Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

How Did Shane End Up? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/outsiders-trump-shane-save-the-day-but-are-ostracized/

The gunslinging outsider saved the vulnerable farmers, but they didn’t love him for it.

In director George Stevens’s classic 1953 Western, Shane, a mysterious stranger and gunfighter in buckskin with a violent past, rides into the middle of the late-1880s Wyoming range wars between cattle barons and homestead farmers. The community-minded farmers may have the law on their side, but the open-range cattlemen have the money and the gun-toting cowboys.

Shane enters the mess but decides to settle down, incognito, with a farm family, shed his past as a hired killer, and begin leading a settled and honest frontier life.

Almost immediately, however, he senses his tragic predicament. The West is not yet so civilized. The farmers, the future of civilization, hardly possess the gun-fighting ability to survive against the ruthless cattlemen and their hired guns.

So a reformed Shane is insidiously brought into the fray, as he figures out how to aid his new hosts while, at least at first, playing by their rules of civilized behavior.

Shane ultimately accepts that his second chance life is not sustainable. He learns that his newfound friends, the sodbusters, lack the skills to survive against Wilson, the cattlemen’s psychopathic hired killer.

Sensing that there’s no solution to his dilemma, Shane finally puts on his killer clothes again, straps on his six-gun, and kills Wilson and the brutal ringleaders of the cattlemen.

NOW WATCH: ‘McConnell Rejects Vote On Bill To Protect Mueller’

Stevens’s movie gives us the familiar paradox of the ostracized outsider and savior in tragic literature and film (The Magnificent Seven, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider . . . ). Although they hesitate to say so, the farmers, if they are to survive, must rely on the very antithesis of their own idealistic commitment to law, order, the settled life, and the way of the future. Shane himself wants to reject gunslinging and stay civilized.

But to do so would mean that Shane’s newfound friends would be killed or driven off by the cattlemen, and their farms returned to the open range — they don’t have the skills to win a range war against cowboys and hired guns. Yet by picking up his gun and going outside the law to take down the evildoers, Shane himself —apparently a former Confederate, Yankee-hating hired gun — loses his recent claim on civilized life.

Even the very farmers whom he will save are uncomfortable with the idea that Shane is willing to shoot someone to save them. Or as one self-righteous farmer puts it when Shane warns the sodbusters about the dangers of the cattlemen’s hired gun, Wilson, “I don’t want no part of gunslinging. Murder’s a better name.” Shane himself appears impatient with gradual change and seems to believe that he alone, not the distant law, can stop the murderous bullies.

The movie ends in classic tragic-hero fashion: Shane rides into cattlemen’s town alone, wins his gunfights, is wounded, and finally rides off alone into the stormy Grand Tetons — content that he rid the farmers’ valley of the hired guns. The means he used to save the sodbusters are precisely those that must have no place in an agrarian world that, thanks to him, is now peaceful. Only a small boy, Joey, will yell out, “Shane! Come back!”

Stevens leaves the exact fate of Shane is doubt — at least sort of. We do not know the true extent of his wounds. And where will he end up on the trail? As a gunfighter, he can never settle down in the turn-of-the-century, civilizing West that no longer has a place for either him or his enemies.

Or, as Shane puts it at the end of the movie to Joey, the son of his farming hosts:

A man has to be what he is. . . . Can’t break the mold. There’s no living with a killing. There’s no going back from one. Right or wrong, it’s a brand. A brand sticks. There’s no going back.

The Invaders and Their Allies By Pedro Gonzalez

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/27/the-i

There is a war on for hearts and minds of Americans, and it began long before the first shots were fired on Sunday along the United States-Mexico border, when federal agents deployed tear gas against aggressive foreign nationals attempting to force their way into our country.

But the media coverage of the border skirmish is more telling of the nature of this conflict than canisters of lachrymator. There are three news clippings that might illustrate this point.

CNN, to start, placed scrambling Central American “families with young children” in the limelight of the clash, yet didn’t show those same people hurling large stones in the direction of American law enforcement, many of whom presumably have families with young children, too.

ABC News, on the other hand, didn’t mention at all that foreign nationals endangered federal agents. “Children were screaming and coughing in the mayhem” that, if one were to read nothing but ABC’s “The Latest,” would seem to have been induced spasmodically by trigger-happy Border Patrol—who, for what it’s worth, are mostly Latino.

The worst offender was perhaps the Associated Press. Making no mention of projectile attacks by foreign nationals directed at Americans, the AP quoted one Honduran to keep the narrative slanted favorably toward would-be illegal aliens. “We ran, but when you run the gas asphyxiates you more,” Ana Zuniga told the AP “while cradling her 3-year-old daughter Valery in her arms.”

What sort of mother would attempt to penetrate a heavily guarded border as part of a violent mob with a toddler in arm? Likely the same that lined up for paychecks from unknown benefactors along with their children in order to participate in this debacle. But who paid them is not so important as the fact that they accepted the payment, and some have since charged headlong against Mexican and now American law enforcement with their children by their side. Mercenaries, then, not “migrants” come our way. Are these the “family values” we want to import?

Under cover of media spin designed to tug at heartstrings, opportunistic outrage from progressives was as predictable as the clash itself.

In the lead up to this incident, progressive politicos and pundits were preoccupied with what they believed was President Trump’s inappropriate use of the word “invasion” to describe thousands of people marching toward our border, under the banner that they would “rather die fighting” than be denied entry to the United States.

Conservatives, Don’t Quit Twitter By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/26/conservatives

If you are someone on the political Right who might quit Twitter because it just banned Jesse Kelly, here’s my plea: Don’t.

After the shocking news spread Sunday night that Twitter had deplatormed the conservative influencer for unknown reasons, some conservatives are threatening to leave the social media site. Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. Instapundit, a law professor and writer who runs a news aggregate site, deactivated his Twitter account hours after Kelly (no relation) was banned. Other critical voices on the Right, including Salena Zito and Mollie Hemingway, said they might follow suit.

I understand why Salena and Mollie would consider leaving Twitter. They’ve both been subjected to bullying and harassment on the platform—even by people who purport to be on the same political side as they are. Anonymous troll accounts quickly can spread vile and hurtful comments about you and your family. Twitter is not a place for the faint of heart.

There’s no doubt that taking a break from Twitter is good for the soul and disposition: Anyone who uses it regularly is aware of how much it can influence your mood. And one ill-advised tweet can not only ruin your day, but your career.

Post-2016 Twitter is a far more hostile place than it was before Donald Trump was elected. Republican lawmakers have been shadowbanned on Twitter, and the company even indulged a petition drive to banish President Trump from the site. Founder Jack Dorsey faced harsh questioning from congressional Republicans earlier this year about his company’s anti-conservative bias.

But, despite its flaws,the reality is that Twitter is ground zero in our ongoing political war. Having utterly failed to infiltrate the country’s one-sided media behemoth, or hold news organizations responsible in any way for their egregious political bias and dishonesty, the Right has no choice but to fight back on Twitter. And for now, there is no other serious alternative or legitimate replacement in the offing.

It is the only public forum where you can instantly call out a journalist for lousy news coverage or condemn a politician for bad behavior. In just the past week, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) had to walk back his tweet threatening to use nuclear weapons against disobedient gun owners, and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) had to delete a tweet that suggested the use of tear gas at the southern border violated international laws on chemical weapons. Without Twitter, those ridiculous comments would have gone unanswered.

Dodging a Very Long Vacation in Dubai Another Westerner mistakes the UAE for a free country. Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272041/dodging-very-long-vacation-dubai-bruce-bawer

Quick quiz. What do these universities have in common: New York University, London Business School, Michigan State University, Middlesex University, Murdoch University (Australia), Heriot-Watt University (Scotland), the Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of Birmingham, the University of Bradford, the University of Exeter, the University of South Wales, City University London, and the University of West London?

Answer: they all have branches in the United Arab Emirates. This is a perfect set-up for the petroleum millionaires of the Persian Gulf, who want their sons to have American or British degrees but who may not want them to be exposed to the haram aspects of life in the U.S. or U.K. It’s thus also a perfect set-up for the universities themselves, because these oil sheikhs can afford whatever price these universities charge them to educate their little darlings.

A few decades ago, the idea of establishing branches of Western universities in a country like the UAE would be considered ethically problematic. No free speech, no free press, no due process, and all that. Premarital sex and the drinking of alcohol are punishable by flogging. The penalty for adultery and apostasy is death by stoning.

Fortunately for the American and British universities in question, these drawbacks are more than balanced out by the huge piles of cash that are in it for them. In any event, as you know, it’s politically incorrect – Islamophobic, in fact – to get too worked up about sharia law. And nowhere are people more determined not to be politically incorrect or Islamophobic than at your typical American or British university.

How American Fracking Changes the World Low energy prices enhance U.S. power at the expense of Moscow and Tehran. By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-american-fracking-changes-the-world-1543276935

The most important news in world politics this month isn’t about diplomacy. Bigger than Brexit, more consequential than presidential tweetstorms, the American shale revolution is rapidly reshaping the global balance of power as energy prices plummet.

Until recently, observers expected American energy production to reach a plateau. A lack of pipeline capacity was expected to constrain output in the Permian Basin through 2020. Instead, shippers found ways to use existing pipelines more efficiently, and new pipelines were constructed faster than expected. U.S. crude-oil production is expected to average 12.1 million barrels a day in 2019, 28% higher than in 2017. Surging production has roiled world energy markets.

The biggest loser is Iran. Shale has been pummeling Tehran for some time. The economic benefits Iran hoped to gain from President Obama’s nuclear deal were largely offset by the sharp 2016 fall in the price of oil. Now the pesky Permian is blighting Iranian hopes again. Rising American output made it easier for the U.S. to slap tough sanctions on Iran without risking a sharp rise in world energy prices. Low prices also reduce Iran’s income from the oil it still manages to sell.

The next biggest loser is Russia. Oil is a key revenue source for the Kremlin. But the shale boom doesn’t only pick Vladimir Putin’s pocket; it also attacks his foreign-policy strategy.

Russia wants to control the world oil price and use that power to boost its diplomatic weight. Mr. Putin has two ways to influence the price of oil. The first is to increase geopolitical tensions. If threatening Ukraine or bombing Syria spooks traders and jacks up energy prices, Russia has a better hand in negotiations with Europe and the U.S.

Mr. Putin’s second option is to cooperate with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on price fixing. Building a closer relationship with Saudi Arabia over their common interest in inflated oil prices might loosen the kingdom’s U.S. ties and generate lucrative commercial and arms deals for the Kremlin.

Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC wins the prize for the stupidest comment on the border assault By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/andrea_mitchell_of_msnbc_wins_the_prize_for_the_stupidest_comment_on_the_border_assault.html

There is a lot of competition, but one Trump-hater stands out for utter, implausible, easily refuted inanity in attempting to demonize opposition to the organized attempt to force our southern border open to anyone who wants to come here and sign up for the rich subsidies and benefits offered to poor people.

Congratulations to Andrea Mitchell: You have now earned your place in broadcast history with the claim that calling the mob intent on violating our border a “caravan” demonizes them. If you don’t believe me, watch this video excerpt from her MSNBC show. She makes the idiotic claim at 1:00 minute into the segment.

Report: Trump Considering John James to Replace Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador By Debra Heine

https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-trump-considering-john-james-to-replace-nikki-haley-as-un-ambassador/

Republican Senate candidate John James may have lost his race against Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, but he could land a high-profile job in the Trump administration as a consolation prize.

President Trump is considering James, a Michigan businessman and Iraq War veteran, for UN ambassador, Bloomberg reported on Monday.

Scoop: John James, the Michigan businessman who ran for U.S. Senate this year, is one of the people that Trump is considering as a replacement for UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. @JohnJamesMI lost his challenge against Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Jennifer Jacobs

✔ @JenniferJJacobs

NEW: John James was at the White House last week talking about a possible administration post with top officials, including Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence, I’m told.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-26/trump-is-said-to-consider-michigan-senate-candidate-for-un-post …

Current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley announced in October that she would resign her post by the end of the year and James is one of the names under consideration to be her replacement. Other people Trump is considering for the plum UN job include the U.S. ambassadors to France, Germany, and Canada, as well as State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert.

Two White House sources told Bloomberg that James was at the White House last week in meetings with Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Vice President Mike Pence to talk about a possible administration post.

James is president of James Group International, a supply-chain management firm based in Detroit. The political novice fell short of unseating Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow 46 to 52 percent in a swing state Trump won in 2016.

Speaking of Hate, Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar Promotes It . By Scott W. Johnson

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/11/27/speaking_of_hate_rep-elect_ilhan_omar_promotes_it_138764.html

In her Minneapolis Star Tribune op-ed on the FBI’s just released 2017 Hate Crimes Report, Minnesota Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar presents herself as a sort of apostle of love. Omar decries the increase in reported hate crimes. However, she immediately attributes this increase to President Trump. As Omar puts it in her first paragraph: “The culture of intolerance spread by President Donald Trump has clearly emboldened racist individuals to acts of violence.” Something tells me that Omar’s message of love is a thinly disguised invitation to hate — to hate President Trump and his supporters, anyway.

Omar notes the increase in anti-religious hate crimes committed against Jews (up 37 percent) as well as the fact that Jews have been the foremost target of hate crimes since the FBI started keeping these statistics. But Omar doesn’t ask who is committing those crimes.

However, it isn’t long before she steps forward as a victim herself: “Like members of the Jewish community, I know how it feels to be hated because of my religious beliefs. Almost one in five hate crimes committed last year was motivated by religious bias, with 18.1 percent committed against Muslims — well above the historical averages before President Trump’s election.”

Omar habitually portrays herself as a victim. It’s an irritating tic. But she has not been the victim of any reported hate crime. A young refugee to the United States from Somalia, Omar was elected to Congress at the age of 36. This achievement must make her one of the most fortunate citizens of the United States. Her claim to victimhood represents the new style of American assimilation.

Roger Kimball If you don’t believe in borders, should you be deciding US immigration policy?Roger Kimball

https://spectator.us/borders-us-immigration-policy/
Despite what Beto thinks, the United States doesn’t have an obligation to every distressed mother with a four-month-old

As the teeming mass of mostly male, partly criminal, humanity stews about on Mexican side of our Southern border, entertaining itself by throwing rocks at US border officials, emoting for CNN cameras, and periodically rushing the fence in an effort to break through to America, it is worth stepping back to ask a few large questions.

But first, let’s step out of the rancid pool of sentimentality with which the media, in its anti-Trump frenzy, has surrounded this episode. That sentimentality ranges from the astringent, Jim-Acosta sort, in which a reporter barks little virtue-signaling rhetorical bombs at the President of the United States, to the truly emetic effusion by Robert Francis ‘Beto’ O’Rourke, failed senatorial candidate, who began with this heart-tugger:

It should tell us something about her home country that a mother is willing to travel 2,000 miles with her four-month old son to come here. Should tell us something about our country that we only respond to this desperate need once she is at our border. So far, in this administration, that response has included taking kids from their parents, locking them up in cages, and now tear gassing them at the border.

‘This administration,’ Beto? Surely you know — but will not say — that the Trump administration has been doing exactly what the Obama administration did. Remember those photos of kids behind wire fences? CNN pretended they were contemporary. In fact, they were from 2014, when the great Calmer-of-the-Seas was in charge. The policy is the same: separate children from illegal alien adults when keeping them together would pose a danger to the children. Let me pause to point out that if you don’t want to be separated from your child (when she is your child and not your underage sex toy), do not enter the Unites States illegally.

As for ‘tear gassing them at the border,’ that’s another trick that the Trump administration has — rightly in my view — taken over from the Obama years. As far as I know, this was the first time the Trump administration used tear gas on migrants who violently assaulted the border fence in an effort to gain illegal entry to the United States. Maybe there are other instances. During the Obama years it happened about once a month, but Beto somehow neglected to mention that.

Heather Mac Donald :Feminists’ Undue Process Ideologues react hysterically to the Trump administration’s suggested reforms to campus-rape tribunals.

https://www.city-journal.org/devos-title-ix-regulations

The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings gave the public a crash course in campus-rape ideology. It is about to get another. Last week, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released a proposed federal rule that corrects the worst procedural abuses of campus-rape tribunals. It hews closely to judicial precedent and is fair to all parties, yet the feminist establishment has reacted with hysteria, characterizing the draft regulation as an assault on sexual-assault “survivors.” Maintenance of the campus-rape myth, it turns out, is incompatible with due process. Whether feminism itself is compatible with Enlightenment values appears increasingly doubtful.

Opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination was based on the principle that self-professed “survivors” must be believed and that accused males must be condemned, regardless of the paucity of evidence against them. That principle, already ubiquitous on college campuses, got an assist from the federal government in 2011, when the Obama administration released a so-called guidance (an informal federal directive of murky legal status) on college rape proceedings. The guidance strongly discouraged cross-examination of the accuser and required schools to use the lowest possible standard of proof for finding a defendant guilty of sexual assault. It promulgated a broad definition of actionable sexual harassment—“unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—that ignored relevant Supreme Court precedent and that would extend to an unwanted request for a date. Since 2011, due-process deficiencies in campus-rape proceedings have become ever more widespread. Colleges routinely deny defendants the opportunity to review all the evidence, fail to provide an impartial decision-maker, and ignore the presumption of innocence. The accused is regularly forbidden the assistance of counsel. In 2014, a Title IX officer at Washington and Lee University issued a lugubrious warning to a male student—“a lawyer can’t help you here”—before expelling him for sexual assault.

The proposed Education Department regulation tries to end these abuses. Ironically, in an administration regularly charged with ignoring the law, the DOE has carefully followed the legal framework for promulgating new federal rules. The 2011 Obama guidance was issued as a fait accompli; Donald Trump’s DOE, by contrast, is giving the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule before it becomes final.