Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

How to Revive a Roast By Clark Whelton

An open letter to the scribes who organized last Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner:

Given your recent public relations wreck, these words are a little late. There may still be time to save next year’s dinner, however, and preserve a venerable institution that serves a valuable purpose. Your annual dinner helps deflate overblown egos, an area of Washington life where leaks are desperately needed. So, in hopes of helping you pick up the pieces, here’s some free advice about roasts, based on my 30 years in the speechwriting business.

First, your keynote roaster was not the problem. The problem was your clueless dinner committee. Somehow they persuaded themselves that unleashing Michelle Wolf on the fold would be a good idea. Maybe the committee was hoping to punish the president for leaving his correspondents at the altar. If so, they should have known that stand-up comics with modest abilities and no personal links to the complex culture of Washington do not speak “truth to power.” Instead, they invariably take the low road to laughs by speaking insults to invited guests.

Second, you forgot that political roasts are mock combat, not the real thing. They are gladiator games in which swords should never touch flesh. At a political roast, punchlines should only sting momentarily. Scars that are still visible in the morning are marks of abused power.

The primary bond between roaster and roastee should be affection, not contempt. Comedian Jeff Ross only roasts people he loves. Yes, the Hollywood/show business version of the roast format allows for obscene humor and the joys of going too far. But the political version does not. Political roasts may be a blood sport, but that red stuff around the podium is special effects. If real blood hits the walls, the roast will turn into a horror show.

The Mystery of Michael Flynn’s Guilty Plea He pleaded guilty to a crime FBI agents said he didn’t commit.

One of the stranger moments of Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe is Michael Flynn’s Dec. 1, 2017 guilty plea for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The former White House national security adviser pleaded guilty to a single count of making false statements, even though then FBI director James Comey had told Congress in March that the two FBI agents who interviewed Mr. Flynn believed he hadn’t lied.

These columns reported this Comey testimony based on sources at the time of Mr. Flynn’s plea (“The Flynn Information,” Dec. 1, 2017). Now comes confirmation from a less redacted version of the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia report released late Friday.

On pages 53-54, the report notes that in March 2017 “Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents . . . discerned no physical indications of deception. They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.’” The quotes are from the committee transcript of Mr. Comey’s remarks.

The report goes on to say that then Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe “confirmed the interviewing agent’s initial impression and stated that the ‘conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview . . . the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador.’”

Good News in the Labor Market The black and Hispanic jobless rates are at record lows.

Equity investors loved Friday morning’s jobs report for April, lifting share prices sharply across the board. Job growth for the month fell below expectations, but maybe Mr. Market looked at the details and saw the broader reality of an increasingly tight labor market that suggests business confidence in continuing economic growth. A couple of key figures that haven’t received much attention are worth noting.

Republican politicians pointed to the decline in the overall jobless rate to 3.9% after six months of 4.1%. But this was achieved thanks to a 236,000 decline in the U.S. labor force. That decline balances what happened in February when the rate stayed at 4.1% despite more than 800,000 new entrants to the labor force. A better way to look at the health of the jobs market is the long-term trend, and over the last year there is some notable good news.

The black jobless rate has fallen a remarkable 1.3-percentage points to 6.6% since April 2017. That’s still high compared to the 3.6% rate for whites, but it’s lower than the 6.8% recorded in December, which was the previous low since the government began tracking the data in 1972. The black jobless rate has been below 7% for four of the last five months, which has never previously happened.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Muslim Brotherhood – hoax 26 by Linda Goudsmit

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Ikhwan, Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is an organizational humanitarian hoax being perpetrated on the American people to bring Islam to America. Islam in America would not be problematic if it was a religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism – it isn’t. Islam is a comprehensive socio-political, military, religious way of life with its own governing supremacist religious sharia laws that are antithetical to Western cultural norms and America’s governing secular Constitutional laws.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the United States.

The goal of Islam is to convert the world to Islam. The purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood in America is SETTLEMENT not assimilation. Settlement is the incremental process of making Islam familiar, acceptable, normative, and ultimately replacing secular American laws with supremacist religious Islamic sharia law.

The treasonous conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots is fully documented in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum that details the strategic goal for the group in North America and the necessity for organizational acceptance. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that America is structured by organizations so the parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, has spawned hundreds of offspring organizations with the same subversive settlement goal and the same deceitful operating principles.

In No Apparent Rush, the Grand Inquisitor Plods On By Michael Walsh

The Robert Mueller “investigation” is a disgrace to the Constitution, to our tradition of ordered liberty, and to the American Way. Tell me: did you ever expect to read a passage like this in an American newspaper?

Though Mr. Mueller doesn’t face any specific legal deadline… [he]has a lot still to do—prepare several reports, bring expected charges against alleged Russian hackers behind the breach of the Democratic National Committee and make decisions on whether to prosecute other cases. Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue he has yet to resolve is whether the special counsel’s office will demand an interview with Mr. Trump. If he can’t get all those things done in the next few months, his probe is likely to stretch into 2019.

Or longer — to infinity and beyond. Should he wish, Mueller can be at this for the rest of his life, with an unlimited budget, and at taxpayer expense.

But this is not justice in any meaningful sense of the term. Rather, it’s the sore-loser Left’s latest attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election by orchestrating, via deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein and St. James Comey, a quasi-legal proceeding to demonstrate that Donald Trump is unfit to sit in the Oval Office, and that therefore his presidency must be ended by any means necessary. As Ed Koch, the late former mayor of New York City, famously said: “The people have spoken and now they must be punished.”

The point of the Wall Street Journal story quoted above is that with the election season fast approaching, Mueller may have to lie doggo for a while so as not to — stop laughing! — influence the fall congressional vote.

Mr. Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign will soon run into a dead zone of sorts, in which former prosecutors say they expect him either to wrap up, or lie low and take no visible steps until after the November vote…. He will reach a point this summer when Justice Department habits dictate he would have to go dark so he doesn’t appear to be trying to sway voters’ decisions, which would be at odds with Justice Department guidelines for prosecutors.

Any action by Mr. Mueller that implicates or exonerates Mr. Trump or his associates in working with Russia or obstructing justice could go a long way to determining whether Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress. Democrats have promised extra scrutiny of the Trump administration if voters pull the lever for their party in November, while Republican candidates have largely sided with Mr Trump, and some have echoed the president’s message that the prosecution is a witch hunt.

This is ludicrously disingenuous — the very continuance of the Mueller investigation into non-existent Russian “collusion” has already swayed, and will continue to sway, voters, as the Democrats and the never-Trumpers knew it would. Even if they can’t get a do-over on 2016, the Left has made it clear that this fall’s elections should be a referendum on Trump — both his fitness for, and his performance in, office. Indeed, at this point there’s nothing Mueller can do not to influence the election. If he fails to bring any charges against the president, or issue an impeachment referral, the Left will scream bloody murder; if he does, the Right will howl. And if he just keeps on keepin’ on… well, where there’s smoke there must be fire, right? CONTINUE AT SITE

How the Church Is Being Undermined from Within By Janet Levy

In 2006, at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI gave a historic speech on faith and reason that included reflections on Islamic ideology. Quoting a medieval scholar who condemned conversion by force, or jihad, Benedict characterized Allah as transcendental and above rationality. The quote called Muhammad’s new ideas “things only evil and inhuman.”

Not surprisingly, the pope received death threats afterward and was called the “pig servant of the cross” and other derogatory epithets. Muslims protested in the streets worldwide and demanded an apology. Five churches were firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza, an Italian nun was shot dead in Somalia, a priest was beheaded in Iraq, and two Christians were stabbed and killed in Baghdad. Many feared that even more violence would erupt. Following the carnage and intense pressure, Pope Benedict yielded to the Islamists and capitulated.

Since that time, the Vatican’s agenda has been to reach an accommodation with Islam, to resist any condemnation of jihadist ideology, to promote the “progressive enculturation of Islam in Europe,” and to “engage in interreligious dialogue.” The pope went so far in his apologia as to meet with Muslim diplomats and ambassadors, including Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (M.B.). This occurred despite widespread persecution and attacks against Christians in Muslim countries by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist groups, and at a time in which Christianity is being extirpated from the region.

One year after Pope Benedict’s address, in what appeared to be a gesture of reconciliation, a group of Muslim scholars and clerics invited Christians to come together to endorse the document, “A Common Word Between Us and You,” an open letter to Christian leaders emphasizing similarities between the two faiths. Initially, 300 Christian leaders across the world approved “Common Word” and received the document with enthusiasm.

A response prepared by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture extended “our own Christian hand in return so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love G‑d and our neighbors.” The Christian letter of response apologized for the past – the Crusades (in reality an effort to regain conquered Christian land) and the present-day “excesses” of the “war on terror.” It also identified Muhammad as a prophet and went on to ask forgiveness for sinning against the worldwide Muslim community. The letter continued with a validation of the common ground between the two faiths cited by “A Common Word Between Us and You,” specifically “love of G‑d” and “love of neighbor” and agreed these similarities to “be the basis of all interfaith dialogue between us” for the sake of peace in this world and “our eternal souls.”

“How a tiny protest at the U of Nebraska turned into a proxy war for the future of campus politics: State Of Conflict”

Usually I regret whenever I’m flipping through channels of the car radio and come across NPR’s pretty consistent litany of liberal and leftist commentators. So, I was amazed when I stumbled upon this show just now on my local NPR station. I heard the words University of Nebraska and hesitated to move on because a good friend graduated from there, so I was curious.An hour radio show traced in detail the gross attacks by a faculty member upon a conservative student and the outcome: the faculty member was banned from teaching, the attempted coverup emails by the admin at U of Nebraska was exposed, and the state legislature may pass a free speech bill over the protests of the usual opponents of free speech for anyone but themselves. Yes, this triumph for free speech and students’ rights on campus is out of the ordinary on campuses and in states and media dominated by the liberal left, but it can be a portent if enough determined conservatives and others of good conscience act. The lengthy article upon which the NPR story is based appeared in, again of all places, the liberal Chrinicle of Higher Education. It is a MUST read. Here it is: “How a tiny protest at the U of Nebraska turned into a proxy war for the future of campus politics: State Of Conflict”BRUCE KESLER

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/state-of-conflict

The first month of the fall semester had not gone as Hank M. Bounds, president of the University of Nebraska, had hoped. It was shaping up to be a tough budget year, for the school and the state, and he had hoped to press the case for how valuable the university was to the state.

Instead, the president was sitting across from a Lincoln-area radio host as he delivered a monologue on what it means to call someone “Becky.” The host seemed to be paraphrasing entries pulled from the website UrbanDictionary.com: It was slang for a white woman. Some definitions mentioned sex acts.

“Some say that goes beyond intimidation,” said the radio host gravely, “that that even borders on hate speech.”

In late August, there had been an incident. A graduate student and members of the English department had confronted a 19-year-old undergraduate over politics. Words were exchanged, including the one the radio host was now trying to define. The whole thing had lasted about 20 minutes and had made barely a ripple on campus. But thanks to a cellphone video, a web-savvy political organization, and a group of suggestible lawmakers, it soon sent shock waves across Nebraska. People were talking about how the changing landscape of American politics posed a threat to them, to their state, and to their children.
This story is part of a collaboration with This American Life.
It was reported with producer Dana Chivvis. An audio version of this story will air early in May. It will be available for download on the This American Life website and as a podcast.

Moshe Dann :Jordan as Palestine: A paradigm shift for a two-state solution

Israel should not be expected to bear the burden of providing the Palestinians with a national homeland.The problem with “the two-state solution”—creating a sovereign independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River—is that a Palestinian state already exists east of the Jordan River; it’s called Jordan. Its population is predominantly “Palestinian,” and it is located in the eastern part of what was once called “Palestine.” Demographically and geographically, therefore, Jordan is a Palestinian state.

The Oslo Accords, however, removed the “Jordanian option” from the range of possible alternatives. Instead, Yasser Arafat, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority were installed as the rulers of what was intended to be another Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. The so-called “peace plan” failed not only because of Palestinian terrorism, but because of opposition to Israel’s existence. Moreover, the P.A., which includes Hamas and other Arab terrorist organizations, and the PLO never intended it to work. Their goal is to destroy Israel.

Although Arafat signed the Oslo Accords on behalf of the PLO and the PLO was obligated to remove the clauses in the Palestinian National Covenant that call for the destruction of Israel, it never did. Although an ad hoc form of the PLO’s Palestinian National Council met in April 1996 and approved amending the Covenant in principle, it did not change the Covenant; it merely gave a PNC committee the authority to do so or to draw up a completely new charter. Nor did they specify which articles would be changed or how that would be done. By leaving the Covenant intact, the PLO sends a clear message that it has not renounced violence nor accepted Israel’s right to exist.

Moreover, since the P.A. did not sign the accords, it is not bound by them; it is accountable, if at all, only to the PLO, which Mahmoud Abbas also heads.

Keep Your Mouth Shut The blockbuster hit A Quiet Place is an allegory of American political culture. Clark Whelton

John Krasinski’s new sci-fi thriller, A Quiet Place, has racked up big numbers at the box office. Fans and critics alike are intrigued by a movie about sightless creatures taking over the Earth. Using their super-acute hearing to hunt and destroy by sound, these deadly beasts have just about eliminated all resistance. Here and there, die-hard humans survive by maintaining total silence.

A Quiet Place begins on “Day 89” of the blind beasts’ attack. From old newspaper headlines and other hints, we learn that the relentless creatures, which move so quickly that they’re almost invisible, have defeated the U.S. military and armies from other nations, too. In three months, the human race has gone from predators to prey. Where the creatures come from is never explained, but we suspect that they arrived from space. We’re not told why they’re angry at us. Our only hope for survival is to shut up.

There is something haunting about a post-apocalyptic world in which it’s clearly understood that those who control mainstream communications are both powerful and intolerant. Speak out of turn and you’ll pay for it. A Quiet Place goes a step further: say anything and you’ll die. Is A Quiet Place just another end-of-the-world movie—or an allegorical retelling of the conquest of Western society by enforcers of political correctness? That interpretation might sound farfetched, but audiences are drawn to something here, and it isn’t the originality of the premise. The two main plot twists have been borrowed from earlier films. Blind creatures hunting humans by sound owes to the classic Day of the Triffids, and the ending of A Quiet Place, with its lucky discovery of the creatures’ weak spot, is blatantly lifted from the 1996 Tim Burton sci-fi spoof Mars Attacks! Nevertheless, crowds have been lining up at the multiplex.

Moviegoers are obviously fascinated by a world in which people are deathly afraid to speak—and they know a bit about that from the headlines. They know that progressive politicians and PC intellectuals are abandoning First Amendment protections that they once swore to defend. They know that a distinguished professor at the University of Pennsylvania has been denounced for voicing forbidden facts. They know that campus demonstrators regularly shut down non-PC speakers, almost always with their professors’ consent. California is proposing the banning of non-PC books. Even powerhouse companies like Starbucks operate in fear.

The Ayatollahs’ clear and present threat to the USA Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

A 6-minute video on the Ayatollas’ threat to the US: https://bit.ly/2zNDmUX
A 6-minute video on the Ayatollahs’ anti-US curriculum: https://bit.ly/2EuJwJm

1. The tyrannical Ayatollah regime – oppressing Iran’s majority – is driven by a megalomaniacal ideology, clearly reflected by its K-12 curriculum, brainwashing Iran’s youth for full commitment to the “divine battle” against the US, “the Great Satan,” the “infidel” Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Kurds, Azerbaijanis, etc.

2. The Ayatollahs’ super-ideology – the leading sponsors of Islamic terrorism – is the commitment to global supremacy of Shite Islam through Jihad (“Holy War”), which is the permanent state of relations between “the believers” and the “apostates” and the “illegitimate infidels.” Hence, agreements with infidels are tenuous and non-binding. The Ayatollahs’ super-ideology is bolstered by a sacred allegiance to the fulfillment of the 2,600 year old Persian-Iranian regional and global imperialistic aspiration.

3. The Ayatollahs’ super-geo-strategic goal, which supersedes economic and social matters, is the domination of the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and beyond, irrespective of the Palestinian issue.

4. The Ayatollahs’ super-hurdle/enemy is the USA, “the Great Satan.” Irrespective of the Ayatollahs’ anti-Israel rant, the Jewish State is their second-rate target, since it does not play a major role in determining the future of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, the Ayatollahs’ machetes are at the throat of each pro-US Arab regime in the Persian Gulf region.

5. The Ayatollahs pursue super-capabilities (in collaboration with North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, etc.) – ballistic and nuclear – in order to deter and defeat the super-enemy/hurdle and advance the super-goal, in adherence to their super-ideology. The Ayatollahs’ pursuit of super-capabilities has accelerated the proliferation of conventional and non-conventional military systems in the Middle East and beyond, adding fuel to global instability and violence.