move aimed at diverting attention from the real anti-Semitic danger. They also suggested that political parties which support the murderers of Jews were precisely those which deny that radical Islam is a danger.

After sixteen Saturday demonstrations by the “yellow vests,” who began in November by protesting French President Emmanuel Macron’s increase in fuel prices, the controversy seems to have taken a darker turn.

That seems to have come to light on February 13, when a small group of demonstrators started hurling insults at a French Jewish philosopher, Alain Finkielkraut — who was born in and lives in Paris — after they spotted him on a sidewalk. One man, shouted, “Shut up, dirty Zionist sh*t,” “Go home to Tel Aviv,” “France is ours,” “God will punish you.” A cameraman filmed the incident, then shared the video on social networks. A scandal ensued. The “yellow vests” movement as a whole was immediately accused by the French government of anti-Semitism and “fascism”.

No Collusion: Omidyar-Backed NeverTrumpers Hardest Hit By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/04/no-collusion

By all accounts, even from his most devoted propagandists in the news media, Special Counsel Robert Mueller soon is expected to release a report that will devastate Trump antagonists who have been convinced his investigation would result in the president’s removal from office.

They are bracing themselves to hear two words from the special counsel that just a few months ago seemed inconceivable: No collusion.The idea that a nearly two-year long probe conducted by a team of partisan, Trump-hating prosecutors empowered with an unending supply of public resources and shielded from any legitimate scrutiny will come up empty-handed is causing great angst in the Acela Corridor.

The List of Shame—journalists, editors, cable news contributors, Democratic lawmakers, and NeverTrump operatives who’ve foisted this outrageous farce on the American people—is long and ignominious.One man who in many ways sits at the center of this manufactured storm is Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay. After Trump won the election, an outcome Omidyar tried to prevent by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars against Trump in 2016, the Hawaiian-based mogul ratcheted up his opposition to the president through a network of nonprofits.

One of his missions has been to stoke the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy in an effort to derail Trump’s presidency. “Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms,” wrote Joe Goldman, president of Democracy Fund, one of Omidyar’s well-funded foundations, last summer. “For an organization committed to strengthening democracy on behalf of the American people, this isn’t just disturbing—it’s humbling.”

ICE – As Vitally Important As A Border Wall Why Interior Immigration Enforcement is a crucial element of immigration law enforcement. Michael Cutler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273030/ice-%E2%80%93-vitally-important-border-wall-michael-cutler

President Trump’s logical decision to declare a national emergency to fund the border wall must be highly commended, just as it should reinforce the equally important need for effective enforcement of the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

When I testified before the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus in November 2001, just weeks after the terror attacks of 9/11, my testimony included the concept of what I came to refer to as the “Immigration Enforcement Tripod.”

Under that concept, the Border Patrol enforces the immigration laws between ports of entry, primarily engaging in interdiction of aliens attempting to enter the United States without inspection, the Immigration Inspectors (now known as CBP – Customs and Border Protection Inspectors) enforce and administer the immigration laws at ports of entry and finally, the INS agents, now known as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, comprising the third leg of the Immigration Enforcement Tripod.

Traditionally the interior enforcement mission has been all but neglected even though, in many ways, it is the most important element of immigration law enforcement program.

Why Do Progressives Reject Policies That Would Achieve Their Aims? How the Left’s toxic mix of nature-myths and anti-capitalism only causes more suffering. Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272993/why-do-progressives-reject-policies-would-achieve-bruce-thorntonhttps://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272993/why-do-progressives-reject-policies-would-achieve-bruce-thornton

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Sesame Street) has delivered yet another statement that bespeaks the progressives’ chronic myopia. This time she’s pondering the dilemma about whether or not it’s “still okay to have children,” given the apocalyptic future being created by climate change. The point has nothing to do with demography, as birth-rates in the U.S. are already starting to decline. The real point, of course, is to rouse the old progressive battle-cry of a “crisis” that “urgently” needs resolving, mainly by increasing the power and rapacity of bloated federal agencies and their growth-killing regulations.The solution championed by the warmists comprises various schemes to drastically reduce or eliminate energy derived from carbon. But everyone admits that the reductions, even if achieved, would not be enough to stop the alleged catastrophic warming, but would certainly devastate the economy. Meanwhile, the real solutions for progressives to get what they want lies with the free market that increases global wealth.

The scandal of alarmist climate change, of course, is that the policy prescriptions are useless for slowing warming. As environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who believes in human-induced global warming, writes,The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

First They Came for Tommy… The British establishment strives to silence the voice of working-class Brits. Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273039/first-they-came-tommy%E2%80%A6-bruce-bawer

In recent months, even as a majority of the politicians in Britain’s two major parties have seemed to be doing everything they can to cancel or water down the EU exit for which the British people voted, the same establishment has been striving to stifle, and if possible destroy, the man who, more than anyone else in the country, articulates the rage and fear and hope of the British working class – and of no small number of middle-class Brits as well.

For years, British authorities have harassed, threatened, and imprisoned him, their objective plainly being to scare him into silence. Last summer they engineered an unjustified arrest, rushed him through a mockery of a trial, and shipped him off to prison, obviously hoping he wouldn’t come out alive.

Meanwhile, Britain’s mainstream media have demonized him, all of them singing from the same hymnal. Almost invariably, they prefix his name with the words “far-right.” Of course he is far from the only prominent figure in the Western world to be libeled in this way. You can be a liberal in pretty much every way, but if you are so consistent in your liberalism as to be a critic of the appalling illiberalism of Islam, then you are, in the lexicon of the mainstream media, “far-right.”

He’s also routinely identified as the founder of the English Defense League (EDL). Often this is combined with the term “far-right,” as in “founder of the far-right English Defense League” or “far-right founder of the English Defense League.” Very rarely is it mentioned in the mainstream media that he left the EDL years ago precisely because it was turning into a far-right organization and he didn’t want to have anything more to do with it.

LEFTIST INDOCTRINATION IN MAINE CLASSROOMS GETS GREEN LIGHT FROM GOP LEGISLATORS What could happen if our side played offense for a change? Lawrence Lockman

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273053/leftist-indoctrination-maine-classrooms-gets-green-lawrence-lockman

Editors’ note: The following opinion piece is by Lawrence Lockman, a Republican currently serving his 4th term in the Maine House of Representatives. He is co-founder and President of the conservative nonprofit Maine First Project.

Should teachers in Maine’s public schools be allowed to push partisan politics and ideology in the classroom?

I don’t think so, and neither do many parents who have contacted me. That’s why I sponsored LD 589, proposed legislation directing the state board of education to draft a Code of Ethics for K-12 teachers.

Simply put, the Code of Ethics would forbid teachers from endorsing candidates as part of their classroom instruction, from introducing controversial material not germane to the subject being taught, and generally from using their classrooms as bully pulpits for political, social or religious advocacy. The bill I sponsored is based on model legislation drafted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

There’s abundant evidence that students in Maine’s K-12 government schools are being subjected to Leftist indoctrination in the classroom. “Progressive” teachers, administrators, and textbook publishers have been working overtime to ensure that students practice “correct thinking” on subjects such as racial guilt, gender identity, illegal immigration, and other controversial issues.

As soon as the Code of Ethics bill was referred to the Education committee for a public hearing in late February, all the usual suspects announced their opposition. The head of the statewide teachers’ union insisted that teachers never engage in political advocacy in the classroom, while the far-Left ACLU defended the right of teachers to do exactly that.

Schumer’s 2020 Problem By Matthew Continetti

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chuck-schumers-2020-problem/

Chuck Schumer has a problem: The 2020 presidential election. Not only is 13 percent of his caucus on the campaign trail — so many Democrats are running for commander in chief that Schumer’s dreams of becoming Senate majority leader are in jeopardy.

Look at Colorado. Its Republican senator, Cory Gardner, is endangered thanks to the Rocky Mountain State’s increasingly blue hue. Schumer was hoping that former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper would challenge Gardner. But Hickenlooper announced today that he’s running for president. Not only does the governor’s move deprive Schumer of a top recruit, it also boxes out Colorado’s Democratic senator Michael Bennett, who was contemplating a presidential campaign of his own. Is the 2020 Democratic field large enough to hold two Colorado progressives? It already has a socialist and a Spartacus, so why not?

Then there’s Montana, where Republican senator Steve Daines is up in 2020. Schumer wants another governor, Steve Bullock, to run for Daines’s seat. But Bullock, like Hickenlooper, is also eyeing the presidency. Bullock could tout his record as a Democrat able to win in a state that turns dark red in presidential years. That’s a story the other candidates won’t be able to tell. If he enters the race, another top Senate challenger will be lost.

Is Realignment Coming to British Politics? By Madeleine Kearns

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-realignment-coming-to-british-po

In the U.K., a small group of Labour Members of Parliament joined by an even smaller group of Tory MPs have formed a politically centrist coalition, the Independent Group (TIG). Though the influence of these disgruntled and Europhile MPs is debatable, the fear of more defections may help explain why the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is now backing a second Brexit vote.

But beyond Brexit, it is also possible that TIG will preempt a more significant political realignment. After all, it’s happened before.

In 1981, a group of Labour MPs who were disgruntled by the increasing leftward lurch of their party broke away and formed the Social Democratic party (SDP). The SDP orientated itself as left-of-center, pro-European, and in support of a moderate and mixed economy. In 1983, under the hard-left leadership of Neil Kinnock, the Labour party set out an explicitly socialist party manifesto — in what one Labour MP famously called “the longest suicide note in history.”

That the Labour party’s explicitly socialist policies were unpopular was proven in the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the year that the Conservatives won with a 43-seat majority — which was the largest electoral swing since 1945. Thatcher’s election in 1979 also began 18 years of uninterrupted Conservative rule — the longest party ruling in British history.

Learning the hard way then, by the mid-’90s, the Labour party reoriented along more centrist lines, and at the 1994 Labour party conference, then leader Tony Blair heralded the arrival of “New Labour.” New Labour rejected socialism, conceded the most popular economic policies of Thatcherism — anti-inflation, low taxation, trade-union reforms, and free-market favorability — and added progressive social values and pro-European and anti-Unionist stances (e.g. devolution for Scotland).

Such a profound change in the party was, naturally, accompanied by a profound change in its base. Under Blair, New Labour consciously ceased to be the party of the working class — as it had been historically — and rather tried to appeal to highly educated, middle-class liberals where it saw its future. But from this, disillusionment with hypocrisy and elitism followed. The working class felt disaffected. Some voted Tory instead.

Allies Worry Over U.S. Public Opinion The gap between voters and foreign-policy elites shows little sign of closing. By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-worry-over-u-s-public-opinion-11551741006There is no more important question in world politics than this: Will U.S. public opinion continue to support an active and strategically focused foreign policy? During the Cold War and for 25 years after, there was rarely any doubt. While Americans argued—sometimes bitterly—over the country’s overseas priorities, there was a broad consensus in both parties that sustained engagement was necessary to protect U.S. interests.

That consensus is more fragile today. Questions about the reliability of American commitments keep the lights burning late in foreign and defense ministries around the world. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insists, as he said in Manila last week, that a Chinese attack on Philippine forces or territory in the South China Sea would activate Article 4 of the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty. But will the American people honor the check that Mr. Pompeo has written on their behalf?

The best answer appears to be “maybe.” A recent poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 70% of Americans want the U.S. to take an “active part” in world affairs in the abstract. But in a 2018 Pew survey, only 32% said limiting China’s power should be an important long-term foreign-policy priority for the U.S.

Similarly, while a strong majority of Americans support membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, just over half of Americans would support military action in response to a hypothetical Russian invasion of Estonia, according to a recent Eurasia Group Foundation survey. The Kremlin studies such poll results carefully, and so do NATO allies on Russia’s borders.

Decline and Fall: Classics Edition By Roger Kimball On identity politics in classical studies.

https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2019/3/decline-fall-classics-edition

For the study of classics, it is (if we may adapt Dickens) the best of times and the worst of times. It is the best of times because there are multiple popular initiatives, mostly outside the academy, introducing people young and old to the riches of Greek and Latin. There are even a few bright spots inside the academy, for example Princeton University’s new Latin 110, a course taught entirely in Latin: the students and teacher do not speak in English about Latin but instead conduct the entire class in the ancient but still-living language. Impressive.

But such bright spots are few and far between. Indeed, even that class at Princeton has been castigated on Twitter for catering to students who are too “fit,” too male, and probably too heterosexual. More and more, it seems, the study of classics—like the study of the humanities generally—has fallen under the spell of grievance warriors who have injected an obsession with race and sexual exoticism into a discipline that, until recently, was mostly innocent of such politicized deformations—largely, we suspect, because of the inherent difficulty of mastering the subject. (In this sense, classics is different from pseudo-disciplines like women’s studies, black studies, lgbtq studies, and the like, because classics can never be entirely reduced to political posturing. You actually have to know something.)