Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

The Only Option They Had as Pseudo-Conservatives By Sebastian Gorka

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/19/the-only-option-they-had-as-pseudo-conservatives/

“As if by prophecy, the next article the Bulwark posted was: “Is Socialism Really that Big of a Threat?”

It’s been a tough two years if you’re a post-Reagan era, Bush-flunky fake conservative.

Between America winning the Cold War and the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the RINO-gravy-train had treated you well. Even if you were a former leftist, the “elite” of New York and Washington were happy to let you make a phony Damascene conversion to the side that won the ideological war of the 20th century, drop your questionable political past down the memory hole, and reinvent yourself as a lifelong Buckleyite.

You believed the rest of your life could consist of your collecting fat honoraria checks from both sides of the uniparty establishment. From AEI to Brookings, from CATO to the Council on Foreign Relations, you also milked a handful of gullible right-wing donors and bloviated your pedestrian “analysis” for the hosts of the cable shows you cared for the most—naturally, on CNN. This despite the fact that America really didn’t seem to care. At least not if we judge by the viewing statistics.

How anyone still talks about CNN at all is a question that continues to mystify me. Even CNN‘s “hottest” shows are mostly ignored by more than 99 percent of the U.S. population. On a good night, Anderson Cooper, can only garner 800,000 real viewers (as opposed to people trapped at an airport waiting to board a plane). That’s 0.25 percent of the population of our republic. Seriously guys, can’t we just ignore them? Back to the fakers.

For decades they planted themselves at publications such as National Review and the Weekly Standard which lost their viability as market products but nevertheless chugged along, read by a smaller and smaller group of believers and fellow-travelers, funded as they were by the same handful of well-meaning but credulous sugar-daddies. You know their names: Bill Kristol, Stephen Hays, Jennifer Rubin, Tom Nichols, to name but a few. Then on November 8, 2016, America fired them all.

Stuyvesant High School In New York City-An American Dilemma By Jay Nordlinger

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/an-american-dilemma-stuyvesant-high-school/

This article in the New York Times is getting attention, understandably. It highlights an old, painful issue, involving “merit,” race, and ethnicity. The headline over the article is “Only 7 Black Students Got Into N.Y.’s Most Selective High School, Out of 895 Spots.”

That high school is Stuyvesant. As the Times reports, students get into such schools “by acing a single high-stakes exam that tests their mastery of math and English.” This leads to racial and ethnic outcomes that are deemed undesirable. At Stuyvesant, 74 percent of freshmen next year — call it three-quarters — will be Asian.

New York mayor Bill de Blasio, among others, has called for the scrapping of the entrance exam and the overhaul of the admissions process. I have a memory, from 2001. Indeed, via the power of Google, I will quote the Times:

Contending that standardized college tests have distorted the way young people learn and worsened educational inequities, the president of the University of California is proposing an end to the use of SAT’s as a requirement for admission to the state university system he oversees, one of the largest and most prestigious.

Ivy-League Schools Wither By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/elite-universities-ignore-merit-advance-progressive-agenda/

Higher-ed institutions have long ignored merit and squelched freedom, all while failing to educate.

A number of liberal bastions are daily being hammered — especially the elite university and Silicon Valley.

A Yale and a Stanford, or Facebook and Google, assume — for the most part rightly — that each is so loudly progressive that the public, federal and state regulators, and politicians would of course turn a blind eye to anything questionable that these social-justice institutions did.

And they have done a lot of quite questionable things — cynically (and in medieval fashion) using their progressive veneer to exempt themselves from the consequences of their actions, so that they may do what otherwise would earn scrutiny and worse for most other American institutions.

Our nation’s marquee universities, such as Yale, Stanford, and Georgetown — with dozens more no doubt to be named — recently got caught selling admittances. Or rather a few of their employees somehow freelanced under administration noses and sold entrances for cash. That is apparently our modern version of crooked 14th-century clerics putting out to bid penances to thieves and fornicators who wished to buy their way into heaven.

At some of our “best” universities, renegade coaches in minor sports took bribes in exchange for lies claiming that otherwise likely unqualified students were actually “athletes” and thereby could be greased into their colleges by middlemen who helped doctor résumés and test scores.

The irony is rich. The offenders were not the children in Dayton or Great Falls of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” and “irredeemables,” or of the late John McCain’s “crazies,” or of Barack Obama’s “clingers” — it was not they who were using their “white privilege” to break the law as they virtue-signaled their racialist disdain of the working classes (who were without white privilege). What a strange psychological mechanism: Wealthy white liberals apparently squared the circle of their own private and insider privilege by fobbing “white privilege” off on those who don’t have it — as they used their privilege cynically for their own children.

Triggered by Weinstein’s Harvard Lawyer A law professor agrees to represent an unpopular client, and undergrads say they’re traumatized. By Heather Mac Donald

https://www.wsj.com/articles/triggered-by-weinsteins-harvard-lawyer-11552950103

Harvard has opened an investigation into law professor Ronald Sullivan, who earlier this year joined Harvey Weinstein’s criminal-defense team. Some undergraduates complained that Mr. Sullivan’s decision to represent Mr. Weinstein, who is charged with rape in New York, puts them at risk. By taking the complaint seriously, Harvard puts its commitment to identity politics above the core tenets of due process.

Student backlash was immediate when the New York Post reported in late January that Mr. Sullivan would be representing Mr. Weinstein. A visual and environmental studies major started an online petition to remove Mr. Sullivan from his position as faculty dean of Winthrop House, one of Harvard’s 12 undergraduate residential houses. Mr. Sullivan’s choice of client was “deeply trauma-inducing,” and shows that Mr. Sullivan doesn’t “value the safety of students,” the petition announced. Would Winthrop residents “really want to one day accept [a] Diploma,” the petition asked, from someone who “believes it is okay to defend” Mr. Weinstein?

Six Harvard dorms held “listening sessions” attended by emissaries from the university’s Office for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, whose website urged traumatized students to seek mental-health services and other help from Harvard’s massive Title IX bureaucracy. Harvard’s dean of students and its lead Title IX coordinator attended a student protest outside the main administration building, where the ubiquitous Office for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response doled out hot chocolate.

Still-unidentified vandals spray-painted #MeToo slogans such as “your silence is violence” on Winthrop House. The record reveals no condemnation from Harvard officials and requests for comment were not returned at press time. The Association of Black Harvard Women complained that Mr. Sullivan (who is black) had “failed” female African-Americans at Harvard and had compromised his ability to support “survivors . . . as they deal with their trauma.”

China’s Rise Means Trouble in Paradise Fiji and other tiny South Pacific states will be flashpoints of global competition.By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-rise-means-trouble-in-paradise-11552950243

Viti Levu, Fiji

On a recent visit to Fiji I was able to confirm that the majestic islands of the South Pacific remain as close to paradise as one can get in this world. But alongside the sparkling crystal waters and coral gardens, I saw something darker at work in the region.

As U.S.-China competition intensifies, the thinly settled islands scattered across Oceania will become geopolitical flashpoints. The contest has already begun to impose strains on fragile societies. These strains will intensify as strategists in Washington, Beijing and Canberra seek to further influence political developments in tiny, almost inaccessible island-states.

U.S. interests in the South Pacific run deep. The American naval presence in the region, originally dispatched to protect U.S. whalers, is 200 years old. American statesmen have long believed that the country’s security depends on U.S. power in the Pacific. President John Tyler extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii in 1842; a century later the importance of the region was driven home by the brutal island warfare of World War II. Even in an era when many Americans want to limit the nation’s overseas commitments, voters and Washington strategists alike will remain focused on maintaining security and stability in the South Pacific.

For many years, the main diplomatic drama in the region revolved around the bidding war between Taipei and Beijing for diplomatic recognition. In exchange for aid packages, island-states would agree to recognize either Taiwan or the mainland. For small states without many goods to sell, diplomatic recognition turned out to be good business. Of the 17 countries world-wide that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, six are in the South or Central Pacific.

Houston Library Features Convicted Child Molester Reading Trans Books To Children State records say the 200-pound, 5-foot-11 man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and is at a ‘moderate’ risk for reoffending. His YouTube channel shows him becoming transgender.By Joy Pullmann

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/19/houston-library-features-convicted-child-molester-reading-trans-books-children/

This article contains information and images not fit for children.

The Houston Public Library has apologized for featuring a convicted child molester last fall during its “Drag Queen Storytime” series. It has not, however, announced it will end the program that featured the male sex offender dressed up as a woman reading LGBT books to children as young as babies.

“A media spokesperson for the library confirmed one of the program’s drag queens, Tatiana Mala Nina, is Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender,” reports local TV station KHOU. “In 2008, he was convicted of assaulting an 8-year-old boy.”

State records say the 200-pound, 5-foot-11 man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, is at a “moderate” risk for reoffending, and must report his whereabouts to police annually for the rest of his life. Garza’s YouTube channel showed he was in the process of transgendering himself, according to Rod Dreher (videos since removed; screenshot of Garza in drag captured here).

Drag Queen Storytime is spreading to libraries across the country, mostly but not exclusively in deeply Democratic locales. It even has a national PR webpage featuring an image of a scared toddler staring at a man dressed up in drag while the child’s mother encourages the child to get over the apprehension.

Did Peter Strzok Lie, Or Was There A Spy Targeting The Trump Campaign? And Lisa Page’s testimony creates yet a bigger problem since her statement contradicts DOJ lawyer Bruce Ohr’s testimony to the House committee. Margot Cleveland

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/19/peter-strzok-lie-spy-targeting-trump-campaign/

Last Thursday, Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, released the committee’s transcript of its interview of disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok. During the day-long questioning, Strzok sought to explain away the more deleterious text messages he sent to his mistress and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

When one considers Strzok’s explanation of his reference to an “insurance policy” in light of Page’s testimony, which Collins also released last week, and other previously known facts, there seem to be only two possibilities: Strzok was lying or an unknown spy was targeting the Trump campaign.

Strzok sent the “insurance policy” text to Page on August 15, 2016, just two weeks after the FBI’s launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the Trump campaign: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” the former deputy assistant director wrote to Page.
Strzok’s Answer

When questioned on the meaning of this text by members of the House Judiciary Committee, Strzok testified that “we had received information from a very sensitive source alleging collusion between the Government of Russia and members of the Trump campaign.”

“As is frequently the case in counterintelligence investigations and any national security investigations,” Strzok added, “there’s a tension between the protection of a sensitive source and method of pursuing the investigation related to that information.”

Ruthie Blum Don’t forget Iran. Netanyahu hasn’t The scant attention being paid to Tehran by Israeli pundits this week is startling; among many developments, that’s where the rockets fired on Tel Aviv were produced.

https://www.jns.org/opinion/dont-forget-iran-netanyahu-hasnt/

March 19, 2019 / JNS) Israel’s Channel 12 led its prime-time news broadcast on Thursday night with a leaked report that Iran had hacked the cellphone of Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz.

According to the report, Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, was warned five weeks ago by the Shin Bet security agency that officials in Tehran were now in possession of his personal address book, messages and photos—something that could leave him vulnerable to extortion.

Exactly one hour later, the figurative bombshell was upstaged by the literal launch of two Iran-made FAJR-5 rockets from Gaza into Tel Aviv. Because it had been nearly five years since the last time that rockets fell in the White City—during “Operation Protective Edge,” Israel’s 2014 war against Hamas in Gaza—everyone was taken by surprise. So much so that the automatic slide telling residents of the greater Tel Aviv area to enter their nearest bomb shelters appeared on TV screens before studio anchors were even aware of it.

Even the wailing of air-raid sirens didn’t completely register in the minds of most Tel Avivians. Those of us who were indoors at the time had our windows closed against the chilly, rainy weather. People huddled in bars and restaurants weren’t sure about the source of the racket. Some of those caught on the street thought that it was a false alarm. Until two distinct booms were heard, that is.

INSIDE CHINA’S PLAN FOR GLOBAL SUPREMACY: DAVID GOLDMAN

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/281731/chinas-plan-for-global-supremacy

In 2013 my friend Eduardo Medina-Mora became Mexico’s ambassador to the United States. We had known each other since 1988, when I was preparing a study of Mexico’s tax and regulatory system for a U.S. consulting firm, and Eduardo was running a small Mexico City law firm after a stint as press officer for the Ministry of Fisheries. We kept in touch over the years. In 2003, when he headed Mexico’s foreign intelligence service, the CISEN, and I ran the fixed income research department of Bank of America, we compared notes over dinner in Mexico City. He went on to serve as attorney general and other senior posts.

Eduardo complained that no one in the Obama administration seemed responsible for Mexico. “We don’t even know who to call when a problem comes up,” he told me at his office at Mexico’s Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue, where I called on him to offer my congratulations. “It’s easier for [then Mexican President Enrique] Peña Nieto to get the president of China on the phone than Barack Obama. What would you advise me to do?”

The Wall: Moral and Good Srdja Trifkovic 

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2019/April/44/4/magazine/article/10846300/

President Donald Trump’s predecessors have circumvented Congress before on issues the legislative branch had tried to stop.  They have redirected resources appropriated by lawmakers.  They have resorted to the same National Emergencies Act that Trump is invoking in order to build the Wall along the country’s southern border.  None of their actions triggered a reaction as immediate and as virulent, however, as Trump’s announcement on February 15.

The declaration was immediately attacked by Democrats and in the media as an abuse of presidential power that violated both the Constitution and the authority of Congress, a cynical move not warranted by events.  On February 22 House Democrats introduced a joint resolution, just one page long, which declares that the national emergency “is hereby terminated.”  Even if four Republicans subsequently support the resolution in the Senate, Trump will kill it with his first veto.

The courts present a more serious challenge.  Trump acknowledged that the administration expected to be sued, that it was prepared for “a bad ruling . . . and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court.”  Indeed, by the last week of February his decision had already drawn five lawsuits, including one from a coalition of 16 Democratic states led by California and another from the Sierra Club and ACLU.  All of them made the same key points: There is no real border emergency, immigrants are not disproportionately responsible for crime, and no barrier will stop the influx of drugs.  Regardless of the reality of an emergency, they claim that Congress, not the President, should decide how to spend federal dollars.