Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

In Defense of Assimilation By Rich Lowry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/tom-brokaw-defends-assimilation-immigration-debate/

Immigrants can become wholly American while making a distinctive contribution to our national culture.

The worst thought crime is the one you don’t realize you’re committing.

So it was with NBC News legend Tom Brokaw, who — for good reason — didn’t understand that assimilation is now a third rail of American politics.

He caused a furor with comments on the venerable Sunday news program Meet the Press over the weekend, including, most controversially, his statement that he believes “that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation.”

The condemnations were swift and sweeping and a sign that being a beloved media figure who has never before said anything that could legitimately be considered bigoted is no defense when the furies descend.

It was Presidential Medal of Freedom to white hood in one sound bite. A group called Latino Victory hit Brokaw for allegedly giving “credence to white supremacist ideology.”

Typically, his apologies were deemed insufficient and part and parcel of the original offense.

Let’s stipulate that using a definite article to refer to any minority group will always strike people as tone-deaf, but what Brokaw was getting at — the importance of assimilation to cultural cohesion — should be uncontroversial.

It isn’t anymore. The head of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists rejected the very idea of assimilation, which he decried as “denying one culture for the other.” It is astonishing that in that formulation “the other” is American culture. We are perhaps the only nation in world history that has sought to “otherize” its own culture.

It’s also been a trope to accuse Brokaw, as Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro did, of xenophobia. But saying immigrants should assimilate is the opposite of xenophobia — it is an expression of a belief that they can be and should be fully part of the American mainstream.

The old American ideal of the melting pot is that immigrants become wholly American (learning the language, embracing the folkways and traditions, becoming deeply patriotic), but also make a distinctive contribution to our national culture, which is organic and open to a variety of influences. It is wrong to view this dominant culture as hateful or exclusionary.

Time To Reconsider CAIR’s Non-Profit Status (Again) By Samantha Rose Mandeles and Daniel Krygier

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/time-to-reconsider-cairs-non-profit-status-again/

In an era of increasing anti-Muslim attacks, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) markets itself as a mainstream Muslim civil liberties organization fighting tirelessly for the rights of immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, and on behalf of religious freedom. To support its efforts, CAIR, like most other American non-profit organizations, solicits public tax-deductible donations from concerned citizens all over the country. Unlike most other non-profits, however, questions about what CAIR does with its donations have dogged the organization for years — with good reason.

Founded in 1994, CAIR’s officials have long nurtured ties to extremism and funding overseas terrorism. Indeed, in 2009, the FBI banned its offices from cooperating with CAIR after federal prosecutors named the Islamist group an unindicted co-conspirator during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial. Despite its subsequent designation as a terrorist organization in the UAE, CAIR has so far avoided such a designation in the United States. However, as the Middle East Forum has uncovered, CAIR’s activity in the months leading up to this November’s midterm elections could land the group in hot water for other funding-related issues.

Every American non-profit organization is subject to IRS rules that make it eligible for a federal exemption from payment of tax. One of the requirements for a registered charity’s tax-exemption is that it may not be an action organization, meaning that it “may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.” Non-profits are also prohibited from “directly or indirectly participating in …voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates.”

In the months prior to the midterm elections, CAIR stepped up its political activism nationwide. Multiple chapters published ”voting guides” — documents that summarize the platforms of the main candidates, the issues up for a vote, and that explain American election processes. Other chapters have held candidate forums, enabling local constituents to connect directly with candidates and ask questions. While this all sounds helpful and benign, some CAIR chapters’ political “education” has been decidedly partisan. CONTINUE AT SITE

New details of 2016 meeting with Trump dossier author conflict with Dems’ timeline By Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-detai

New details contained in congressional transcripts and emails about a July 2016 meeting involving the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie, appear to conflict with claims from Democrats — and the co-founder of the firm behind the dossier — that significant contacts did not occur until after the election.

According to the records, the little-known breakfast meeting was held on July 30, 2016 at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel.

Congressional transcripts, confirmed by Fox News, showed Nellie Ohr told House investigators last year that Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled the dossier, wanted to get word to the FBI at the time.

“My understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce (Ohr) could put in a word with the FBI to follow-up in some way,” Nellie Ohr testified in response to a Republican line of questioning, regarding the purpose of the meeting. Bruce Ohr did just that, almost immediately contacting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

A sneak preview of Jim Acosta’s new book Ghostwritten by Roger Kimball (Spoof)

https://spectator.us/jim-acostas-book/

Exclusive! * Exclusive! * Exclusive!

An advance excerpt of the forthcoming tell-all memoir from the battle lines of America under siege by the world’s bravest investigative journalist, Jim Acosta.

‘Will the president tell the truth?’ I generally like to start with questions like that because, at a time when American is occupied by the spirit of Donald Trump, it always throws his spokesmen off base.

It’s asking questions like that that made me Chief White House Correspondent for CNN. It’s a big job. But it’s the job I was born for.

Some people have a sense of destiny. I guess I am one. I have always been known for my courageous truth-telling. It’s one reason my colleagues in the press corps idolize me. You can tell that because they always fall silent and look at me with a mixture of awe and envy when I enter the press room at the White House.

I have been going to White House press conferences for many years. I get to sit near the front because of my seniority and reputation for asking brave, hard-hitting questions, and because I am Chief White House Correspondent for CNN. One of my most famous performances — it will probably make the Oxford Book of Quotations — was when I reminded Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s chief speech writer that the Statute of Liberty says ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.’ That was early in Donald Trump’s reign when he was first trying to close America’s borders to brown and black people, whom he does not like.

The Progressive Race to the Bottom By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/progressive-politics-abolish-ice-tax-increases-free-college/

Abolishing ICE, offering ‘free’ college to all, raising taxes to 70 percent: Will the somnolent GOP take notice?

The old Democratic party championed the working classes, wanted secure borders to protect middle-class union wage earners, and focused generous federal entitlement help on the citizen poor. Civil rights were defined as equality of opportunity for all.

That party is long dead. An updated Hubert Humphrey or even Bill Clinton would not recognize any of the present “Democrats.”

Even the old wing of elite liberals is mostly long gone, with its talk of legal immigration only, opposition to censorship, pro-Israel foreign policy, let-it-hang-out Sixties indulgence, and free speech.

It was superseded by grim progressives who are not so much interested in a square, new, or fair deal for the middle classes, as an entirely different deal that redefines everything from the Bill of Rights and the very way we elect presidents and senators to an embrace of identity politics as its first principle.

Indeed, we are currently witnessing a quite strange series of North Korean–like reeducation confessionals, from repenting erstwhile liberals and now presidential hopefuls such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand. They and other would-be candidates parade before show cameras to apologize for their prior incorrect heresies, including their erstwhile support for drug laws, tough sentencing, and border enforcement.

The subtext of these charades is that 28-year-old socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who won her Democratic primary with 15,897 votes and with that victory an assured congressional seat in a gerrymandered Democratic district) is the new Robespierre — warning that the earth as we know it will end in twelve years, ICE must be disbanded, all student debt abolished, wealth taxes levied, and Medicare provided for all. And her political guillotine awaits any progressive with lingering stains of the Ancien Régime.

Featured Column Ruthie Blum Commanding scorn The taking of personal responsibility is befitting of someone leading others into battle.

https://www.jns.org/opinion/commanding-scorn/

In a letter to the officers in his command early this week, the head of the Israel Defense Forces’ Judea and Samaria Division declared that “immoral and illegal actions” by IDF soldiers against Palestinians would not be tolerated.

“Those who cannot control themselves and do not undertake to operate professionally during a security mission and in accordance with the spirit of the IDF will have no place with us,” warned Brig. Gen. Eran Niv. “We will stand firm against our subordinates.”

Niv went on to assert that the use of force is legitimate only when required for the execution of a mission, and only against those who pose an immediate threat. So, for example, he explained, it’s OK to break down the door of a suspect, but not to trash his home as a form of punishment.

According to Kan 11 News, which broke the story on Monday evening, Niv was spurred to pen this directive by four investigations underway into the allegedly criminal or unbecoming conduct of IDF soldiers in the field.

Too bad Niv is not among them.

In the first place, such a seasoned, high-ranking officer ought to be aware that his dramatic “new” directive is as old as the 1994 IDF Code of Ethics and Mission. In fact, if it weren’t for that 25-year-old document—concerned with the “purity of arms” of the Israeli military—none of the investigations that supposedly sparked his letter would be taking place.

Nor would so many Israeli boys and girls in uniform be given the sense that they need to sling their rifles over their shoulders to free up their hands for law books and cameras. Fear of not being able to provide evidence at a later date to judges and hostile NGOs that they acted according to the IDF’s often ridiculously stringent rules of engagement will do that.

Against Trump: Three Years Later By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/28/against-trump-

Three years ago this month, National Review published its controversial and now infamous entreaty, “Against Trump.” The issue was singularly devoted to making a case against Donald Trump’s then surging primary candidacy; it featured a roster of notable conservative influencers explaining why the brash Manhattan billionaire posed a dire threat to conservatism.

Exactly three years later, the magazine’s online version issued an apology for its early condemnation of Covington Catholic High School students, who, while attending the March for Life in Washington D.C., became the innocent victims of a social media ambush orchestrated and executed by the Left. Some conservative commentators who had contributed to the “Against Trump” issue quietly deleted their tweets criticizing the teens, without apology.

The irony surrounding the coincidence of the dates of those two circumstances might be considered either karma, comeuppance, or both. And it once again highlighted why Donald Trump is in the White House and Jeb Bush isn’t, and why Trump—and none of the self-proclaimed conservatives who opined in the pages of National Review three years ago—now is considered the standard bearer of American conservatism. When the Left attacks, the Right caves.

When Christian teenagers attending an event to support a cause that represents the heart of the conservative movement needed immediate and unflinching protection from a leftist mob, the self-appointed guardians of conservatism failed. Their mockery of “He Fights!” only exposes how they will not—or when they do fight they often pick the wrong battles, and how they find the whole business of political warfare beneath them—unless, of course, they can punch down at a target on their own side.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is a direct quote from that “Against Trump” issue: “[Trump’s] obsession is with ‘winning,’ regardless of the means—a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power.”

The Potomac two-step: Will no one stand up to the corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA? By Patricia McCarthy

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_potomac_twostep_will_no_one_stand_up_to_the_corruption_in_the_fbi_doj_and_cia.html

For nearly ten years now, Americans who have been paying attention have known that our government has become corrupt, that its premier institutions were weaponized by the Obama administration to the point that we have become something of a police state or banana republic. This is not to say there was no corruption previous to Obama. As Sidney Powell addresses in her book License to Lie, the current special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his amoral, ruthless right-hand man, Andrew Weismann, had already been practicing their prosecutions of personal destruction for decades. In the 1980s, Mueller sent four men to prison who he knew were innocent. He did it to protect a confidential informant. Two of them died in prison. The lawsuits filed cost taxpayers $100M. That trial was connected to the murderous mafia hit man Whitey Bulger, who was finally caught after sixteen years. He died in prison in 2018. Was he murdered to protect Mueller?

There was the total destruction of Enron, and then came the obliteration of Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen. Those prosecutions were run much as Mueller and Weismann are running their current job assignment. Mueller successfully ruined both companies, costing thousands of people their jobs and sending nonviolent people to prison, sometimes to solitary confinement like what he did with Paul Manafort. Fortunately, but too little, too late, nearly all of the guilty verdicts they managed to elicit from juries were overturned by the Supreme Court in both cases.

Diversity Lysenkoism Rules UCLA How the University of California institutionalized politically correct junk-thought. Lloyd Billingsley

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272686/diversity-lysenkoism-rules-ucla-lloyd-billingsley

Editors’ note: At the end of the 1960s at UCLA, the Black Panthers and the US organization battled for control of the new Black Studies program. In time, Chicano Studies, Women’s Studies, and Queer Studies also gained official recognition. Through the 1970s and 1980s, the University of California system rejected academically-qualified students and accepted others based on race and ethnicity. In 1996, voters responded with the California Civil Rights Initiative, which banned racial and ethnic preferences in state education, employment and contracting.

Twenty years later, UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Equity Diversity and Inclusion is a specialist in “implicit bias” theory but shows a distinct preference for politically correct groups of the Left. Meanwhile, professors of a certain ethnicity and conservative political profile are ostracized for championing free speech. Even their staff and student supporters come under fire.

Below is Part I of Frontpage Mag’s 4-part series by Lloyd Billingsley on this state of affairs at UCLA.

January 17, 2019, marked 50 years since the Black Panthers and the US organization shot it out in room 1201 of Campbell Hall at the University of California at Los Angeles. Panthers John Huggins and Alprentice “Bunchy” Carter perished in the gun battle over control of fledgling black studies programs on the UCLA campus. Also at stake was control of the larger Black Power movement of the sixties.

US stood for “us,” black people, as opposed to “them,” the oppressive white people, but the rival Panthers called the group “United Slaves.” They were black nationalists founded by Hakim Jamal, formerly known as Allen Donaldson and a cousin of Malcolm X. Another US founder was Maulana Karenga, formerly known as Ron Karenga and Ronald McKinley Everett. Karenga is the creator of Kwanzaa and is now professor of Africana studies at Cal State Long Beach. The Black Panthers were more of a Marxist cast and made common cause with white radicals.

One of them was New Left stalwart David Horowitz, a red diaper baby born to Communist parents, as he outlined in Radical Son. Horowitz raised money for a Black Panther school in Oakland, but in late 1974 the Panthers murdered Betty Van Patter, the bookkeeper Horowitz recommended. The brutal crime showed the true nature of the Panthers, who had murdered many others, including member Alex Rackley, only 19, after making a recording of his “trial.” For David Horowitz, Van Patter’s murder signaled the need to depart from the left.

The Dire Urgency for Trump’s Wall How national security, public safety, and Americans’ jobs are on the line. Michael Cutler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272694/dire-urgency-trumps-wall-michael-cutler

Although the partial government shutdown has ended, temporarily, President Trump has made it clear that in three weeks he will again shut down part of the federal government if funding is not provided for the construction of the border wall/barrier.

The mainstream media has said that “conservative Republicans” are unhappy with the President for re-opening the government while Democratic politicians are claiming a victory in the battle over the construction of a border wall.

In fact, all Americans should stand behind the President and back his demands for a border wall.

Superficially it would appear that the battle is being waged over a simple difference of opinion to determine the best way to secure the problematic southern border of the United States. In fact, this is how the mainstream media is portraying this struggle.

However, there is far more going on and far more at stake than a difference of opinion.

The battle is actually being fought over the goals of President Trump versus the Democrats’ ultimate goals. The Democrats are at war not just with Trump, but with America and Americans, and are willing to sacrifice national security and public safety in order to attain their goals.