Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Mark Zuckerberg Is No James Madison The Constitution was designed to constrain our worst impulses. Facebook encourages them. By Paul Bergevin

One of the many conceits of the digital age is that so-called platforms are a new invention. In some respects they are. Built with computer code, powered by microchips and operated in the cloud, these digital building blocks did not exist until relatively recently. But in other respects, platforms are simply large aggregations of people coming together to search information online, shop or connect with friends.

Compare today’s platforms to the American Constitution: a large aggregation of citizens organized on the principle of self-government. As a work of design, the Constitution is a brilliant piece of architecture, an intellectual foundation that has stood the test of time. If James Madison were a software developer in a Harvard dorm room and not a Virginia planter, we might say he was a better coder than Mark Zuckerberg. The Constitution understands human nature. Facebook , dangerously at times, does not.

In designing the Constitution, Madison managed to appeal to people’s better angels while at the same time calculating man’s capacity to harm and behave badly. Facebook’s designers, on the other hand, appear to have assumed the best about people. They apparently expected users to connect with friends only in benign ways. While the site features plenty of baby and puppy photos, it has also become a place where ISIS brags about beheadings and Russians peddling misinformation seek to undermine the institutions of a free society.CONTINUE AT SITE

Much-vaunted Robert Mueller’s record shows bad investigations By Monica Showalter

As President Trump deliberates on whether to be interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a look at Mueller’s record of indicting ham sandwiches ought to give him pause.

Mueller, as The Federalist points out, botches high-profile cases and can drag them out for a decade. Reporter Daniel Ashman found this case with Mueller’s name on it, the anthrax attacks case dating back to 2001. That was when some maniac or terrorist, some beast, sent anthrax powder in the mail to news agencies, injuring people who opened the packages. I worked at Forbes magazine in New York at the time and remember how the mail was quarantined, depriving us of that communication line, and I remember how terrified people were at this nasty coda to the horrific 9/11 terror attacks.

The Federalist reports:

The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax, setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax: Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from “bumping into a suitcase,” and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for “skin irritation.” A team of bioterrorism experts from Johns Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.

So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?

Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.” The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued, Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.

Global Warming: The Evolution of a Hoax By Dale Leuck

Only forty-some years ago, “climate science” suddenly turned from advancing a theory of global cooling to one of global warming. A 123-page paper by Christopher Booker, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), explains this sudden change in terms of a “groupthink” belief system formulated and perpetuated by a few strong personalities. Through key positions, and with sympathetic lobbyist groups, the theory overwhelmed politics during its formative years in the 1970s from its center in various United Nations agencies until its unraveling began in the late 1990s.

The first of those personalities was Swedish meteorologist Professor Bert Bolin (1925-2007), who believed that increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from industrialization would inevitably lead to global warming. Bolin presented his views in 1979 at a first-ever meeting of the “World Climate Conference,” sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The WMO is a 191-member-country agency of the United Nations (U.N.), headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.

Bolin had developed his theory in the 1950s during thirty-five years of declining temperatures. Through the 1970s, many scientists, activists, and policymakers had voiced alarm at global cooling. A common view was that the cooling effect of more dust in the atmosphere, from volcanoes and industrial smokestacks, more than offset the warming effects of carbon dioxide and might require dire policies, such as those proposed by Dr. Arnold Reitze, to include banning the internal combustion engine, regulating industrial research and development, and limiting population.

John Brennan: Deep State Political Hack By Daniel John Sobieski

Considering that John Brennan once proudly admitted that he voted for Communist Party leader Gus Hall and openly supports liars and perjurers like Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and James Comey, he redefines chutzpah when in a tweet he describes President Trump in words that sound as though they were plagiarized from FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok:

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you.

The only “disgraced demagogues” in this scenario are John Brennan; James Clapper; Andrew McCabe; James Comey; Peter Strzok; and, yes, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, all parties in a political resistance whose purpose was to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House. And John Brennan dares to talk about political corruption?

So much for an apolitical intelligence community that is supposed to gather intelligence on and about America’s enemies to guarantee the safety and security of the United States, its people, and the leaders they have democratically elected. Brennan’s venomous tweet, like Strzok’s infamous text messages to his lover and co-conspirator in the FBI, Lisa Page, show the depth of the political corruption infesting an intelligence community that conspired to interfere in our elections to deny Donald Trump the presidency. Brennan and his colleagues are supposed to serve the president, not conspire against him.

Women-Only College Objects to Professors Using the Word ‘Women’ By Tom Knighton

There’s something horribly wrong with the world when language is policed to such a degree that calling a woman a woman is controversial. However, that’s the world we live in.

The most recent example comes from Mount Holyoke College.

For those unfamiliar with Mount Holyoke, it’s a small college in Massachusetts with an enrollment of just over 2,200. All students are women.

That’s right. Mount Holyoke does not allow men. So you might think they would not have the absurd SJW issues with gender that you see at co-ed universities, because Mount Holyoke clearly believes that gender is a fact.

Nope. A school-produced guide titled Supporting Trans and Non-Binary Students instructs professors: “When discussing the student body, say ‘Mount Holyoke students’ rather than ‘Mount Holyoke women.'”

It adds: “Avoid making statements like ‘We’re all women here … ‘, or referring to ‘… the two genders.'”

Hold on: why might someone who does not identify as a woman be at an all-women’s school?

The guide continues: “[M]any students spend the first day of class braced against various types of disrespect … professors who mispronounce their names, call them by the wrong name entirely, misgender them, and so on.”

CONTINUE AT SITE

Transparency on federal employee bonuses isn’t a privilege, it’s a right by Rep. Mark Sanford and Adam Andrzejewski

President Trump wants to make the federal bureaucracy a meritocracy. He has proposed slapping a cap on federal employee salaries and shifting more dollars to merit-based performance bonuses.

Many will consider this a great proposal, but there’s a catch. While taxpayers can see most federal salaries, they can’t see performance bonuses.

In fiscal year 2016, the federal government awarded 1 million performance bonuses, racking up a $1.1 billion tab paid for by taxpayers. Every cent, however, was hidden from public disclosure. Anti-transparency language inserted into government union contracts is blocking the right of taxpayers to see how their money is being spent.

Last month, a Treasury Department watchdog uncovered$1.7 million in bonuses to IRS employees who had been disciplined by the agency during fiscal year 2016-2017. These 2,000 IRS employees received “high-performing” bonuses despite their record of “serious misconduct such as unauthorized access to tax return information, substance abuse, and sexual misconduct.”

Transparency is especially crucial for federal agencies that have failed in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs has an ugly history with performance bonuses. For example, in 2014, the VA doled out up to $100 million in undeserved performance bonuses while sick veterans died waiting to see a doctor.

What the Saudi Prince’s Visit Really Means by Ahmed Charai

Perhaps the most dramatic Saudi reform is the one that has received virtually no attention in America. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has led an effort to sweep out the Muslim Brotherhood from teaching and leadership positions in elementary, middle and high schools as well as colleges and universities.

MBS is kicking a dragon and he knows it.

The stakes of his fight with the Brotherhood could not be higher. If MBS succeeds, Saudi Arabia returns to pre-1979 roots, with movie theaters, women in the workplace, and features of a modern developing country. If MBS fails, he will be killed by the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia will become more repressive than ever.

The global stakes of MBS’s internal fight with the Brotherhood are large, too. If the crown price wins, nearly all Saudi funding for violent Islamic radicals ends — and if he dies, it grows to new heights.

His “Vision 2030” is the biggest planned change in any country since Turkey’s Ataturk or Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. With America’s encouragement, Saudi Arabia could lead a regional transformation that would be truly historic.

Saudi Arabia, with the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the United States this week, opens a new front in its war with Iran.

Demographic time bomb? Mistaken or misleading! Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

The “demographic time bomb” concept accords mythical standards to Arab fertility and European standards to Jewish fertility, ignoring the Westernization of Arab fertility and the surging secular Jewish fertility, while significantly underestimating the potential of Jewish immigration (Aliyah) to Israel, which has been steady and continuous since 1882.

In March 1898, the leading Jewish demographer-historian, Shimon Dubnov, published a demographic projection, aiming to dissuade Theodore Herzl from the vision of the reconstruction of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel: “in 1998, there will be only half a million Jews in the Land of Israel…. Political Zionism is wishful-thinking….” Herzl was not deterred, although there was a meager 9% Jewish minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel.

In October, 1944, Prof. Roberto Bachi, the founder of Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, published a demographic projection, intending to convince Israel’s Founding Father, David Ben Gurion, that a population of then 600,000 Jews was not a critical mass for the re-establishment of the Jewish State: “In 2001, there will be, under the best case scenario, 2.3MN Jews, a 34% minority….” Ben Gurion proceeded to re-establish the Jewish State despite the mere 55% Jewish majority in the area partitioned for the Jewish State, and the 39% Jewish minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel.

In 1946, Ben Gurion published Israel Trivus document – No Arab Majority in the Land of Israel – which exposed substantial deficiencies in the population censuses conducted by the British Mandate in 1922 and 1931, similar to the deficiencies of the contemporary Palestinian census: the inclusion of overseas residents in the census; the double-count of people moving from rural areas to urban centers; the inflation of numbers by clan leaders for political and economic reasons; the under-reporting of deaths. A June 10, 1993 document of Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics noted that according to Palestinian reporting, Palestinian life expectancy, supposedly, exceeded life expectancy in the USA….

Germany: Migrant Rape Crisis Still Sowing Terror and Destruction Women and children sacrificed on the altar of political correctness by Soeren Kern

The director of the Criminal Police Association, André Schulz, estimates that up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany do not appear in the official statistics.

“There is a strict order by the authorities to not report on crimes committed by refugees,” a high-ranking police official in Frankfurt told Bild. “Only specific requests from media representatives about such acts are to be answered.”

Germany’s migrant sex-crime problem is being exacerbated by its lenient legal system, in which offenders receive relatively light sentences, even for serious crimes. In many instances, individuals who are arrested for sex crimes are released after questioning from police. This practice allows suspects to continue committing crimes with virtual impunity.

Germany’s migrant rape crisis continues unabated. Preliminary statistics show that migrants committed more than a dozen rapes or sexual assaults every day in 2017, a four-fold increase since 2014, the year before Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into Germany more than a million mostly Muslim male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

A quarterly report — Criminality in the Context of Migration (Kriminalität im Kontext von Zuwanderung) — published by the Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA) showed that migrants (Zuwanderer, defined as asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants) committed 3,466 sex crimes during the first nine months of 2017 — or around 13 a day. (Final crime statistics for 2017 will not be publicly available until the second quarter of 2018.) By comparison, in all of 2016 migrants committed 3,404 sex crimes, or around nine a day; in 2015, 1,683 sex crimes, or around five a day; in 2014, 949 sex crimes, or around three a day; and in 2013, 599 sex crimes, or around two a day.

The actual number of migrant-related sex crimes in Germany, however, is believed to be far higher than the official number. For instance, the BKA data includes only crimes that have been solved (aufgeklärten Straftaten). On average only around half of all crimes committed in Germany in any given year are solved (Aufklärungsquote), according to police statistics.

The director of the Criminal Police Association (Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter, BDK), André Schulz, estimates that up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany do not appear in the official statistics.

German police frequently omit any references to migrants in crime reports. When they do, they often refer to migrant criminals with politically correct euphemisms such as “southerners” (Südländer), men with “dark skin” (dunkelhäutig, dunklere Gesichtsfarbe, dunklem Hauttyp) or a combination of the two: “southern skin color” (südländische Hautfarbe). This practice, apparently aimed at delinking the attackers with Islam, makes it virtually impossible for German citizens to help police identify suspects.

Who Are the Jihadists Fighting alongside Turkey in Syria? by Sirwan Kajjo

The remaining 17 groups that make up the Syrian portion of Operation Olive Branch are a combination of Salafist, jihadist and ultra-extremist militants who have been either formed or supported by Turkey at various stages of Syria’s seven-year civil war.

In its offensive launched on January 20 against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, Turkey has deployed more than 25,000 Syrian rebel fighters who have been equipped and trained by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s powerful military.

The offensive, code-named Operation Olive Branch, aims at dislodging the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) from the Kurdish enclave of Afrin. On March 18, Turkish military and allied jihadist rebels took control of Afrin’s city center. Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an insurgent group that has been fighting for greater Kurdish autonomy in Turkey’s southeast. Backed by the United States, the YPG has been instrumental in the U.S.-led war on terror in Syria since 2014.

Nine days after the start of the operation, the pro-Turkish government website, Suriye Gundemi, published an infographic showing the Syrian rebel groups involved in the Afrin offensive. The website says that three divisions are part of the National Army that is under the command of the Syrian interim government, an anti-Syrian regime body based in Turkey.

This so-called army consists mainly of Islamist militants who were part of the most radical Islamic factions of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) at some point during the Syrian conflict, and was formed only two weeks prior to the Afrin operation. Most of these fighters fled to Turkey after they were defeated in battles across Syria, including in Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Idlib and Hama. While in Turkey, they were recruited by Turkish intelligence agencies to be part of forces invading the Kurdish-held Afrin.