Displaying the most recent of 91920 posts written by

Ruth King

The Carnivores of Civil Liberties By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/31/the-carnivores-

After a landslide loss in the 1972 presidential election, the Democratic Party was resuscitated the following year by the Watergate scandal. The destruction of the Nixon presidency powered the Democrats to make huge political gains in the 1974 elections.

Watergate also birthed (or perhaps rebirthed) modern investigative journalism. A young generation of maverick reporters supposedly alone had challenged the establishment in order to uncover the whole truth about abuses of power by the Nixon Administration.

Liberalism rode high during the Watergate era. It had demanded that civil liberties be protected from the illegal or unconstitutional overreach of the Nixon-era FBI, CIA, and other agencies. Liberals alleged that out-of-control officials had spied on U.S. citizens for political purposes and then tried to mask their wrongdoing under the cover of “national security” or institutional “professionalism.”

All those legacies are now eroding. The Democratic Party, the investigative media, and liberalism itself are now weirdly on the side of the reactionary administrative state. They have either downplayed or excused Watergate-like abuses of power by the former Barack Obama Administration.

Liberal journalists apparently have few concerns that the FBI apparently used at least one secret informant to gather information about the 2016 Trump campaign. Nor are they much bothered that members of the Obama national security team unmasked the names of U.S. citizens who had been improperly surveilled. Many of those names then were leaked illegally to the press.

Democrats seem indifferent to the fact that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign paid a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to compile dirt on Republican candidate Donald Trump—largely by trafficking in unverified rumors from Russian interests. Obama administration officials leaked details from that dossier.

Civil libertarians appear unconcerned that the Department of Justice sought to deceive the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, getting it to grant warrants to allow the surveillance of U.S. citizens based on the suspect and politically motivated Steele dossier.

College Freshmen’s Self-Reports Of Psychological Disorders Doubled Since 2010 Joy Pullman

You can’t tell me 20 hours a week of milquetoast make-work is so stressful that it causes two-thirds of college students to feel ‘overwhelming anxiety.’

Mental illness diagnoses have been increasing in the United States ever since big-money drugs for them were developed then taxpayer-funded through health welfare programs starting in the 1960s. Taxpayers now pay for the majority of U.S. mental health services, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Concurrently, colleges have for several years been reporting spikes in mental health problems among students, and the Wall Street Journal reports some new numbers:

As many as one in four students at some elite U.S. colleges are now classified as disabled, largely because of mental-health issues such as depression or anxiety, entitling them to a widening array of special accommodations like longer time to take exams…

Small, private schools have the greatest concentration of students with disabilities. Among the 100 four-year, not-for-profit colleges with the highest percentage of disabled students, 93 are private, according to a WSJ analysis of federal data.

Public schools have also seen a significant uptick in test accommodations. From 2011 to 2016, the number of students with special accommodations increased by an average of 71% among 22 flagship state schools, according to data obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

Report: Obama White House Tried to Intrude on FBI’s Russia Investigation By Debra Heine

https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-obama-white-house-tried-to-intrude-on-fbis-russia-investigation/

The Obama administration tried to take over the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign, The Hill’s John Solomon reported on Fox News Thursday night. And according Solomon, the FBI began spying on members of the Trump campaign to gather the intelligence that ultimately justified the collusion investigation, weeks or even months before the FBI had a formal predicate.

“That’s very important. The rules say you can’t use sources until you have a predicated investigation. The predication is July 31, 2016,” Solomon told Fox host Sean Hannity. The investigative reporter said he had sources and documents backing up his claim that he would be making public in his report in The Hill on Friday.

He stressed that informants were making contacts with the Trump officials and providing information to the FBI “much, much earlier than July 31.”

The second part of his bombshell report, Solomon explained, deals with internal FBI communications between former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, his mistress Lisa Page, and others discussing how the Obama White House was trying to take over the investigation.

“The words ‘the White House is running this’ are clear in the text message,” Solomon told Hannity, adding that “the FBI agents who opened this case feared that Barack Obama was weak on national security and wouldn’t do what they needed for Russia.”

When Is It Okay to Drop the C-Bomb on a Woman? By Jim Treacher

https://pjmedia.com/trending/when-is-it-okay-to-drop-the-c-word-bomb-on-a-woman/

When her dad is a POTUS from the wrong party.

It’s been a little over 24 hours since Roseanne Barr blew up her career (again) for saying something really stupid and hateful (again). And now, yet another alleged comedienne is in the news for being a loony, vulgar piece of garbage.

First, some background. On Sunday, Ivanka Trump tweeted the following with a picture of herself and her baby:
Ivanka Trump
✔ @IvankaTrump

My ♥️! #SundayMorning

If you think that’s just a nice photo of a mother with her baby, you’re obviously not #Resisting enough.

Ladies and gentlemen: the comedic stylings of Ms. Samantha Bee.

Samantha Bee’s response:
Jon Levine
✔ @LevineJonathan
Samantha Bee to @IvankaTrump on Full Frontal tonight:

“Let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dad’s immigration practices you feckless cunt!”

As David Rutz at the Washington Free Beacon notes:

The remark came at the end of her weekly program “Full Frontal’s” A block, where the left-wing comic blasted the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of separating illegal immigrant children from their parents at the border. Bee acknowledged this policy did not begin under President Trump, but she said he had made it worse.

Netflix CEO bundles money for Obama, Netflix gets net neutrality, Obamas get huge contract By Jack Hellner

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/netflix_ceo_bundles_money_for_obama_netflix_gets_net_neutrality_obamas_get_huge_contract.html

I was surprised yesterday when I read that the CEO of Netflix, Reed Hastings, was a bundler for the 2012 Obama campaign, because with the media’s deep interest in political corruption, equality, and especially income equality, I would think such political connections would be widely reported.

From April 2012’s Hollywood Reporter:

Billionaire mogul Haim Saban threw open his arms as he arrived to meet first lady Michelle Obama at the Beverly Hills home of Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos and his wife of 2½ years, Nicole Avant, the newly returned U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas.

“I’m here!” Saban announced to all within earshot of the no-press-allowed crowd of 135 – a who’s who of Hollywood political power players, including Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steve Bing, Harvey Weinstein and Mike and Irena Medavoy; Sarandos’ boss, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings; and Quincy Jones, Avant’s godfather.

Now this, from RedState:

Ex-President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle just signed a deal with Netflix to “produce television shows and films for the streaming service.” It could be worth as much as $50 million.

Which makes perfect business sense for Netflix – given the Obamas’ extensive experience in story development, screenwriting, direction and production.

Tommy Robinson and the British press By Anne-Christine Hoff

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/tommy_robinson_and_the_british_press.html

Unlike the judge who delivered his 13-month sentence, I watched Tommy Robinson’s entire Facebook Live stream on the Muslim grooming gangs trial outside Leeds Crown Court. It is a little over an hour long and very enlightening.

One of the contentions of the court is that Robinson and his small camera crew are breaking the law by standing in front of the courthouse. In reality, they aren’t on courthouse property at all throughout the video. Robinson and his crew are filming on the street. They even ask the police at one point if they are standing far enough away from the courts not to be breaking the law.

The other thing I learned from the video is that ordinary Brits love Tommy Robinson. In the hour that Robinson is outside of the court house, multiple people stop to tell him that they appreciate what he’s doing. Apart from two non-whites, almost all are scared to be filmed with Robinson, but they want to take pictures with him. They want to stop and chat with him.

Almost all the Muslim accused hurl verbal abuse at Robinson about having had sex with his sister or wife or mother. Robinson simply asks them if they feel at all guilty, and by their response, it appears that they don’t.

The courts also contend that Robinson is disturbing the peace, but the only disturbance I saw throughout the video comes from the accused when they tell Robinson that they have “f—– his mother’s fanny,” whatever that means. At one point they even gesture through a courthouse window that they would like to slit the throats of Robinson and his camera crew, and they also threaten to kill a woman on the street. For unknown reasons, they are permitted to make such threats without any repercussions.

Does Gun Control Lead to Genocide? By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/does_gun_control_lead_to_genocide.html

Rational conversations about gun control are difficult to come by. Hyperbole as well as deliberate misstatements only lead to emotional tirades. With this in mind, I will tread carefully toward illuminating the question posed by this article.

In their 1997 paper titled “Of Holocausts and Gun Control,” Daniel D. Polsby and Don B. Kates, Jr. note:

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, ‘This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people.’

Yet:

Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society’s weapons policy [contributes] to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered – one does not usually lead to the other – … it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.

Considering the point that “one does not usually lead to the other,” some factual background might be useful.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered.

An account by Gabriella Hoffman, who writes “My Family Fled Communism. Stop Pushing Soviet-Style Gun Control Here,” highlights this history.

Compared to the United States, Soviet-occupied Lithuania was gun-free except for those in elite governmental positions. My dad always said the Soviets succeeded in oppressing Lithuanians and others by first disarming them. I always knew he was right, but aimed to confirm his assertions. Low [sic] and behold, he was right about gun confiscation as a pretext to installing tyranny in a country.

Here’s a case study from Firearms Possession by Non-State Actors: The Question of Sovereignty (2004) published in the Texas Review of Law & Politics.

The Curious Case of Mr. Downer His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question Kimberley Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-curious-case-of-mr-downer-1527809075?cx_testId=16&cx_testVariant=cx&cx_artPos=1&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_navSource=newsReel#cxrecs_s

To hear the Federal Bureau of Investigation tell it, its decision to launch a counterintelligence probe into a major-party presidential campaign comes down to a foreign tip about a 28-year-old fourth-tier Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.

The FBI’s media scribes have dutifully reported the bare facts of that “intel.” We are told the infamous tip came from Alexander Downer, at the time the Australian ambassador to the U.K. Mr. Downer invited Mr. Papadopoulos for a drink in early May 2016, where the aide told the ambassador the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Word of this encounter at some point reached the FBI, inspiring it to launch its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31.

Notably (nay, suspiciously) absent or muddled are the details of how and when that information made its way to the FBI, and what exactly was transmitted. A December 2017 New York Times story vaguely explains that the Australians passed the info to “American counterparts” about “two months later,” and that once it “reached the FBI,” the bureau acted. Even the Times admits it’s “not clear” why it took the Aussies so long to flip such a supposedly smoking tip. The story meanwhile slyly leads readers to believe that Mr. Papadopoulos told Mr. Downer that Moscow had “thousands of emails,” but read it closely and the Times in fact never specifies what the Trump aide said, beyond “dirt.”

When Mr. Downer ended his service in the U.K. this April, he sat for an interview with the Australian, a national newspaper, and “spoke for the first time” about the Papadopoulos event. Mr. Downer said he officially reported the Papadopoulos meeting back to Australia “the following day or a day or two after,” as it “seemed quite interesting.” The story nonchalantly notes that “after a period of time, Australia’s ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, passed the information on to Washington.”

My reporting indicates otherwise. A diplomatic source tells me Mr. Hockey neither transmitted any information to the FBI nor was approached by the U.S. about the tip. Rather, it was Mr. Downer who at some point decided to convey his information—to the U.S. Embassy in London.

Would You Like Some Strife With Your Meal? Portland, Ore., was a foodie paradise. Then the social-justice warriors ruined it. By Andy Ngo

https://www.wsj.com/articles/would-you-like-some-strife-with-your-meal-1527807733

My hometown became a foodie paradise starting a decade or so ago, when I lived in California. At first it was beautiful. With each visit home, I noticed new food carts selling everything from Korean tacos and Thai-Hainanese chicken and rice to Texas-style pulled pork. Later came breweries, exotic doughnut shops and haute-hipster ice-cream parlors.

But these days politics is ruining the scene. One of the first victims, Sally Krantz, in 2016 opened a bistro, Saffron Colonial, featuring historical recipes from the British Empire. Furious social-justice warriors accused her of racism and glorifying colonialism. Mobs gathered outside the establishment, and detractors swamped its Yelp page with negative reviews and insults. Suppliers boycotted her. Eventually Ms. Krantz gave in and changed the name to British Overseas Restaurant Corporation.

Blood was in the water. In the spring of 2017, Kali Wilgus and Liz Connelly were accused of “stealing” Mexican culture—by selling burritos from a truck. They received death threats and shut down their business and their social-media presence.

Then an anonymous Google spreadsheet began circulating warning about restaurants that served ethnic cuisine: “These white-owned businesses hamper the ability for POC”—people of color—“to run successful businesses of their own . . . by either consuming market share with their attempt at authenticity or by modifying foods to market to white palates.”

“That Is What Power Looks Like”: As Trump Prepares for 2020, Democrats Are Losing the Only Fight That Matters by Peter Hamby…see note please

From an uber liberal magazine…this is very instructive because it shows the Dems in breast beating panic mode…rsk

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/democrats-are-losing-the-only-fight-that-matters
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/05/democrats-are-losing-the-only-fight-that-matters

Even in an era of historic media fragmentation, Donald Trump dominates our attention universe to the point where he blocks out the sun. Is it any wonder that people don’t have any idea what Democrats stand for?

On the same day this week that President Donald Trump was tweeting about the F.B.I.’s fictional #SPYGATE “scandal” and the special counsel’s “WITCH HUNT” into the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia—lies that were splashed across the country’s television and mobile screens in short order—Senate Democrats held a photo-op at the most expensive Exxon station on Capitol Hill. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, was joined by three other suit-wearing Democrats to make the case that Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal would drive up gas prices. It was a definitional middle-class “pocketbook” argument, one that Democrats hope to make part of their 2018 economic message. Schumer, waving a sheaf of paper, stood behind a sign that proclaimed, rather impotently, “Senate Democrats Demand Lower Gas Prices.”

“Senate Democrats look for traction on gas prices,” was the headline of The Hill’s perfunctory write-up of the event. Did you hear anything about it? Most likely you didn’t. Traction, in the Trump era, is a mighty difficult thing to obtain.This is always true for the party out of power, forced to reckon with its ideological cleavages, personality conflicts, and the lack of a singular leader who can compete head-to-head with the bully pulpit of a president. But Trump, our first celebrity president, has made the challenge even more difficult for his foes. We are supposed to be living in a time of historic media fragmentation, when the competition for fickle eyeballs is the chief priority for businesses, media companies, and politicians. Only Trump, an old-school media hound who still cares about things like magazine covers and leathery-faced, 90s-era TV personalities, has figured it out. He dominates our attention universe to the point where he blocks out the sun. It is as depressing as it is remarkable. And it’s no wonder people don’t quite know what Democrats stand for.We inhabit a world of niche interests and platforms and distractions, where everyone is supposedly paying attention to their own thing. Unlike the mass-audience days of I Love Lucy—a show that commanded a remarkable 71 percent of television eyeballs in 1953—today you can happily silo yourself from signals that you don’t care about. Our attention spans are shrinking. Axios reported this week that more than 70 percent of the American population regularly uses another digital device while watching TV. It’s incredibly hard to seize attention in 2018; there’s too much to read and watch, too much to look at. CONTINUE AT SITE