Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Obamas Launch ‘Higher Ground Productions,’ Sign Netflix Deal By Bridget Johnson

Netflix announced today that former President Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama have struck a “storytelling partnership” with the video-on-demand service that will unfold in front of and behind the camera.

Netflix, which carries movies as well as original TV series, has about 125 million members in more than 190 countries.

The agreement with the Obamas is a “multi-year” pact, the company said, “to produce films and series” with the company.

“The Obamas will produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features,” the company said.

The Obamas’ new production company is called Higher Ground Productions. Michelle Obama declared in her 2016 Democratic National Convention speech “when they go low, we go high.”

The company did not reveal how much the deal is worth

“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” President Obama said in a statement. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

“Barack and I have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire us, to make us think differently about the world around us, and to help us open our minds and hearts to others,” said Michelle Obama. “Netflix’s unparalleled service is a natural fit for the kinds of stories we want to share, and we look forward to starting this exciting new partnership.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Europe Is Feeling Trumped No U.S. president has been as loathed. But the Continent knows it still needs America.By Walter Russell Mead

The trans-Atlantic relationship is in trouble. No American president has ever been as widely loathed among Europe’s political class as Donald Trump. And not since the era of Freedom Fries and Axis of Weasels have so many European countries, this time including Britain, been spoiling for a fight with the U.S.

To the Europeans, Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal and impose sanctions on European companies that trade with Iran is a profound betrayal. As they see it, the U.S. made a solemn commitment to observe the deal after European countries entered into it in good faith. Harming European commerce with Iran to serve American interests is the act of a bully and an overlord, not of an ally and friend.

The Trump administration’s apparent indifference to European concerns boils the blood of even the most placid of Eurocrats. Europe is now actively looking for ways to inflict pain on the Trump administration in the short term, and in the long term to ensure its increasing independence from the U.S.

From the White House, things look very different. The Iran deal was not a legally binding instrument but the result of President Obama’s overreaching freelance diplomacy—as if Woodrow Wilson, counting the votes against the Treaty of Versailles, unilaterally committed the U.S. to join the League of Nations. The Europeans should have checked the relevant clauses in the American Constitution, assessed the state of congressional sentiment, and realized that Mr. Obama simply lacked the authority, political or constitutional, to commit the country permanently to such an agreement.

For the Trump administration, the Iran decision was not about deserting allies or overruling their wishes. Mr. Trump’s Middle East policies, after all, are quite popular with most of America’s Middle East allies. The Gulf Arabs and Israel felt betrayed by the Obama administration’s pivot to Iran; they are thrilled about the American change of course. The question isn’t whether the U.S. should stand by its allies but whether the Middle East policy preferences of America’s European allies should be imposed on those allies that actually live in the region.

The suggestion that their wishes must be weighed against those of the Gulf Arabs and Israel is humiliating to European policy makers. Most European governments do not regard these postcolonial Arab monarchies and Zionist upstarts as anything near their equals. For a U.S. administration to take that view is a slap in the face.

But preventing a single power from dominating the oil resources and transportation routes around the Persian Gulf has been a central objective of American policy since the Truman administration. Iran is currently the largest, indeed the only, significant threat to these vital interests. The maintenance of the U.S. power upon which America’s European allies rely, the administration believes, depends on blocking Iran’s drive for regional primacy. From this perspective, it seems arrogant of European countries to so casually brush aside the claims of longtime U.S. partners like Israel and the Gulf Arab states, and ridiculous of Europe to demand a veto power over actions the American government believes are necessary to the preservation of the global system. CONTINUE AT SITE

End Robert Mueller’s investigation: Michael Mukasey

It sounds harmless to suggest that the Mueller investigation be allowed more time to finish its work. But is it?

Let’s review some history.

Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign had gotten help unlawfully from Russia. Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.

Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had worked on the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy — Rod Rosenstein — took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.

Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to publicly disclose a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.

Did The Obama Administration Spy On Trump Using Flimsy Evidence? Let’s Find Out After all, if the DOJ is incorruptible, there’s nothing to worry about.By David Harsanyi

If the Justice Department and FBI are, as we’ve been told incessantly over the past year, not merely patriots but consummate professionals incapable of being distracted by partisanship or petty Washington intrigues, why are Donald Trump’s antagonists freaking out over the fact that an inspector general will assess whether political motivation tainted an investigation into the president’s campaign? The American people should get a full accounting of what transpired during 2016. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing since the election?

You believe Trump is corrupt. I get it. But surely anyone who alleges to be concerned about the sanctity of our institutions and rule of law would have some cursory curiosity about whether an investigation by the administration of one major party into the presidential campaign of another major party was grounded in direct evidence rather than fabulist rumor-mongering. Otherwise, any administration, including Trump’s, could initiate an investigation for whatever cooked-up superficial reason it wanted.

Then, when a constitutionally empowered oversight committee demanded information about that investigation, the DOJ could accuse it of “extortion” and stonewall for years.

MY SAY: A CAPITAL ADVENTURE

When the Brits say “ that’s capital!” they’re not referring to a city, font or money. They mean that’s fantastic!”

I spent last weekend in America’s “capital”capital with a lovely and lively friend. She and I visited two museums:

The National Museum of the Marine Corps, located in Quantico, Virginia is the best military museum in the nation. From the Barbary Wars and Revolutionary wars, through the first and second World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the fire bursts of the Cold War to the recent Afghan, Iraq wars, battle scenes and dioramas with lifelike statues and excellent photographs and narratives, the heroic battles of the American “leathernecks” are displayed. We witnessed an unscheduled and remarkable rifle drill with synchrony, dexterity and discipline. After the drill, the marines relaxed and chatted with the visitors which included many venerable marine veterans. We were there for a full day and vowed to see it again.

The Museum of the Bible, which museum opened on November 17, 2017 documents the narrative, history and impact of the Old and New Testaments. It is a magnificent enterprise. The displays of artifacts and texts, and the narratives of the Bible’s impact on the founding fathers, scientists and philosophers are magnificent. A Galilean village is entirely reconstructed as it was in the time of Jesus. The dioramas and narratives of Jerusalem show the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people. It is still a work in progress and one we definitely plan to revisit.

P.S. It rained non stop but the hotel provided daily copies of the Washington Post which were handy to wipe rain soaked shoes….rsk

Pro-Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Shaft Palestinians and Human Rights by Bassam Tawil

In each case, Palestinian Arabs living in PA-controlled areas were suspected of collaborating with Israel — a “crime” that can include anything from warning authorities of impending acts of terrorism to selling land to Jews.

All told, 13 of 15 “human rights organizations” proved that they are, in fact, dedicated to defaming the State of Israel, and have no real interest in defending human rights.

Only two organizations — The Committee for Prevention of Torture and Physicians for Human Rights — offered assistance of any kind.

Ironically, help also came from two unexpected sources: Honenu, a legal aid society most often associated with right wing causes, and Regavim, a think-tank and lobbying group that regularly finds itself in court as a means of protecting Israeli sovereignty.

During the past 14 years, dozens of lawsuits have been filed in the Israeli judicial system by Arabs who have fled the Palestinian Authority (PA) and were given refuge in Israel. The sheer volume of cases and their remarkable similarity led the Israeli justice system to combine them and hear them as a unified case, heard in Jerusalem District Court, Justice Moshe Drori presiding, in 2017.

In each case, the victims, Palestinian Arabs living in PA-controlled areas, were suspected of collaborating with Israel — a “crime” that can include anything from warning authorities of impending acts of terrorism to selling land to Jews.

These suspected “collaborators,” after their abduction by the Palestinian Police, were imprisoned in the PA’s dungeons and subjected to unspeakable torture. In their testimony before the court, the victims described brutal beatings, broken teeth, sexual assault, exposure to extreme heat and cold, being forced to sit on broken glass bottles, being hung repeatedly in various positions, and “medical treatment” by the Palestinian Authority’s prison doctors that included injections of urine directly into their veins. In many cases, suspected collaborators were executed outright; other times, they were tortured to death and their family members raped and tortured. Even infants were not spared. These methods remain in force; this is how the Palestinian Authority deals with anyone suspected of cooperating with Jews: Death or torture.

Spies Like Obama? The treachery of “Crossfire Hurricane” comes into the light. Matthew Vadum

On Sunday a justifiably outraged President Trump called for the former Obama administration to be investigated for its unprecedented and profoundly un-American spying and sabotage operation against the 2016 Trump campaign.

“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the [Federal Bureau of Investigation/Department of Justice] infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump tweeted Sunday at 1:37 p.m.

Just the day before, President Trump had written on Twitter, “If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal.”

The presidential demand for action comes after days of dramatic, detailed revelations about the plot to undermine the Trump campaign, transition team, and presidency began surfacing in news accounts.

On Thursday it was revealed that the FBI illicitly put together a spy ring as part of something called Operation Crossfire Hurricane and that at least one informant was a member of the Trump campaign.

On Friday the New York Times reported the campaign-embedded snitch was an American teaching in the United Kingdom.

By Saturday, media reports indicated the rat-fink in question was Stefan Halper, who is currently Director of American Studies in Cambridge University’s Department of Politics and International Studies and a research professor at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C. Halper served in the White House during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Halper hates Trump. How he got on Trump’s campaign staff is not clear.

The Lying Media Never Stops Lying About Israel All the media does is recycle the same lies about the Jewish State. Daniel Greenfield

There are no new lies. Only old lies that the media hopes that everyone forgot about.

In the spring of ’02, Muslim terrorists had very special plans for Passover. In Israel, a Hamas suicide bomber blew up at a Passover seder in the Park Hotel killing 30 people and wounding 140 others. Many of the dead were in their seventies and eighties. Some were Holocaust survivors. The oldest was a 90-year-old woman. Four days later, another Hamas suicide bomber hit a restaurant killing 15 people and wounding another 40. In both attacks, entire families died together. Two were completely wiped out.

These were two of four terrorist attacks that hit Israeli cafes and restaurants in that month alone.

Israel fought back by launching Operation Defensive Shield. One of its targets was Jenin, an encampment that the terrorists behind some of the deadliest attacks had been using as their base. Israel warned the civilian population to evacuate and then its soldiers began the dangerous business of clearing a territory that had been heavily mined and filled with deadly traps by Islamic terrorists.

The fighting was hard and bloody. Israel lost 23 soldiers and there were 52 dead on the other side. Only 14 of them were civilians. The rest were terrorists. Of course that’s not the story that the media told.

Instead the media claimed that there had been a “massacre”, an “atrocity” and “genocide” in Jenin. It claimed that Israel had killed 500 Palestinians and buried bodies in mass graves with bulldozers. The lie eventually fell apart. By the summer, even the UN had concluded that there was no massacre.

But by then it really didn’t matter.

Daniel Johnson: Politics, Civilisation and Survival ****** (November 10th 2016 )

Neither the Right nor the Left is doing a good job of defending, representing or embodying the values of our civilisation. Meanwhile, our public opinion is seduced by the dream of a world without enemies, by the pathologies of relativism—cultural, moral and epistemological.

The future of Western civilisation will depend on how well the present can mobilise the intellectual resources of the past to meet the challenges of the future. Today, we are threatened by an unprecedented array of external adversaries and dangers, ranging from Islamist terror and Russian or Chinese aggression to the fall-out from failed states. We also face internal threats—above all the collapse of confidence in Judeo-Christian values and democratic capitalism. Can either the Left or the Right rise to the challenge of the present crisis? Or are both political traditions mired in self-destructive mind-sets that prevent them from grasping the scale of the task, let alone reversing the decline?

I want to begin with the Right, because the crisis of conservatism in Europe, America and here in Australia seems too deep to be explained by the vagaries of individual personalities or parties. Most leaders of the centre-Right in the Western democracies appear to be the prisoners of their own anxieties: the fear of proscription by the self-appointed guardians of self-righteousness; the fear of humiliation for failure to flatter those who parade their status as victims; and the fear of oblivion for simply ignoring the clamour to do something when there is nothing useful to be done. The watchword of many a conservative statesman used to be masterly inactivity; now it is miserly depravity. There seems no place for the old-fashioned conservative who steers a steady course, is frugal and firm yet decent and honest; who, rather than pick people’s pockets, leaves their money to fructify there—in short, the John Howards of this world. When Theresa May, a strong prime minister in this tradition, took office two months ago after the vote for Brexit, she felt the need to make gestures to the nanny state: an “industrial policy” and an “equality audit”. Why does she think the British state, whose record of central planning and social engineering is lamentable, should repeat the follies of the past? Could it be that Mrs May still feels the need to appease the gods of socialism, in which nobody, least of all she, still believes? It seems scarcely credible. Yet the same phenomenon is observable everywhere. Conservatism as a living tradition, a coherent conceptual framework for freedom under the law, has been hollowed out and filled with the detritus of defunct ideologies.

Hal G.P. Colebatch: Jews, Nazis and Muslims

This past week in Indonesia, several entire families of suicide bombers attacked Christian worshippers. Normally it is Jews who are on the sharp end of Islam’s enmity for all other creeds, yet somehow, unlike Hitler’s very few latter day disciples, Muslim hatred goes largely unremarked

Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.
—Adolf Hitler

jew hate IIIn The Australian last year Julie Nathan of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry wrote an article headed in the ink-and-paper edition, “Attack on Jews a threat to all society”. I agreed with that. An attack on Jews is a threat to all society. But I found very little to agree with in the emphasis of the body of the article, which focused almost entirely on right-wing and neo-Nazi groups. There was just one passing reference to leftism and Islam: “Jeremy Corbyn also has shamefully tolerated and been accused of condoning anti-Semitism among the far-left and Islamist groups he has courted.” That’s all.

This is firing the guns in the wrong direction. It all but ignores the most powerful, well-financed and murderous anti-Semitic force in the world today.

A few weeks ago, 3000 Muslims outside the US embassy in London (video below) chanted the anti-Semitic cry, “Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad, sa yahud!” This translates as: “Jews, remember Khaybar! The army of Muhammad is returning!” This is a reference to the battle, constantly caressed in Muslim historical memory, when the last flourishing Jewish communities in Arabia, survivors of the Roman diaspora and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, were wiped out by Islamic warriors in 629.